TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/ ... =fullstory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure if 'Other States' is the right place to post this, but wanted to share a happy story.

"AFTER reading through reporter Taylor Dungjen’s front page story today on the relatively trouble-free growth of concealed carry of handguns in Ohio, I have to admit I was wrong..."

Awesome. It would be great to send this to all of the flaming Libs who keep publishing anti-gun pieces. There is nothing like a recant from a former gun opponent to give them something to chew on.

Wow! Great clarity!

Some gems from both articles.......

Facts top feelings, change views on gun issues

THIS coming from a "professional" journalist and editor..... FACTS top FEELINGS......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

What a concept!!! FACTS to support an opinion! BRILLIANT!!!

Here's another good one from an individual who would obviously rather have us all cower from criminals....

Despite few reported problems with concealed carry in Ohio, Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, says the increase in concealed carry licenses is dangerous.

“As far as concealed carry, it is promoting a culture that is one of impending violence and fear and other people are convinced to carry,” Hoover said. “As far as numbers are concerned, even though it has become popular in some cultures, we keep advertising like more and more of us are protecting ourselves.”

Hmmm....

So, APPARENTLY, "protecting ourselves" is a BAD thing according to this individual.

Madness I say...

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:Some gems from both articles.......

Facts top feelings, change views on gun issues

THIS coming from a "professional" journalist and editor..... FACTS top FEELINGS......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

What a concept!!! FACTS to support an opinion! BRILLIANT!!!

Here's another good one from an individual who would obviously rather have us all cower from criminals....

Despite few reported problems with concealed carry in Ohio, Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, says the increase in concealed carry licenses is dangerous.

“As far as concealed carry, it is promoting a culture that is one of impending violence and fear and other people are convinced to carry,” Hoover said. “As far as numbers are concerned, even though it has become popular in some cultures, we keep advertising like more and more of us are protecting ourselves.”

Hmmm....

So, APPARENTLY, "protecting ourselves" is a BAD thing according to this individual.

Madness I say...

I had a very interesting conversation with a flaming Lib anti. She was very firm in her opinion that people like me who required facts to support conclusions would always be "disadvantaged." She said that we have to get beyond the facts and really understand the "essence" of issue. Playing along with her, I asked if there was any hope for me to get in touch with such feelings. Her response? "No - you will have to depend on other others like me because you are just incapable of that level of understanding." Left to her own devices, she would have denied voting rights to anyone claiming to be Conservative because "they just don't understand well enough." She was obviously one of those "let's get beyond the Constitution" types.

I've found a surprisingly large number of people who do think that protecting yourself is a bad thing. They are so into the "government is the answer" that they just want abandon any thought of self defense. Unfortunately, too many of them are bothered by the deprived childhood of career criminals and don't want to see them go to jail for long periods for their crimes. Just listening to these kinds of conversations gives me a migraine.

chasfm11 wrote:
I had a very interesting conversation with a flaming Lib anti. She was very firm in her opinion that people like me who required facts to support conclusions would always be "disadvantaged." She said that we have to get beyond the facts and really understand the "essence" of issue. Playing along with her, I asked if there was any hope for me to get in touch with such feelings. Her response? "No - you will have to depend on other others like me because you are just incapable of that level of understanding." Left to her own devices, she would have denied voting rights to anyone claiming to be Conservative because "they just don't understand well enough." She was obviously one of those "let's get beyond the Constitution" types.

I have never read a more stupid opinion of someones own opinion. It's like the emperors new clothes

psijac wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:
I had a very interesting conversation with a flaming Lib anti. She was very firm in her opinion that people like me who required facts to support conclusions would always be "disadvantaged." She said that we have to get beyond the facts and really understand the "essence" of issue. Playing along with her, I asked if there was any hope for me to get in touch with such feelings. Her response? "No - you will have to depend on other others like me because you are just incapable of that level of understanding." Left to her own devices, she would have denied voting rights to anyone claiming to be Conservative because "they just don't understand well enough." She was obviously one of those "let's get beyond the Constitution" types.

I have never read a more stupid opinion of someones own opinion. It's like the emperors new clothes

That wasn't the only bad part of the conversation. She had a diatribe on coal fired power generation, too. "If just one person is harmed, all those plants need to be shut down permanently". I knew better than to even mention guns after that.

Yes, in a perfect world, there would be no need for guns. But the world is not perfect, and never will be perfect. Two-legged predators will always be a threat to good citizens. The law forbids felons from possessing guns, but criminals ignore the law, so it is only proper that law-abiding people be allowed to possess and to carry a weapon if they meet the rules in the law.
...........
Time and events have proven that concealed carry is safe for the public in general. Gun ownership is perfectly fine. Both carry an obligation to follow well-known laws and rules for safety, and that’s exactly what law abiding citizens will do by their nature. It’s criminals, by their nature, that we should worry about.
.............
If you want to be a gun owner or even a concealed carry license holder, fine. Just do it right.
It’s one of our most fundamental rights as Americans.

