Have you ever met a libtard who was OK with you carrying? To them, it doesn't matter whether you have been trained or not because it's not about proper training, proper vetting, or anything like that, it's about fear and emotions. They are projecting onto you their unstable emotional state. And the people that side with them are simply catering to the whiners in the room, whether it be the largest group or not.
Yes, I have several liberal acquaintances that are gun nuts.
Socialism.
Doesnt matter, most liberal men want their guns. It's the liberal women who protest them. Just look at who was protesting this and the female RHINO that vetoed it.
This is EXACTLY right. I was a student at OU a few years ago and some 18 year old child tried to tell me I didn’t need a gun to protect me and mine because he “wouldn’t feel safe if he had a gun.” I responded politely, “your emotional and psychological shortcomings are not my problem young man, and you have no idea what it’s like to willing to do anything for your child. Which includes killing, or dying, for them, should the need for either of those ever arise.”
I suggest that the Liberal Leftist considers only the Collective viewpoint regarding Public Safety. Their Political Strategy magnifies the perceived danger presented by honest, law abiding citizens bearing arms, and by distributing the (negligible) real danger theoretically to every member of society. This is Political Hyperbole.
The danger to which honest citizens are exposed by being rendered defenseless is statistically minimal in comparison to the Collective Population but (in this case) it is not theoretically distributed to the Collective and the danger to the unarmed individual faced with severe bodily harm or death is acceptable collateral damage. This is Political Attenuation.
It should not be forgotten that Elected Officials, Prominent Citizens and other Public Personalities many of whom oppose an armed citizenry, are routinely protected by Armed Police or Armed Private Security that is economically out of reach for the majority.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
More info.
I was running the Ponca Gun Club meeting this evening, and of course this came up again because we have two members that are ORA board members and give us a monthly report of what the ORA is doing legislatively. The board members of the ORA that are also our club members were also disappointed in the turn out and said that the ORA was coming out with a statement about why they opposed Constitutional carry, saying it was a poorly written bill.
When it gets published, I'll post it. I have no idea what it's going to say.
They should have supported the bill and then worked to improve it, if needed, during the next session. No bill is perfect for everyone.
The ORA can backpedal all they want but they showed their hand and it smells like the color brown. You’re either for or against liberty. They were publicly against it. The end!
This isn’t about training it’s about control.
This isn’t about training it’s about control.
The head of the ORA is a trainer and his perspective was that Constitutional carry was going to break his rice bowl. The ORA opposed it by hanging their hat on the lack of training having every kind evil associated with it, from "blood in the streets" to the heartbreak of psoriasis. I took a class from Paul 20 years ago and there's no doubt he's opinionated and curmudgeonly in his ways. The only way to achieve success is to organize better, communicate more, and keep the issue in front of legislators. OK2A is a great group for this and individuals can make a difference with their legislators. Some of the "NO" votes may be anchored in concrete and there is little that can be done to pull them back. For example, my state senator is in this group and I have written her off so I won't waste my time except to attempt to get her turned out of office.
However, I'd also say that the legislative sleight of hand and legerdemain that came about by running this as an amendment to a non-related bill also rankled some. This could account for some of the "NO" votes. This also set up the end-of-session shenanigans that allowed the governor to play footloose and fancy-free. She chose not to dance with those that helped bring her to the dance because there was no price to be paid for doing so. The calculus now becomes electing the best candidate for governor who truly understands the issue and be able to present the governor with a straightforward bill early in the session that allows the governor to stand up to the Chamber of Cronies, the ORA, the troopers' association, whatever, and be able to clearly state why the people's voice should be heard when signing it.
Similar threads
