Quincy man charged after guns found in car, home Read more: http://www.patriotledger

[Finalygotabeltfed]

It depends on the situation. Perjury that is used to convict an innocent person does indeed have an individual victim.

Yes, but that never happens.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, but that never happens.

I forgot about that

 

[fivepak]

you really don't get it.

You are STILL feeding on press generated outrage of a man who owns a gun. Do you understand what this does for your right to bear arms?

You are fundamentally fueling journalism which generally villainizes gun ownership by refusing to acknowledge that this story could be based on non-factual situations.

By doing so, you are perpetuating such journalism. And strengthening the opinion of the public who hates firearm ownership by agreeing with them.

Why does this matter?

Because you "aren't one of them" yet you are in line with their train of thought. You agree that this man shouldn't own a firearm. That agree-ance in itself is a whole other debate I won't tackle. Either way, you are supporting the fact that it isn't a right to own firearms, and that it's a privilege and that this man has lost it.

And you're doing so without knowing the whole story. And by doing so you are championing the laws which took this man's rights away.

If you really do like gun ownership, you need to sit down, and think about what you type and how you react to stories like these. Because you just may have a little bit of anti-2A sentiment when you parade about a story like this as you are doing right now.


Think about it. Let's say your neighbor is a Nancy Pelosi. You meet her at the end of your driveway and you start talking about the "crazy" guy waving his gun all over the place. Would you tell her "yeah, thank god he lost his rights." Or would you say "we don't know the whole story... and besides the point, no crime was committed from what we read, why should a man lose his rights?"


What is the answer? Who's side are you on, fivepak?

A negative rep point for having a different opinion? You're a real piece of work, tough guy. Go to the off topic forum and attack those that defended the father who killed the guy molesting his four year old daughter. I'm with the rest of them because I think the guy deserved to be killed. Though we're basing our opinions on the facts presented to us. Since you didn't defend the father I guess you're pro-child rape.
Don't put f'ing words in my mouth unless you're willing to back them up. Nearly every event discussed on this forum is based on facts given to us by the media. I stand by my opinion. IF this guy flashed a gun for being cut off then he's an a-hole. Face it, not every gun owner is a good person of has good judgement.
This isn't the first time you've come accross in your posts to me as a dick. If you have an issue with me then man up and say so.

 

[flintoid]

This isn't the first time you've come accross in your posts to me as a dick. If you have an issue with me then man up and say so.

take it to PM instead of airing it out. Yeah, I'm a dick and for that I am sorry for getting you upset. PM me and we can discuss why I think your public opinion on this matter is hurting your rights.

since rep points are important to you, I've added a "positive" one to negate the earlier one.

 

[TomH]

What do you expect from a guy with a anti-gun legislation signing president as his avatar?

 

[flintoid]

What do you expect from a guy with a anti-gun legislation signing president as his avatar?

let's let this one go, please. He and I have discussed this and we are differing on a matter of semantics, not sentiments, which is merely a difference between communication and interpreting it. This is the important thing to draw from this.

The only way to win friends and influence people is through humane, intelligent conversation. I had a momentary lapse, common as I am a jerk on the internet, and now it's time to man up and start over on the right foot.

 

[fivepak]

Everything I posted is based on if the media wasn't full of shit as it usually is. I do understand all of it may be crap and the media has demonized this guy.

 

[whatluck]

you really don't get it.

You are STILL feeding on press generated outrage of a man who owns a gun. Do you understand what this does for your right to bear arms?

You are fundamentally fueling journalism which generally villainizes gun ownership by refusing to acknowledge that this story could be based on non-factual situations.

By doing so, you are perpetuating such journalism. And strengthening the opinion of the public who hates firearm ownership by agreeing with them.

Why does this matter?

Because you "aren't one of them" yet you are in line with their train of thought. You agree that this man shouldn't own a firearm. That agree-ance in itself is a whole other debate I won't tackle. Either way, you are supporting the fact that it isn't a right to own firearms, and that it's a privilege and that this man has lost it.

And you're doing so without knowing the whole story. And by doing so you are championing the laws which took this man's rights away.

If you really do like gun ownership, you need to sit down, and think about what you type and how you react to stories like these. Because you just may have a little bit of anti-2A sentiment when you parade about a story like this as you are doing right now.


Think about it. Let's say your neighbor is a Nancy Pelosi. You meet her at the end of your driveway and you start talking about the "crazy" guy waving his gun all over the place. Would you tell her "yeah, thank god he lost his rights." Or would you say "we don't know the whole story... and besides the point, no crime was committed from what we read, why should a man lose his rights?"


What is the answer? Who's side are you on, fivepak?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to flintoid again.

