Federal Concealed Carry Permit

[cmanzi]

butt-hattery ftw

[Powdermill]

[quote=Bruce;874575]I never claimed to be.

I never suggested that I was, how did you put it? The "end-all authority" on anything. I wrote nothing to imply that I WAS the only "educated" person on this site.

Re-read your post. Had I written the same to you, you would have been jumping all over me. Your condescending attitude is quite prevalent in the way you post. You don't need to suggest, you simply lecture as if you were instructing some child or individual who was totally ignorant of American history, advising me to, "... do a little historical research.

And that I, "... will learn that none of them went straight from 'first draft' to 'signing.'

You proceed to follow-up with a diatribe as if you were educating some elementary school grade kid who needed an historical lesson from a far more senior, adult teacher.

Your post was insulting and would be considered so by anyone on this forum. I took offense to your approach and rightful so.

"I simply assumed you had not gotten around to looking into how much effort the 'founders' of our nation actually put into 'wording' things, because your statement was way off base."

You assumed too much and the assumption that I had not "gotten around to looking into" this subject is no more than a cover for you to imply that I am just an ignorant poster who needed an education of how things really were according to you.

"Maybe you just have a 'guilty conscience', or something."

Maybe I just take exception to your ignorant attitude toward me and very likely others. Or something. Your arrogance is showing again.

"...because your statement was way off base."

"You said something stupid."

You truly are arrogant. You know what? It really doesn't require you to say
that, (you) "I never suggested" that I was the "end-all authority" on anything." You don't have to, you simply subject other posters to an attitude of superiority by lecturing them.

Your fellow academician, Toyota, demonstrates the same disrespect to posters as reflected in a statement he made to one poster. "Do you *really* need me to explain how our (the American) system of government works??"

Insulting people's intelligence by making such statements is not how to gain unity of purpose here.

"There are a number of reasons why we had an American Civil War.
Yes, one of the biggest reasons was slavery. "

WRONG! The biggest reason WAS slavery! Cotton was the mainstay of the South's economic viability. They feared that if they complied to the demands of the government, it would destroy the individualism of the southern states by destroying their production workforce. In turn, it would make the south subservient to the industrial powers of the northern states. Essentially, it would make the southern states slaves (ironic) to the whims of the north. It was the biggest and most significant cause for the south's attempt to break away to make themselves independent of what they perceived was a domineering power attempting to covet and monopolize the livelihood of the south, that being cotton.

For fear of treating you as you did me, I'll move on.

"They knew exactly what they (founding fathers) were writing..."
"I am guessing this 'blurt' is in response to my response to your remark..."

Perhaps they did, perhaps not. I disagree with you. Our opinions may differ but opinions are, as they say, like as_holes. You're entitled to yours and I to mine. Whatever they wrote, they had absolutely NO way of knowing how our society or government would change in this day and age to meet the challenges we presently face. For you to make any all encompassing statement that "they knew exactly what they were doing" is total BS. I was trying to be kind to you by saying that you were not there to truly know the circumstances.

"You said something stupid - I called you on it. No need to throw a hissy fit. Unbunch your panties and Cowboy up."

But it appears that, do or die, your opinion must be the only, correct, opinion. So instead of accepting the possibility that someone, other than you, may have a difference of opinion, you resort to your criticism listed above. My difference of opinion is "something stupid?"

You called me on it? The "end-all" authority calls me on it?

I'm sorry, I forgot that you said that you "never claimed to be the end-all authority." You simply assume you are.

"I wrote nothing to imply that I WAS the only "educated" person on this site."

No, you simply communicate as if you are.

"You keep telling people they don't know you... Well, you don't know me."

Perhaps I can repeat my request then?

"Please feel free to qualify yourself by identifying what exactly makes you such an expert."

"Most people visit this site to participate in reasonable, intelligent, and sometimes humorous, discussions."

Is that so-long as they are in agreement with your views and do not provide their own opinions?

"In my ever-so-humble personal opinion, your posts so far have only three elements:

Obnoxious, BS and Stupid."

Your arrogance has no limit does it?

"Some choose to put up with those who are obnoxious (hey, they put up with me), but if you don't want to be 'called out' whenever you make either BS or stupid points in your post, then stop writing BS and stupidity into them."

