Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
527 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,586 Posts
I've seen many "educated" stupid people who could do many great things, but fail at lunch or relate to how evil works in the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,021 Posts
Much the same reporting of the devil being in the tool and not the operator and the need to protect us from ourselves. But this is being done in more than just guns and the control of such.

All the crap we see coming from Washington is about control of the people and the Government taking over, nothing more. You are to be told when, where, how and why to act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Well educated certainly doesn't mean unbiased, nor does an advanced degree confer common sense. I've worked with many Ph.D.'s over the past 20 years. About half of those people are brilliant (especially the MD/Ph.D.'s), but the other half tend to be wrapped-up in theory and dogma and are often far from pragmatic. Advanced degrees are supposed to provide more in-depth training, and get you to open your mind due to new, creative research. When you "get it" you become better because you always are focused on learning and improving. But, when you don't you focus on ways to prove that you are always right. It's actually somewhat bizarre.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
444 Posts
Well educated certainly doesn't mean unbiased, nor does an advanced degree confer common sense. I've worked with many Ph.D.'s over the past 20 years. About half of those people are brilliant (especially the MD/Ph.D.'s), but the other half tend to be wrapped-up in theory and dogma and are often far from pragmatic. Advanced degrees are supposed to provide more in-depth training, and get you to open your mind due to new, creative research. When you "get it" you become better because you always are focused on learning and improving. But, when you don't you focus on ways to prove that you are always right. It's actually somewhat bizarre.
Some of the most useless people that have ever worked for me were Ph.D.'s. Long on discussion and debate, but incapable of delivering a result.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Much the same reporting of the devil being in the tool and not the operator and the need to protect us from ourselves. But this is being done in more than just guns and the control of such.

All the crap we see coming from Washington is about control of the people and the Government taking over, nothing more. You are to be told when, where, how and why to act.
Yup. This is nothing more than a state sponsored propaganda piece. This is a perfect example of a "report" being written to serve the forgone conclusion. It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with supporting a political agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,993 Posts
Scary...just plain scary.

But if we are to truly honor their memory, we know that our grief must be turned into thoughtful change as we
evaluate our laws and policies.
OK..so we have this "unbiased" report that begins poetically? All righty then. "Thoughtful changes"? Even the intro begins to advance the socialist progressive agenda!

The state and national debate is underway as officials seek to evolve and determine what actions,laws
So umm, they don't include themselves as decision makers but place the responsibility on the state and national entities? Hmmm

Our response to these issues will speak to the lessons our society has learned
I didn't realize they spoke for me?

Danial Malloy. Read his bio; it becomes clear.
Dannel Malloy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and what changes can be made to prevent such an event from occurring again.
Seriously? This can be prevented? I thought all these advanced degrees were smart?

exhaustive list of items for consideration that had been raised by presenters and other interested parties.
..and exactly "who" are these other "interested parties"?

As the Commission continues its deliberations, it will seek to involve stakeholders and advocacy groups
We've heard this before. (2) words...Joe Biden! Not everyone gets invited to dinner.

Those recommendations will be a result of examining relevant policy discussions, utilizing reputable research,
Interesting to note, not (One) person on the advisory board is from a pro 2A group (NRA attorneys, instructors etc... who can provide "reputable research".

his written report is crucial to recognizing and responding to the fundamental question of how we prevent this from happening again in Connecticut or anywhere around the country.
Again; in just the intro of this paper we see strong biases emerging. (Prevention?) "Anywhere around the country?" They are going to dictate methodology to
other states?

Firearm Permitting and Registration
You will have to read this dangerous section for yourselves.

I read the entire report.
It is riddled with more of the same socialist progressive agendas that continues to rear it's ugly head.

While the ivory tower of academia can be beneficial; it usually is not for people who were indoctrinated 20+ years ago. All it does is allow them to look down upon the unwashed masses with contempt as they consider their cradle to grave agenda.

This report is the biggest crock of illogical, unreasonable & biased thinking I've seen in a while; all the while standing on the graves of those killed and claiming (They) can stop the evil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
I couldn't get past page 7...

