Somehow "I told you so" just doesn't do it justice

[IA_farmboy]

imported post

DubuqueVeteran wrote:

Geez...... Come to Dubuque County where almost no one getsa permit. Those who do take a $250 class and their permit is heavily restricted. This Bill is 1000% better than the current situation. I've been reading here and you're so full of hot air I'm ashamed you're a gun owner. Tell you what...if the new law (when signed) is so bad, don't apply for a permit under it. Carry without one and see how that works out for you. We'd all probably be safer if you didn't carry at all.

I don't mean to be rude but I do mean to be blunt, you got the sheriff you deserved. When it comes to any government constituting a representative democracy everyone gets the government they deserve since in such a form of government the voters decide who gets to represent them. Dubuque County is not getting permits to carry because they voted in a sheriff that does not issue them.

Here's another cliche for you, it is easier to change your elected officials than it is to change your elected officials' minds. There are two ways to get shall issue in Iowa, get a shall issue law or get a shall issue sheriff. There is only one way to get unlicensed carry, get a new law.

I am fortunate to live in a county that elected a shall issue sheriff. I had little to do with that since those wheels were set in motion long before I moved here. This shall issue law should never have been necessary since nothing prevented a sheriff from implementing a shall issue policy on their own. It is only through a lack of vigilance from the voting population that allowed such sheriffs to get in office.

It is because of the above that I am relatively agnostic on the shall issue bill on the governor's desk. Whether it is signed or not we have shall issue in Linn County. Whether or not it is signed we will not have constitutional carry. Either way my goal remains the same, get constitutional carry passed into law. Either way your goal should remain the same, elect officials into office at all levels of government that respect your right to self defense.

Wait a minute... that should be EVERYONE'S goal, elect people into office that respect your right to self defense. Even if this bill becomes law the permit to carry is still up to the interpretation of the sheriff. If the sheriff reads the training requirement different that you do then it goes up to a judge. That judge is elected, or appointed by elected officials, so we need people there that see as we do.

Get that "no issue" sheriff out of office. If you had done that years ago we would not be having this little chat.

 

[Straight_Shooter]

imported post

amaixner wrote:

Instead of viscous rhetoric against those with similar (but not close enough for your liking) beliefs, how about a well formed and polite argument? Here's a good example of pro-gradualism and anti-gradualism essays from the Cato Institute. People respond much better to respect than they do to insults.

FYI - I only insult those who insult me first . . . you can go back and check my posts to verify that . . . One of your ilk just called me a xxxxx . . never heard of the guy before . . . is that the kind of"wellformed and polite argument" you are talking about? I would suggest thatbefore you try and take the splinter out of my eye, look at the logs in your own first - cleanupthe IC attacks, andI will be happy to enter reasoneddebate . . . that has been my consistent message fromday one here. . . but if you IC folks are hell bound to go on the attack, you've picked the right target to get a robust "feedback" from . . .

I can also assure you that there is nothing similar between the beliefs of the average Iowa Carry / NRA member and I . . . I do not support, and never will support, attacks on Americans' second amendment or other constitutional freedoms. We are worlds apart . . and by the way, the Cato Institute not withstanding, the notion of "gradualism" is a construct of the Marxist left . . . so I wouldn't be too proud of it . . . even if you do want it to work in the direction opposite of its historical movement . . . which, by the way, your silly bill did NOT do . . . much to your protestations to the contrary.

SS