Spot-On.

chasfm11 wrote:

psijac wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:
I had a very interesting conversation with a flaming Lib anti. She was very firm in her opinion that people like me who required facts to support conclusions would always be "disadvantaged." She said that we have to get beyond the facts and really understand the "essence" of issue. Playing along with her, I asked if there was any hope for me to get in touch with such feelings. Her response? "No - you will have to depend on other others like me because you are just incapable of that level of understanding." Left to her own devices, she would have denied voting rights to anyone claiming to be Conservative because "they just don't understand well enough." She was obviously one of those "let's get beyond the Constitution" types.

I have never read a more stupid opinion of someones own opinion. It's like the emperors new clothes

That wasn't the only bad part of the conversation. She had a diatribe on coal fired power generation, too. "If just one person is harmed, all those plants need to be shut down permanently". I knew better than to even mention guns after that.

In this and your previous post you're describing the class of liberals that are now in power. They consider themselves to be better than the rest of us. They want to tell us what do do right down to telling us what we should be allowed to eat. Of course, none of these rules apply to them, because they're our "superiors." So Michelle Obama wants to tell restaurants what they can serve and how big their portions should be, while her, Barack ,and friends stuff their faces with bratwurst, cheeseburgers, deep dish pizza, and ice cream. You see, the rest of us need to have our eating policed, but they are perfectly capable of making those decisions for themselves.

It's amazing how stupid people like this woman you're talking about are too. I'm betting she has no experience in the real physical world and has spent her entire life in imaginary pursuits that aren't subject to the laws of nature. This kind of detachment is of invaluable assistance to anyone who needs to maintain such monumental levels of hypocrisy, entitlement, and self-delusion. She needs to have the utility company come out and disconnect her service because it is simply impossible to deliver electricity to her, no matter what the generation source, without someone being harmed. People are killed producing and delivering her electricity --about 10 a year on average, with about 10 times that number of serious but non-fatal injuries. This doesn't count fatalities among those actually constructing power plants --including wind turbines. If you count those involved in such construction the numbers are much higher.

But then I suspect her concern about people being harmed is entirely focused on the "good" people like her, and doesn't extend to all those sweaty working people who lack her social "enlightenment."

I gotta give this guy credit.

Unlike most antigunners, he listened to opposing points of view, considered the validity of their arguments, and ultimately concluded their position was stronger than his own before changing his mind.

An open minded antigunner is nearly an oxymoron, but this gentleman gives me hope.

Excaliber wrote:An open minded antigunner is nearly an oxymoron, but this gentleman gives me hope.

I am actually an example of that. I was not raised around guns, and the only experience I had was in treating hundreds of gunshot patients over a five year perod. I was pretty convinced that they were nothing but evil. My conversion came when I inherited my dad's old WW2 sidearm after he died. I didn't want to get rid of it because it was a memento of my dad, so I asked some friends of mine who were CANG NCOs to teach me to feed and care for it. That's how I got in the game.

...I'd have to buy the guy a steak or a beer...seems like a fine fella...really enjoyed this...

AndyC wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I had a very interesting conversation with a flaming Lib anti. She was very firm in her opinion that people like me who required facts to support conclusions would always be "disadvantaged." She said that we have to get beyond the facts and really understand the "essence" of issue. Playing along with her, I asked if there was any hope for me to get in touch with such feelings. Her response? "No - you will have to depend on other others like me because you are just incapable of that level of understanding."

I am honestly stunned at the bare-faced arrogance inherent in that response

Back to the article - I found it this morning and sent the Ed a thank-you note with a link to Grossman's "On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs"

Whether I'm just unlucky enough to look like a target for some of these "thinkers" or something else, I had a lady start an unsolicited diatribe against me for driving a 10mph gallon RV. Playing along, I asked her what she drove. She answered " a Prius, of course." I asked how many miles a year she drove it and she countered with "why does that matter?" I explained that the industry average for RVs is 3,500 per year and with that my fuel mileage, that meant I used roughly 350 gallons. I said that people who drive passenger cars a lot actually use more oil than I do. She, too, went off into a one sided dialogue about how stupid I was, how I would never understand and that it was people like me who are ruining the environment and that I should be in jail...... The amazing part is if I ever thought about addressing her in the same manner, she would have had me arrested.

I don't remember reading the "On Sheep" article before but think it is an excellent way to counter some of the anti arguments in a very articulate way. I appreciate your pointing us to it and have bookmarked it for future reference. Not to restart the "sheep" debate that appeared in a recent thread but I wonder if that writing might not have been the basis for some of the sheep terminology. I understand and agree that morphing the word sheep to sheeple attaches a derogatory tone to the discussion.