General Categories > Laws and Legislation

ONE OF OUR OWN IN THE UNICAMERAL?

<< < (4/4)

farmerbob:
You have a nice day also :D

ILoveCats:
I'll have to go back and read the thread.  It would seem pretty common sense to me......

- Scenario One:  Guy is at Chipotle taking selfies with his AR-15 to post on Facebook when he has a diabetic seizure.  Paramedics arrive on the scene and make sure rifle is secure.  Good thing!   :)

- Scenerio Two:  Hurricane hits New Orleans.  Little old ladies' .38 specials are taken away “for their own safety.”   Bad thing!   :(

farmerbob:
Maybe my main issue is, we don't need the law saying they have the right to disarm a law abiding citizen, obviously there are circumstances when this would be necessary, we don't need a law stating emergency personnel can destroy private property, you know when they may cut off one of your pant legs or rip open your shirt, it goes with out needing a law, common sense shows it's necessity.

I guess what I would like to get back to is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", everything else infringes.

AAllen:

--- Quote from: sjwsti on May 22, 2015, 10:05:49 AM ---I havent forgot about this exchange between myself and Mr Clark. It gives the impression that if Mr Clark were elected to public office his support for public safety personnel would be lacking.

--- End quote ---

Shawn when I read your posting here about an "exchange" with Mr. Clark and looking at your post I thought the two of you had some type of discussion, going back to the thread and looking at it Mr. Clark made some statements that I would agree with you do not sound all that inviting, to which you replied (and pasted that reply here) and he had no further response.  In fact his initial comments were not directed at you or anything you said. 

While I agree things could have been said better, some things may have also been taken out of context or misinterpreted, just as one could take the language you are using here describing an exchange.  While I do not agree with everything either of you say you both can bring valued comments to a discussion and I personally often find these discussions causing me to question my thoughts on some subjects.

If you are concerned that Mr. Clark has a problem with first responders could I recommend that you reach out to him and have a discussion.  You two will not always agree on everything but I bet that if you spoke you would find that you agree far more than disagree.  I think that you would find that one sided discussions do nothing to sway or educate the other.

Edit to add: I would love to get a note from one or both of you as to how that discussion turns out if you have it, I understand that publically here on the forum may not be the best place for that (its too easy for things said this way to not be understood when parties do not always have a common reference point).  But the PAF is interested in candidates that are supportive of first responders missions, we may not always agree on how some things should be done but there is a general support.

Famous556:
I too was part of that exchange.  And in keeping with the spirit of keeping the thread clean, I'll just say it left a bad taste in my mouth as well. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page