I find it interesting that on his home page he comments about being an advocate for CCW, but on this thread he’s engaging in fear-mongering (IMHO) regarding the issue of carrying weapons.
>I find it interesting that on his home page he comments about being an advocate for CCW, but on this thread he’s engaging in fear-mongering (IMHO) regarding the issue of carrying weapons.
Yes, several contradictions like that do stand out.
The progression of posts #109, #125, #127, #136, and culminating in #138 shows someone who is unwilling to engage in an honest intellectual debate. Note how the subtext of the ‘child molester’ in #109 is [quite] open to interpretation as stalking the child as a jungle cat would some feeble and helpless prey; yet when that is addressed by me in my reply he says, truthfully, that he never actually specifically said that... but in that case he undermines his own argument and thusly put ‘in check’ “throws the table to the ground” yelling ‘I hate this game’ in post #138. (That’s the closest analogy I could think of.)
It also strikes me that the advocacy of CCW is not the same as the advocacy for liberty. Many states have CCW licenses/permits and it could in some ways bee seen as a “badge of elitism” for someone to have a CCW-permit... in such hypothetical environment would it be unreasonable to suppose that ‘official force’ [police, army, etc] would be required to always open-carry thereby granting an even greater distinction to the CCW holders? NJ, for example, has CCW permits... technically.
{I’m including him in the ping as a matter of [undeserved] courtesy; and so I cannot be accused of ‘slander’ or ‘talking behind his back’... after all, if it’s to his face it’s merely insulting [because he then has a chance to respond and defend his reputation].}