So now I'm taking your advice. I'm calling you out "Mr. Arrogant Prick." (your words, not mine)

[LittleRedToyota]

Your comment, besides being ignorant,

twas some good natured kidding around man...lighten up francis.

fails to indicate that you have no idea what my background is,

you are correct. my statement does not indicate that i have no idea what your background is. then again, it doesn't indicate that i do have an idea of what your background is, either.

(sorry...couldn't help myself. )

how well read I may be,

i have no idea how well read you are. i do know that there are many writings by the founders of our country where they pick apart each other's ideas and language quite thoroughly. i mean, just look at all the different wordings they argued about for the 2nd amendment. so your statement that they did not pick apart each other's language and arguments does not really mesh with the historical record.

You can only "parrot" for someone else.

who exactly am i "parroting" for?

and who doesn't have any idea about whose background, reading history, experiences, etc.?

I was working for our country when you were 7 years old and did so for nearly half your life-time. But that doesn't seem to merit any real contribution in your mind. The fact that I may be far more educated than you are probably never occurred to you.

where the hell is any of this coming from?

at any rate, though, the fact that you were a some kind of federal agent/employee/whatever for X years doesn't mean squat to me. sorry. frankly, the government is way too big, way too intrusive, way too tyrannical...you aren't automatically going to get a gold star from me for being part of that. if you ever arrested someone for violating a law you knew was actually unconstitutional (by what the constitution actually says...not by what SCOTUS pretends it says) or did anything else you knew was unconstitutional, you get the opposite of a gold star from me. the "i was following policy" argument you alluded to earlier in this thread is nothing more than a cop out.

i also don't have any idea how educated you are...nor do i care. if you make a logically compelling argument, good. if not, bad. period. doesn't matter who you are or what your background is. all that matters is the validity of what you say.

To me, you're a nonentity.

yes, i am just a lowly subject...you, on the other hand, are part of the elite overlord class that actually matters. i see.

[YllwFvr]

Well after reading all ten pages of this Mill is going to be the first person on my ignore list. Going to poke around and figure out how to do that.

The attacks and holier than thou attitude coupled with the hints at powers beyond our comprehension and reach weary me. Not to mention to outright belief that the power isn't held by the people. If after all those years serving the public that's the mindset he's left with then I am disgusted with our federal officers and ashamed at our public officials.

I'm surprised I don't see a row of red dots attached to him. It's ok I get the drift of this whole thread. We are ALL wrong and Mill is right. He's far more intelligent and is much better educated than any of us lowly serfs typing away here.

[chrisjames_71]

Well after reading all ten pages of this Mill is going to be the first person on my ignore list. Going to poke around and figure out how to do that.

click name - view public profile - then look for user lists - click "ignore know it alls"...ok ok it says "add user to ignore list".

[Bruce]

So now I'm taking your advice. I'm calling you out "Mr. Arrogant Prick." (your words, not mine)

Calling me out? LOL!

That post was *filled* with what appeared to be nothing more than the irritating sounds of a crying baby. I repeat: Unbunch your panties and Cowboy the heck up.

I did not see one reasonable or intelligent counterpoint in your whole post; instead it smacked of all the angst of a hormonal teenage girl. All I saw was 'name calling', a poor attempt at a 'dressing down' and a lot of whining and moaning.

My posts seemed condescending to you? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Your post was insulting and would be considered so by anyone on this forum. I took offense to your approach and rightful so.

I had no idea that you polled the entire forum. What was the tally, exactly? How were the questions worded?

Maybe I just take exception to your ignorant attitude toward me and very likely others. Or something. Your arrogance is showing again.

Judging from your posts involving others, having you claim that I am "ignorant" and that I have been displaying "arrogance" puts me in good company.

Insulting people's intelligence by making such statements is not how to gain unity of purpose here.

What is this "gain unity of purpose here" stuff?

Is there a secret club forming? Will we get decoder rings?

Whatever they wrote, they had absolutely NO way of knowing how our society or government would change in this day and age to meet the challenges we presently face. For you to make any all encompassing statement that "they knew exactly what they were doing" is total BS. I was trying to be kind to you by saying that you were not there to truly know the circumstances.