 

[flintoid]

Everything I posted is based on if the media wasn't full of shit as it usually is. I do understand all of it may be crap and the media has demonized this guy.

We are on the same page, then. It's all about how you initially and outwardly react to it. We'll sit down and talk about it at the shoot this weekend. It will be a very good conversation.

You'll soon see that I used to share similar outrage at similar events. Through posting snippet reactionary comments on NES, a few members here educated me on the fact that even agreeing with this type of journalistic generated outrage can have it's negative effects on my personal freedoms.

It's something that is hard to comprehend at first, but there is always that "light bulb" moment where it goes off in your head and you suddenly understand.

The fundamental difference between my behavior then and my behavior now is this:

I understand media and the way it can be manipulated to drive opinions of the general public. I cannot afford to not question it's validity in the face of it's intent as it can harm my rights through influence of the general public.


So, in this case, one must question whether this article explains the full story, or whether it explains just enough of it to spin it in a certain direction which helps the goals of the publicist. These goals could very well be non-malicious towards the 2nd Amendment in a direct sense (purposefully slandering in the attempt to dismantle 2A rights), but it is almost undeniable that the goals of the publicist are that of spreading alarmist behavior. Why? Because it generates reads by generating a human desire to need a news source. Unfortunately, all of this comes at the expense of making gun owners look bad, which harms our ultimate goal of sustaining and keeping clear the right to bear arms.

So by creating a shocking news segment in an attempt to draw views, the publicist is hurting our cause. So you have to question it's validity. It's our duty to do so.

 

[atilla]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to flintoid again.

same. well put, flintoid.

 

[RadiCS]

Flint, with your last posts you may now leave your mom's basement.

 

[joeendris]

The point is they revoked his LTC before a full investigation could take place is guilty til proven innocent. I believe it's supposed be the opposite of that.

No, you're talking about "guns and Massachusetts". The innocent til proven guilty doesn't apply here.

That's awesome. I hope I'm always a victim.

You are, you're a subject in Massachusetts....

 

[xtry51]

A negative rep point for having a different opinion?

I gave you another for whining. This is a discussion forum, which includes opinions. If you don't like it stop posting. Everyone gets neg reps.

ETA: you can feel free to give me one if it'll make you feel better.

 

[namedpipes]

I'd like to know how many of us are infallible. I'm pretty sure the Pope is not a member here, so probably at some point in each of our lives, we've done some incredibly boneheaded and have regretted it, perhaps instantly or perhaps after time and experience sets in.

The ethics question here is, did/will Angel (was that his name?) learn from his egregious mistake? Should he be permanently barred from exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights because he lost his cool, did something incredibly stupid and out of line and got caught at it?

How many of you reading this post just ONCE did something just as dumb? Do YOU deserve to lose your ltc? Don't bother to sing out unless you want to. I know you're out there. Not me of course. I'm infallible.

 

[xtry51]

I'd like to know how many of us are infallible. I'm pretty sure the Pope is not a member here, so probably at some point in each of our lives, we've done some incredibly boneheaded and have regretted it, perhaps instantly or perhaps after time and experience sets in.

The ethics question here is, did/will Angel (was that his name?) learn from his egregious mistake? Should he be permanently barred from exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights because he lost his cool, did something incredibly stupid and out of line and got caught at it?

How many of you reading this post just ONCE did something just as dumb? Do YOU deserve to lose your ltc? Don't bother to sing out unless you want to. I know you're out there. Not me of course. I'm infallible.

Exactly.

 

[fivepak]

We are on the same page, then. It's all about how you initially and outwardly react to it. We'll sit down and talk about it at the shoot this weekend. It will be a very good conversation.

I look forward to it. Discussing anything using an iPad is a pain in the ass and I get a little lazy with it. So some of my meaning get lost. Cheers.

 

[flintoid]

I look forward to it. Discussing anything using an iPad is a pain in the ass and I get a little lazy with it. So some of my meaning get lost. Cheers.

good deal. We can also talk about whether he should or should not lose his right to bear arms over such an incident.... given that we have the time between shooting and what not

I'll be the skinny young guy with the really really old looking AK47 with a very long pointy thing on the front of it. If you see a bunch of AKs in one area, odds are I won't be far.

not sure what I'll be wearing, but it will probably be a tuxedo T-shirt since we've had some "complaints" of people not dressing classy enough at NES shoots, lately

 

[fivepak]

I'll have an eleven year old girl (my daughter) and a skinny 20 year old kid (my oldest daughter's boyfriend). My primary shooter that day will be my Yugo M70 AK. It's an under folder with black plastic furniture. I like it, but I need another AK that looks more traditional.