Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Well we can scratch Wilshire gun off the list...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sanford" data-source="post: 2873373" data-attributes="member: 27733"><p>Maybe it's just me, but I took the entire context of the KWTV 9 report "Some lawmakers supported a bill that would allow anyone over 21 without a felony conviction to carry openly..." (with the "OMG" tone and expression to go with) to be a bit "anti", starting with the "Some lawmakers..." as opposed to "A majority of lawmakers...", and couching it in terms of how it was "controversial" and emphasizing that the instructors say that "the training requirement is not unconstitutional" instead of that "there is no constitutional requirement for training." One has to listen to what's said, how it's said, and what's not said.</p><p></p><p>I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to believe that the people at Wilshire may have been quoted out of context, or that the report gave a skewed impression that wasn't the one they intended to give - but if that's true there should be a strong rebuttal that clarifies exactly where they stand, i.e., do they or do they not support permitless open and/or Constitutional carry, and do they or do they not believe there should be a mandatory training requirement (which necessarily implies some sort of regulation/permitting to be enforceable). The closest they've gotten is "not opposing" which can easily be miles away from "supporting", and even then it's still followed with that "... but everyone needs training" qualifier which is (obviously from posts here and elsewhere) easily taken to mean that the one is predicated on the other.</p><p></p><p>Now, I don't live up there, and I've only been in a few times. It seems like a nice enough place, and the people I spoke with were helpful and congenial. I wish only the best for their continued success, but that's also why I think it's critical for them to make a simple "We wholeheartedly support the proposed legislation" type statement. Period. Stop. No further qualifiers. Conversely, if they do not support it as written, without qualification, they need to say that. Period. Stop. There's far too much doublespeak in their responses on Facebook to be sure of just what they "really" mean.</p><p></p><p>(edit) disclaimer: this is my opinion and perspective alone, right, wrong, or irrelevant. (/edit)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sanford, post: 2873373, member: 27733"] Maybe it's just me, but I took the entire context of the KWTV 9 report "Some lawmakers supported a bill that would allow anyone over 21 without a felony conviction to carry openly..." (with the "OMG" tone and expression to go with) to be a bit "anti", starting with the "Some lawmakers..." as opposed to "A majority of lawmakers...", and couching it in terms of how it was "controversial" and emphasizing that the instructors say that "the training requirement is not unconstitutional" instead of that "there is no constitutional requirement for training." One has to listen to what's said, how it's said, and what's not said. I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to believe that the people at Wilshire may have been quoted out of context, or that the report gave a skewed impression that wasn't the one they intended to give - but if that's true there should be a strong rebuttal that clarifies exactly where they stand, i.e., do they or do they not support permitless open and/or Constitutional carry, and do they or do they not believe there should be a mandatory training requirement (which necessarily implies some sort of regulation/permitting to be enforceable). The closest they've gotten is "not opposing" which can easily be miles away from "supporting", and even then it's still followed with that "... but everyone needs training" qualifier which is (obviously from posts here and elsewhere) easily taken to mean that the one is predicated on the other. Now, I don't live up there, and I've only been in a few times. It seems like a nice enough place, and the people I spoke with were helpful and congenial. I wish only the best for their continued success, but that's also why I think it's critical for them to make a simple "We wholeheartedly support the proposed legislation" type statement. Period. Stop. No further qualifiers. Conversely, if they do not support it as written, without qualification, they need to say that. Period. Stop. There's far too much doublespeak in their responses on Facebook to be sure of just what they "really" mean. (edit) disclaimer: this is my opinion and perspective alone, right, wrong, or irrelevant. (/edit) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Well we can scratch Wilshire gun off the list...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom