"Resaoned discourse" is on full display over there. A couple of posts were deleted for no obvious reason. So I'll try the repost here:
Okay, since for whatever fucking unknown reason, the previous post was deleted, let's try again. Since I have no idea WHAT THE FUCK IT WAS that violated the fucking rules, let's try this again.
There's no reason for Second Amendment supporters to wonder what it would be like to have an app identifying them because the anti-Second Amendment types in quite a few newspapers have taken unto themselves to do that very thing to concealed permit possessors (or in the states where a state permit is even needed simply to own a gun in your own house).
Rural areas lead in concealed weapons permit rates"Raleigh, N.C. — Editor's Note: Effective Oct. 1, 2013, North Carolina state law requires that county sheriffs keep confidential the list of those who apply for and are granted permits to carry a concealed weapon.
In the spirit of that law, and because the law would preclude the ability to keep any data on concealed carry permits current, WRAL has removed removed data related to concealed handgun permits from this page.
Remember Larry, you can't tell Mark that he is wrong - because that violates the rules against 'personal comments' and you can't show Mark that he is wrong - because that is an 'argument about an argument'.
1st one was rejected, I find now, because I suggested a dictionary be consulted because the word "authoritarian" was being used way incorrectly. That was apparently a Bad. Extremely true, yet Bad according the The Rules as Defined (but most importantly, As Liberally "Interpreted") by Marxy. The slightly modified repost was rejected for being "an argument about an argument". Which still makes no fucking sense at all except that "Marxy didn't like it." There was another post that was rejected because it started out "Dear Markadelphia", and pointed out the difference between Indiana's (and other statews, as well as the Federal RFRAs). He now claims that it was rejected because it addressed him. The previous published rule was that it couldn't insult him. Well, I guess being shown to be an ignorant fuckwit, no matter how politely and indirectly, might be considered an insult to thin-skinned and soft-skulled, bless their little hearts. The repost that took out the two offending words is now classified as being "an argument about an argument". Well, fuck him.
I shouldn't be surprised that Mark either didn't read his own link - or he is dishonestly leaving out this rather tasty tid-bit:
ReplyDeleteThe app is a response to another app called Gun Geo Marker, which allows people to mark on a map the locations of guns that they believe are unsafe
"Resaoned discourse" is on full display over there. A couple of posts were deleted for no obvious reason. So I'll try the repost here:
ReplyDeleteOkay, since for whatever fucking unknown reason, the previous post was deleted, let's try again. Since I have no idea WHAT THE FUCK IT WAS that violated the fucking rules, let's try this again.
There's no reason for Second Amendment supporters to wonder what it would be like to have an app identifying them because the anti-Second Amendment types in quite a few newspapers have taken unto themselves to do that very thing to concealed permit possessors (or in the states where a state permit is even needed simply to own a gun in your own house).
Examples are (AGAIN):
href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html">Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun permit holders
Newspaper chain plans 'state-by-state' concealed weapon databases
Rural areas lead in concealed weapons permit rates "Raleigh, N.C. — Editor's Note: Effective Oct. 1, 2013, North Carolina state law requires that county sheriffs keep confidential the list of those who apply for and are granted permits to carry a concealed weapon.
In the spirit of that law, and because the law would preclude the ability to keep any data on concealed carry permits current, WRAL has removed removed data related to concealed handgun permits from this page.
Arkansas Business publishes concealed carry list
Bangor newspaper’s request for gun data causes uproar They backed down and claimed to have had no intention of publishing the data, but of what other possible use would the info have for them?
And from a Second Amendment rights activist/lawyer, What possible motive could some arrogant anti-gun newspapers have for publishing the names of Right-to-Carry permit holders?
Now I'm waiting to know if THIS meets the seemingly arbitrary "rules".
Remember Larry, you can't tell Mark that he is wrong - because that violates the rules against 'personal comments' and you can't show Mark that he is wrong - because that is an 'argument about an argument'.
ReplyDelete1st one was rejected, I find now, because I suggested a dictionary be consulted because the word "authoritarian" was being used way incorrectly. That was apparently a Bad. Extremely true, yet Bad according the The Rules as Defined (but most importantly, As Liberally "Interpreted") by Marxy. The slightly modified repost was rejected for being "an argument about an argument". Which still makes no fucking sense at all except that "Marxy didn't like it." There was another post that was rejected because it started out "Dear Markadelphia", and pointed out the difference between Indiana's (and other statews, as well as the Federal RFRAs). He now claims that it was rejected because it addressed him. The previous published rule was that it couldn't insult him. Well, I guess being shown to be an ignorant fuckwit, no matter how politely and indirectly, might be considered an insult to thin-skinned and soft-skulled, bless their little hearts. The repost that took out the two offending words is now classified as being "an argument about an argument". Well, fuck him.
ReplyDelete