Kswhitetails Wrote:Man, it seems Stan really rubs many of you guys the wrong way. I can see his condescending tone; but most of the time, it amuses me.
Here's the dirty little secret: He's mostly right. Far more often than wrong. Factually, I cannot find fault. Feelings, opinion and anecdotal stories are irrelevant.
He reminds me of a grumpy old law professor challenging his students to think. Really think. Stop arguing long enough to think and realize that his guidance is actually correct.
He may have some poor bedside manor, but he's damned well educated in the forum of firearms and firearm ownership. I've been looking for a source of compiled writings, so far mostly archived articles and overpriced re-printings of magazines of yesteryear.
Folks are going to start saying I'm on Stan's side. Well, if being on the side of facts makes someone uncomfortable... then -
I've posted when I thought he was wrong, and argued logic and reason against him. Only to find out he was right, more than once. I've eaten my crow in the corner, alone and embarrassed. Thanks, for that Stan...
Nuggin, you've missed some good stuff. Montana, there is no such thing as an unalienable right if it has restrictions placed on it. They cannot co-exist. It either is unalienable, or it isn't. There is no such thing as "Common sense gun control" and a true unalienable right to bear arms. Grizzly, Black, Brown, Polar, or otherwise...
Kswhitetails, I will let you in on a little secret, I like Stan and most of the grumpy, snarky people who are on this forum. I have never learned anything in an echo chamber.What have we learned from all this:
Gun rights are not connected to the militia.
John Lott's stats are not reliable.
The un-organized militia was suppose to be a balance against a federal standing army, "controlled by the states" not the feds and is the unconscious uncle on life
support that was replaced with the national guard funded and controlled by the federal government, defeating the point of the militia in the first place.
Unalienable rights do not exist if there are restrictions on them, " since there are restrictions on them" they must not really exist.
Emotion guides our interpretation of our laws instead of statistics and facts, which is exploited by those in power who need to be re-elected. A population hyped up by a corrupt media that wants action to stop mass shootings, while ignoring more real threats and concerns that have no political gain to exploit.