TexasCHLforum.com

ScrapMetal, I have to respectfully disagree. I like the the idea on no permit. Why should I have to pay a TAX to exercise my God given right to defend myself? Criminals do not obey the law by definition. If you use a gun (and criminals do) in a crime, you get extra punishment (death by hanging for example).

Taking this statement literally, it makes sense. Too bad the ACLU isn't going to stand up for our rights on this one.

mr.72 wrote: You really think the criminals are going to submit to all of these safety-minded regs?

That seemed to have come out of the blue...

Xander wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I respectfully disagree.

The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.

And I disagree with that. That's just a watered-down version of the anti-gun position that CHLers can't be trusted with guns, and it can be refuted with exactly the same facts, which are that states that don't have shooting requirements for licensed carry (like New Hampshire) don't have a higher rate of problems with CHLers than states that do.

I will go so far as to say that if you can back that up with more states that provide similar examples, I might change my mind. As it stands now, I can only base how I feel about the situation on what I have personally experienced.

If I am interpreting your response above correctly, I am classified as an anti-gun CHL holder.

The other day my ex-wife was ranting about needing laws to stop AK-47's from being sold to the public. All I could think was that we should stop selling cars that kill people also... there are just so many fine-lines and grey-areas when it comes to guns and laws.

Have you ever been next to someone with a live hand-grenade that has absolutely no idea what they are doing with it?

We can do all sorts of comparisons, but I see no problem with having requirements for training on the proper handling and usage of firearms.

I see your literal comparison, and logically it makes sense, but I would never agree to relaxing our laws to the extent that I understand you to be asking for.

I respectfully disagree.

The hands-on demonstration that you can at least shoot should be a MINIMUM requirement. As it is, there are still alot of folks that have had "training" and I wouldn't trust them with a dull butter-knife.