TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:
Show me where I claimed that no guns were taken and no one was pulled out of a house! You are, seemingly deliberately, misrepresenting what I have stated. I don't know if it is because when you read them you allowed what you thought I was trying to say affect how you read what I wrote but regardless I have stated often enough that I know gun confiscations took place just that I did't agree with the feel, and I know that's vague, of the NRA piece. Funny enough you don't really contradict anything I state just seemingly are upset and outraged that I seem to feel slightly different than you believe I should. Come on now.

EEllis wrote:

Bang4Buck wrote:Wow. Never even knew this happened. Obviously mainstream media didn't cover this. I'm sure someone else posted on this. I'm just floored and felt a need to share:

http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/new- ... st-katrina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to say it but I was there and this isn't an accurate portrayal in my experience.

You do so by inference. I interpret it that you refute something that happened on the video is an accurate portrayal - you mean something didn't happen or something else did happen. No you didn't directly state this or that didn't happen, you just cast a complete blanket of doubt including casting doubt on the truthfulness of the people interviewed. Personally when I see a woman tackled and removed on video I believe my eyes. I also don't think the people are lying about what happened to them. If I was one of the people who went through this and saw your comments how else should I interpret your comments. (That's rhetorical BTW) It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me. No I am not going to offer up examples, it's JMHO.

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:
Show me where I claimed that no guns were taken and no one was pulled out of a house! You are, seemingly deliberately, misrepresenting what I have stated. I don't know if it is because when you read them you allowed what you thought I was trying to say affect how you read what I wrote but regardless I have stated often enough that I know gun confiscations took place just that I did't agree with the feel, and I know that's vague, of the NRA piece. Funny enough you don't really contradict anything I state just seemingly are upset and outraged that I seem to feel slightly different than you believe I should. Come on now.

EEllis wrote:

Bang4Buck wrote:Wow. Never even knew this happened. Obviously mainstream media didn't cover this. I'm sure someone else posted on this. I'm just floored and felt a need to share:

http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/new- ... st-katrina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to say it but I was there and this isn't an accurate portrayal in my experience.

You do so by inference. I interpret it that you refute something that happened on the video is an accurate portrayal - you mean something didn't happen or something else did happen. No you didn't directly state this or that didn't happen, you just cast a complete blanket of doubt including casting doubt on the truthfulness of the people interviewed. Personally when I see a woman tackled and removed on video I believe my eyes. I also don't think the people are lying about what happened to them. If I was one of the people who went through this and saw your comments how else should I interpret your comments. (That's rhetorical BTW) It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me. No I am not going to offer up examples, it's JMHO.

Not my intention and certainly not held up by my repeated statements that there were gun confiscations. You, and obviously others, just plain read more than was stated or intended. I don't think the piece was accurate it was an advocacy piece more concerned with message that accuracy. I wasn't trying to cast doubt on anyone but the editors and producers of the piece.

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:
Show me where I claimed that no guns were taken and no one was pulled out of a house! You are, seemingly deliberately, misrepresenting what I have stated. I don't know if it is because when you read them you allowed what you thought I was trying to say affect how you read what I wrote but regardless I have stated often enough that I know gun confiscations took place just that I did't agree with the feel, and I know that's vague, of the NRA piece. Funny enough you don't really contradict anything I state just seemingly are upset and outraged that I seem to feel slightly different than you believe I should. Come on now.

EEllis wrote:

Bang4Buck wrote:Wow. Never even knew this happened. Obviously mainstream media didn't cover this. I'm sure someone else posted on this. I'm just floored and felt a need to share:

http://www.nranews.com/ginny/video/new- ... st-katrina" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to say it but I was there and this isn't an accurate portrayal in my experience.

You do so by inference. I interpret it that you refute something that happened on the video is an accurate portrayal - you mean something didn't happen or something else did happen. No you didn't directly state this or that didn't happen, you just cast a complete blanket of doubt including casting doubt on the truthfulness of the people interviewed. Personally when I see a woman tackled and removed on video I believe my eyes. I also don't think the people are lying about what happened to them. If I was one of the people who went through this and saw your comments how else should I interpret your comments. (That's rhetorical BTW) It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me. No I am not going to offer up examples, it's JMHO.

100%!

so if the police or army or whatever is trying to take your weapons without cause does that give you the right to shoot them?

alvins wrote:so if the police or army or whatever is trying to take your weapons without cause does that give you the right to shoot them?

Well they have a heck of a time convicting the survivors but there aren't too many of those so ...

alvins wrote:so if the police or army or whatever is trying to take your weapons without cause does that give you the right to shoot them?

In some states it does. They are in the commission of a violent felony. In Texas the precise charge used to be Aggravated Robbery under Color of Authority. The Color of Authority was an enhancement that ups the felony one degree to a 1st degree felony. Used to be 20 to life.

puma guy wrote: It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me.

