Originally Posted by Merc1138
He could have clarified what he meant in post #23, or #26. Instead he decided to brag about donating money. I assume he's capable of reading so he chose to dodge the question rather than just answer the question I asked about it in post #18. Yeah, when it seems like someone has a hard time understanding what "shall not be infringed" means, thinking "guns for me, none for you" is fine, or "it's just a little extra restriction from the government", that person is anti-2a.
He could have hit the quote post button and responded with "I discussed this at length in another thread, I meant up to the schools" rather than choosing to brag and throw a fit. With such an easy way to clear up what appears to have been a misunderstanding, yet choosing to go the other way, I think he's really anti-2a and just didn't want to make a pro-2a blanket statement.
I kept myself out of this thread when I saw who the thread was about... but I need to show support for Merc1138. He and I have disagreed on issues in the past, but I stand with him on this one.
The only creds I require are those showing a person has passed basic training classes so I don't have to go over that stuff.
Its a slippery slope of infringement....
Whats next a credit check with a score above 650...oh wait some CLEOs already do that when denying LTC apps...a low credit score shows a lack of good judgement and morals therefore the the person doesnt have the right of self-defense.