To me, the way you wrote this seems to imply that our founders simply couldn't have envisioned the world as it is today (wars, economics, science and discovery, art, and, of course, 'politics')...

...Because, that line of thinking would, very possibly, lead to the idea that our founding documents are somehow 'obsolete' now. Which might lead one to think - "Hey. Maybe there is a better, more 'progressive' way to run a government then this old, worn out, out-dated and obsolete Constitution of the United States stuff."

That couldn't be the case, as I know that you know (being such a well educated and intellectual individual as you are) that the 'founders' indeed comprehended the endurance of our founding documents - like the Constitution; they were extraordinarily forward thinking and did indeed anticipate growth and change and made excellent accommodations for such.

Like I wrote, I must be reading too far into your words (as you constantly seem to complain that I do). I must be inferring to deeply into what you wrote to arrive at the conclusion that you lack a comprehensive understanding of our founding documents and the principals and intentions of our nations 'founders'. I mean, you're so advanced and intellectual and educated and worldly (and old - don't forget old) that you couldn't possibly be one of those people, right?

Of course, if you were one of those people - then you wouldn't be gaining any "unity" with me; or a whole lot of other people on this forum.

Wait... Listen....

I can hear the faint sounds of dozens of pafoa members clicking the "Add to ignore list" link under the Powdermill screen name right now...
.

[BanginBonnie2]

Well a lot of things fall under Officer Discretion, But the law is the law, victimless or not? Just like Prostitution is Victimless, but it is illegal, same can be said for Gambling, and people that are for the leagalization of pot?

Just go get a permit and then carry concealed, then your leagal.

A - 2,

The privilege you mention creates an ' Upper Class ' which I think another fellow mentioned ... much the same as the folks who wrote the Ruling/Law ... they feel they are ABOVE the peons that pay them.

Many of us have the LTCF/Permits that you mention , but fail to receive the luxury of carrying virtually anywhere you please with impunity as LEO's, active or retired, are allowed, or at least given the wink + a nod should they fracture a portion of the Law such as the bar room carry incident you mention ... I'll bet lunch the charge gets tossed.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it .. just would like to have the same Rights that you have.

Query ... you feel the Special Right afforded you is okay ... why are Vets being stripped of ALL 2 - A Rights for PTSD upon return, when for LEO's it's a Work Comp issue with Rights remaining intact as far as I know ? (please correct me if my info is wrong)

You know A - 2, if this was Barney Fife days, probably none of this would even be close to a topic, but most of us feel in today's world that our Rights are being subverted by an ever growing Elitist Ruling Class, and that Ruling Class utilizes Unfair and Un-Constitutional Laws/Rulings to further subjugate us and Law Enforcement does the dirty work for them enthusiastically ... pretty close to right on ? ?

[JoeWilliams]

snip
, but to say Officers should not be able to be granted a special privledge when relating to weapons is a little extreme. Officer's are much more of a target than your average citizen when they are off duty. snip

Horseshit. Facts show, beyond any mere fragment of a doubt, that non-leos are crime victims FAR more often than on or off duty LEOs, and are therefore clearly much more of a target.

Nor do I find in the Constitution any phrase setting LEOs up as a special class of citizens entitled to exercise rights not available to the rest of us. Such thinking is a dangerous aversion to the Constitution.

[JoeWilliams]

As to the OP and "federal permits," I used to have one of sorts. I was authorized to carry concealed during the performance of some of my duties, and ONLY when performing those duties. I would turn in my weapon card, draw my weapon and be given my "permit" (ID). When I was done with what I was doing, I'd turn in my weapon and permit, and get my weapon card back.

That "permit" was a specific Air Force form... but it's been too many years. I cannot remember what it was. Perhaps there are some other former SPs or maybe OSI types here that can refresh my memory.

[Adam-12]

Well a lot of things fall under Officer Discretion, But the law is the law, victimless or not? Just like Prostitution is Victimless, but it is illegal, same can be said for Gambling, and people that are for the leagalization of pot?

Enforcing immoral laws is immoral. I realize that leaves cops between a rock and a hard place, but that's the way it is.

Gun laws are not only immoral, though--they're unconstitutional. Enforcing an unconstitutional law is a crime. I realize that the courts will tell you they are constitutional, and your superiors will arrest you if you don't enforce them, but that's the way it is.