On page 4 the following statement is made (highlighting my own):
On January 3, 2013 Governor Dannel P. Malloy established the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission (henceforth referred to as the Commission) to review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety and mental health policy, with a focus on children and schools.
By page 6 they have abandoned the focus, and turned their eye to the guns, and to the gun owners. And pages 6 and 7 outline the very demise of the second amendment, at least in Connecticut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,415 Posts
Some of the most useless people that have ever worked for me were Ph.D.'s. Long on discussion and debate, but incapable of delivering a result.
No argument here - that's the bad 50%. They focus on what they know (or think they know), and try to make all problems fit into that slot of knowledge and bias. You can usually figure out which is which is which within the first 30 minutes of speaking with them. So, some unscrupulous person or group that wanted to affect a certain outcome could easily select the "right" experts that have the credentials to impress and the biases to achieve their goals.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,882 Posts
I read it and I want to puke.

2 politicians, 5 psych people, 1 attorney, 1 community organizer, 3 educators, 1 security professional, 3 emergency service people.

Where’s the common, everyday citizen? Where’s the Constitutional authority? Where’s the industry representative?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
I read it and I want to puke.

2 politicians, 5 psych people, 1 attorney, 1 community organizer, 3 educators, 1 security professional, 3 emergency service people.

Where’s the common, everyday citizen? Where’s the Constitutional authority? Where’s the industry representative?


Just curious, what makes these people not "everyday citizens" ?? I'm running into many, many "everyday citizens", you know like A/C technicians, construction workers, salesmen, etc., who believe there should be some sort of firearms monitoring. Their not against bans, self defense, or property defense but for better regulation.

Did you really believe someone in New York would put a member of the NRA on this panel ??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
527 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Just curious, what makes these people not "everyday citizens" ?? I'm running into many, many "everyday citizens", you know like A/C technicians, construction workers, salesmen, etc., who believe there should be some sort of firearms monitoring. Their not against bans, self defense, or property defense but for better regulation.

Did you really believe someone in New York would put a member of the NRA on this panel ??
Or in Connecticut? I think gasmitty is under the assumption, as am I, that in matters of public policy, the public should not be a panel of of individuals with vested interests in a particular outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gasmitty

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
527 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I read it and I want to puke.

2 politicians, 5 psych people, 1 attorney, 1 community organizer, 3 educators, 1 security professional, 3 emergency service people.

Where’s the common, everyday citizen? Where’s the Constitutional authority? Where’s the industry representative?
Sorry I put you off your lunch.........
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,882 Posts
Just curious, what makes these people not "everyday citizens" ?? I'm running into many, many "everyday citizens", you know like A/C technicians, construction workers, salesmen, etc., who believe there should be some sort of firearms monitoring. Their not against bans, self defense, or property defense but for better regulation.

Did you really believe someone in New York would put a member of the NRA on this panel ??
Good point. In striving for brevity I left out the more specific descriptions of these panel participants. My gripe is that the people making the recommendations were chosen for their accomplishments and experience in specific areas such as education and mental health, but there is no one included who would represent anyone directly affected by their recommendations. But what use is a "non-profit liaison to the governor" - what benefit does she bring to the panel? Leaving out the 3 who are or were sworn LEOs, I would wager that no one in the group is an "end user" of defensive firearms. Where Malloy and his agenda-driven advisors further missed the boat is in failing to include the "vox populi" - the voice of the people. And - dare I say it? - I wonder how many of the panel are members of the same political party as the governor who appointed them.

And no, since this was in Connecticut, I doubt that someone in New York would put an NRA member on the panel. But considering the NRA's involvement in gun safety and police officer training for decades, the lack of NRA representation on the panel is another huge disqualifier for their recommendations. It's about as appropriate as having this same panel constituency address the Challenger disaster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Just more proof that education doesn't equal common sense and smart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
So how do they keep people from stealing guns and coming over the border to use them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
I couldn't get past page 7...

On page 4 the following statement is made (highlighting my own):


By page 6 they have abandoned the focus, and turned their eye to the guns, and to the gun owners. And pages 6 and 7 outline the very demise of the second amendment, at least in Connecticut.
Which proves they never really had safety in mind to begin with. They had already formed their conclusion, and were merely reverse-engineering the process.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top