I guess that's one way of putting it but I tend to think of it as refusing to be bullied. That is what I think happens to people who take unpopular stances on certain subjects. I believe people have almost stopped posting on certain threads because they know what kind of response they will get and refuse to bang their head on the brick wall. I guess I'm just not that bright. I've been arguing for three pages because I felt a NRA piece deemed to be less than 100% accurate in their portrayal of events. Funny enough while I was there no one person who is so upset with me was there. I have to continually restate my position again and again because people repeatedly twist and misstate my beliefs. Because I guess they know better than I what I meant, I mean they inferred it and everything.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me.

I guess that's one way of putting it but I tend to think of it as refusing to be bullied. That is what I think happens to people who take unpopular stances on certain subjects. I believe people have almost stopped posting on certain threads because they know what kind of response they will get and refuse to bang their head on the brick wall. I guess I'm just not that bright. I've been arguing for three pages because I felt a NRA piece deemed to be less than 100% accurate in their portrayal of events. Funny enough while I was there no one person who is so upset with me was there. I have to continually restate my position again and again because people repeatedly twist and misstate my beliefs. Because I guess they know better than I what I meant, I mean they inferred it and everything.

I don't think having your comments challenged is bullying, but if you feel some members are doing that you should complain to the moderators. BTW There was no reason to mockingly use the word inferrence in you last sentence, but that does seem to fit your style.

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me.

I guess that's one way of putting it but I tend to think of it as refusing to be bullied. That is what I think happens to people who take unpopular stances on certain subjects. I believe people have almost stopped posting on certain threads because they know what kind of response they will get and refuse to bang their head on the brick wall. I guess I'm just not that bright. I've been arguing for three pages because I felt a NRA piece deemed to be less than 100% accurate in their portrayal of events. Funny enough while I was there no one person who is so upset with me was there. I have to continually restate my position again and again because people repeatedly twist and misstate my beliefs. Because I guess they know better than I what I meant, I mean they inferred it and everything.

I don't think having your comments challenged is bullying, but if you feel some members are doing that you should complain to the moderators. BTW There was no reason to mockingly use the word inferrence in you last sentence, but that does seem to fit your style.

We have one member who gets all kinds of grief when ever he posts anything even slightly pro police. It's rather funny because his usual comment is more along the lines of "there isn't enough info yet, I'm reserving judgment" than any blanket approval for actions. That has gotten him pointed remarks from moderators themselves who disagree with him. Who should I report them to? As for being upset about my "mocking" use of the word inference, I got to say your use bugged me pretty badly also. I didn't state what you claim but you "inferred" it so as far as you are concerned I did indeed say it. That says more about you and your feelings than anything about what I meant but you go ahead and be offended because I repeated your comment.

Can't we all just get along? Sing song and hold hands by the campfire?

I think we all agree what happened sucked. How it was portrayed to us may vary, but no one here is happy that law abiding people had their guns taken.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote:

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: It seems to me after reading some of your comments in other posts you make statements for the sake of argument, but that's just me.

I guess that's one way of putting it but I tend to think of it as refusing to be bullied. That is what I think happens to people who take unpopular stances on certain subjects. I believe people have almost stopped posting on certain threads because they know what kind of response they will get and refuse to bang their head on the brick wall. I guess I'm just not that bright. I've been arguing for three pages because I felt a NRA piece deemed to be less than 100% accurate in their portrayal of events. Funny enough while I was there no one person who is so upset with me was there. I have to continually restate my position again and again because people repeatedly twist and misstate my beliefs. Because I guess they know better than I what I meant, I mean they inferred it and everything.

I don't think having your comments challenged is bullying, but if you feel some members are doing that you should complain to the moderators. BTW There was no reason to mockingly use the word inferrence in you last sentence, but that does seem to fit your style.

We have one member who gets all kinds of grief when ever he posts anything even slightly pro police. It's rather funny because his usual comment is more along the lines of "there isn't enough info yet, I'm reserving judgment" than any blanket approval for actions. That has gotten him pointed remarks from moderators themselves who disagree with him. Who should I report them to? As for being upset about my "mocking" use of the word inference, I got to say your use bugged me pretty badly also. I didn't state what you claim but you "inferred" it so as far as you are concerned I did indeed say it. That says more about you and your feelings than anything about what I meant but you go ahead and be offended because I repeated your comment.

I'm not upset about anything.

Bang4Buck wrote:Can't we all just get along? Sing song and hold hands by the campfire?

I think we all agree what happened sucked. How it was portrayed to us may vary, but no one here is happy that law abiding people had their guns taken.

I can agree with that 100%

puma guy wrote: I'm not upset about anything.

I guess i view things more black and white than most people. What ANY of the 'authorities' did in NOLA that was illegal was wrong. Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing wrong. If only person had their rights infringed, it was wrong. We are ALL free all the time or NONE of us are free any time.

EEllis wrote:

puma guy wrote: I'm not upset about anything.

Not even this.