I'm glad you decided to join INGO Councilman Carwein.....
lol
I'm glad you decided to join INGO Councilman Carwein.....
Mr. Kase:
Well, 'tis a shame that you should find me out so soon. Clever lad.
For the other Ladies and Gents:
Apologies if I have offended those who were having so much fun. But, of course, that's the privilege that an armed colonial America bestowed upon us all -- the right (why, even the very audacity) to stand and speak one's mind even if it disagrees with the King's own majority.
I contributed my comments only because I know the man who has been the butt of your ridicule here and, passing no judgement on the wisdom of his action, felt that in the interest of truth and fairness that the other side of the story should be told. My perspective is simply that of an avid 2nd Amendment supporter who also happens to know the man, the issue ... and the media.
Thanks.
If an anti-gun activist starts carrying a gun to protect himself, would you take away his gun? You should congratulate this guy for making a move in OUR DIRECTION!
I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder
I received a reply from him today:
I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.
Look, just saying that this is actually a good guy -- and a solid conservative -- who may not have had the brightest idea for making his point but it was then slanted by a reporter and ended up in an understandable-but-undeserved sh**storm over here.
And coming from a gun rights person, I just thought you folks should --and would want to -- know.
If that's the point he is really trying to make then he should be (making it so local ordinance does not prevent it then) OCing at the council meetings and wearing the Armor in the state house.Hi folks:
New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.
Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.
I realize the frenzy that this action (certainly as reported) has created here on this board. And I understand. It seems on the surface to be just another example of the problems we all face daily at the hands of the elitist political class.
This is a bit different, however. To start with, I have known Councilman Carwein personally and professionally for many years. While his actions may not have had the effect he desired, it should not be taken by us as indication of an anti-2nd Amendment philosophy on his part. Greg is not an anti-gunner and, frankly, is the kind of independent-thinking elected official that I, at least, am happy to have in office.
Before the rocks start arriving, let me point out something else. We all know that the only thing worse than liberal politicians when it comes to our rights is liberal media. We are all aware of the slanted, inaccurate, biased coverage we receive from most of the "drive-by" press when it comes to gun issues. Even though we are all aware of this bias and are justifiably distrusting of such organizations, it seems folks have been eager to accept this "journalist's" account of the meeting and actions in question.
The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.
The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.
While the body armor stunt may not have been the best way to make the point, consider: that our opinions here are based on reporting in the media; that the whole tale was not told; that there are legitimate questions to be asked about state buildings; that lawmakers should not exempt themselves from the laws that they make; and that we should not paint all elected representatives with the same broad brush.
I offer this insight simply to point out that just like those politicians who see all gun owners as "the bad guy," we, too, can occasionally be too quick to judge -- especially when based on third-party information. Gun owners have nothing to fear from Councilman Carwein, whom I know to be an honest and values-driven public servant.
And that's my opinion.
Well, I see the next open carry event has planned itself.
I received a reply from him today:
I'm actually not sure to what he's referring.
Hi folks:
New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.
Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.
The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.
Me too. Be nice guys. You get more flies with chocolate (oh, that's ants)... nevermind...
4sarge:
Never said he was doing it to promote the 2nd Amendment. That wouldn't be true. Just said it was not done as an anti-2nd Amendment statement. Guess I don't see the irony you mention. I happen to know the fellow, and I presume that you and others do not. Just trying to provide some insight into a misunderstood situation. If no one wants to listen, that's up to them, but it doesn't change the situation. I just hated to see a fellow I know as a good man and a cause I deeply believe in get crossways with one another as an unintended consequence.
IMHO, we as gun owners have enough real enemies out there that we don't need to be beating up on some fellow who apparently had a poor idea but meant no harm.
Sorry, 4sarge. Meant to add:
As to your statement that I am "defending his anti gun performance" that mischaracterization is the whole point. I know Greg and know it was not intended as an "anti-gun performance."
jgreiner:
Old habits die hard, I guess. Rightly or wrongly, I have called my license a concealed carry permit for better than 20 years. Never really ran into anyone till now who didn't know what I meant by it.
I agree there would have been much better ways for the councilman to have made his point. I know he never intended it to be taken the way it was.
I have no trust of the media, but how do you "slant" his wearing a flak jacket to protest the new preemption statute, which the vast majority of us appreciate and support? He either did it or he didn't.Hi folks:
New to the site and the forum, but thought I should pop in here on this one and offer some information.
Firstly, let me say that I'm a lifetime IN CCP holder, a life member of the NRA, a member of the board of directors of the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association and the president of a national shooting sports discipline with (at last count) members in 38 states.
I realize the frenzy that this action (certainly as reported) has created here on this board. And I understand. It seems on the surface to be just another example of the problems we all face daily at the hands of the elitist political class.
This is a bit different, however. To start with, I have known Councilman Carwein personally and professionally for many years. While his actions may not have had the effect he desired, it should not be taken by us as indication of an anti-2nd Amendment philosophy on his part. Greg is not an anti-gunner and, frankly, is the kind of independent-thinking elected official that I, at least, am happy to have in office.
Before the rocks start arriving, let me point out something else. We all know that the only thing worse than liberal politicians when it comes to our rights is liberal media. We are all aware of the slanted, inaccurate, biased coverage we receive from most of the "drive-by" press when it comes to gun issues. Even though we are all aware of this bias and are justifiably distrusting of such organizations, it seems folks have been eager to accept this "journalist's" account of the meeting and actions in question.
The Councilman's primary point was, as some have suggested here, one of hipocrasy. The hipocrasy of state and federal legislatures nationwide who continue to enact laws at every opportunity for others to obey, then turn around and exempt themselves and their bodies from those very laws.
The point was that if local government buildings are to be open to CC or OC in Indiana, then why not state buildings as well? What's the rationale for that? Sauce for the goose...and all that.
While the body armor stunt may not have been the best way to make the point, consider: that our opinions here are based on reporting in the media; that the whole tale was not told; that there are legitimate questions to be asked about state buildings; that lawmakers should not exempt themselves from the laws that they make; and that we should not paint all elected representatives with the same broad brush.
I offer this insight simply to point out that just like those politicians who see all gun owners as "the bad guy," we, too, can occasionally be too quick to judge -- especially when based on third-party information. Gun owners have nothing to fear from Councilman Carwein, whom I know to be an honest and values-driven public servant.
And that's my opinion.