Does anyone here carry a firearm everywhere they go?

[beevul]

75. I might have known the way you'd respond.

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

"Your allegation is that there was an intentional shift in meaning, when what I see is someone who would never have dreamed that anyone would interpret the two as meaning something different."

I don't think you realize what you just said, but I'll gladly take your word for it. I have no doubt, thats what you SEE. Of course it is.


"Frankly, I would say that one would really have to be immersed in minutiae of the minute-by-minute life of the firearm-carrier in order to even grasp that distinction when it is spotlighted."

And how much more or less would one have to be "immersed in minutiae of the minute-by-minute life of the firearm-carrier" in order to acurately characterize someone as a "compulsive toter"? That is the phrase in question, you see. And it carries a specific meaning, rather than "it means what I say it means". Originally the poster of the OP used that phrase and applied it to people who he/she knows NOTHING about, based souly on the alleged actions of that poster, and with NO relation to the cause or decision that led to those actions.

Tell me - do you condone this? Are such things just A-OK in your book? Does that constitute that genuine good faith discussion you seem so fond of mentioning from time to time?


"I would also point out that there actually have been comments made in this forum by people who say they will not go somewhere where they are not permitted to carry their firearm -- so in their case, at least, there is no distinction at all."

I in turn must point out, that it seems you're pretending that someone that claims they wont go somewhere where they can't carry a firearm, is the same thing as someone claiming they wont go ANYWHERE without one. It isn't. Really. One who might avoid a certain business, for example, because he/she can't carry there aka voting with the wallet, while haveing no trouble going unarmed through secured areas like certain areas of courthouses and airports, is not the same as a person who refuses to go to those places, and ALL other places, where that person can not be armed.

One is an absolute, and one is not. The OP made a claim, and set a standard, originally, that standard was an ABSOLUTE. That poster then posted this thread after substantial flondering in the other thread, with a walked back definition. AKA moving the goalposts. Post number one of this thread quotes, and links to the original claim.

Now, lest we get into semantic games, if what you really meant was that there is a claim by someone here abouts that they will not go ANYWHERE (an absolute, like the initial claim of the poster of the OP) where a firearm is not allowed, just say so. And post a link to the thread that contains it. I'll entertain it and point out that one single individual does not prove the existence of a group like him. And I'll be right. No apologies necessary by me, there.

On the other hand, if that isn't your claim, and you really meant that someone here claimed they wouldn't go somewhere - a specific place, but not ALL places where firearms are not allowed - I'm afraid that doesn't meet the burden of the standard set NOT BY ME, but by the OP him/her self in another thread that led to the posting of this one.

Which did you mean?

Maybe, just maybe, you should read that other thread before you start your normal pontification, eh?