Case in point

[mr.72]

I am pretty sure speech is at least as dangerous as a hand gun.

I understand that words can escalate a situation to cause death,

I am afraid you are completely missing the point.

Do they teach American History in school anymore?

I am hesitant because I think there are too many stupid people out there that should not be allowed to own guns, but by using that logic I am only hurting the case for RKBA and CHL's in general. I am a little torn.

There are just so many stupid people. I do agree that the law abiding should not be punished for the "sins" of others though.

hmm

Ah, elitism rears its ugly head again.

Owning guns is ok for us, just not for them.

You know the smart people, like me.

Not the stupid people.

Rights are only for the smart, not the stupid, is that it?

Do you want to apply this logic to the whole Constitution, or only the 2nd Amendment? Maybe stupid people shouldn't vote. Or maybe only smart women should be able to vote. Or maybe stupid people should be required to incriminate themselves in court (as opposed to doing so voluntarily). Or maybe stupid people should not be allowed a fair trial.

Maybe stupid people should not be able to speak freely or choose their own religion?

eek.

[mr.72]

BTW the whole point of enumerating rights is to make it impossible (in theory) to take away rights because you are stupid, unpopular, a minority, disabled, or otherwise not a part of the "ruling class".

This is the foundation of the American form of government. All people are equal in the eyes of the law. Even if you are stupid, you still have the same rights as the elites.

Of course it doesn't exactly work that way in application, and American history is filled with examples of underclasses in one way or another having to fight for their rights. Just last week a man was denied his 2nd Amendment rights just because the political ruling class had selected the same hotel as did he, and this is perfectly OK with at least half of Americans.

[ScrapMetal]

I am afraid you are completely missing the point.

Do they teach American History in school anymore?

What?

Ah, elitism rears its ugly head again.

Owning guns is ok for us, just not for them.


You know the smart people, like me.


Rights are only for the smart, not the stupid, is that it?


Do you want to apply this logic to the whole Constitution, or only the 2nd Amendment? Maybe stupid people shouldn't vote. Or maybe only smart women should be able to vote. Or maybe stupid people should be required to incriminate themselves in court (as opposed to doing so voluntarily). Or maybe stupid people should not be allowed a fair trial.

Maybe stupid people should not be able to speak freely or choose their own religion?

eek.[/b]

Please keep your presumptions to yourself. I did not say half of the words you try to put in my mouth.

Elitism? You misunderstand me totally. I was not commenting on anyone's education or book smarts. By stupid, I am referring to people who would break the law with guns as well as those who do not handle them with caution and respect.

Nothing in any of my posts was meant to be argumentative. Can I not disagree with you and then have a simple, informative discussion about it? You seem a little bent out of shape...

I have a lot of stupid friends that are just down right irresponsible, and I am glad they do not own guns. I would not deny them the right to, nor did I ever say that I would in my previous posts. You must have missed this part:

I am hesitant because I think there are too many stupid people out there that should not be allowed to own guns, but by using that logic I am only hurting the case for RKBA and CHL's in general.

[mr.72]

ScrapMetal, I was just using your post as a basis in order to make a rhetorical point.

I am not bent out of shape, and I don't see how you'd get that from my posts. That's twice in this thread that you have suggested that I was upset or very passionate about this issue.

I'm really not that passionate about the issue. There's nothing I can do about it, and in fact there is precious little any of us could do about it even if 100% of all CHL holders were in absolute agreement and formed their own PAC. That's still like 1% of the population and as Charles has astutely pointed out, there are absolute political barriers to enacting any meaningful (that is, non-incremental) changes in the current CHL scheme.

No legislators are going to risk political suicide in order to appease 1% of their constituents.

[ScrapMetal]

ScrapMetal, I was just using your post as a basis in order to make a rhetorical point.

I am not bent out of shape, and I don't see how you'd get that from my posts. That's twice in this thread that you have suggested that I was upset or very passionate about this issue.

I'm really not that passionate about the issue. There's nothing I can do about it, and in fact there is precious little any of us could do about it even if 100% of all CHL holders were in absolute agreement and formed their own PAC. That's still like 1% of the population and as Charles has astutely pointed out, there are absolute political barriers to enacting any meaningful (that is, non-incremental) changes in the current CHL scheme.

No legislators are going to risk political suicide in order to appease 1% of their constituents.

Well, you have given some rather...snappy... answers. Or at least they came across that way.

I'm sure you can agree that some people are not responsible enough to own guns. Not that it should be illegal, or that anyone should stop them, only that they would misuse it and in the end it would be better if they did not have one. I consider that stupid. That is the only point I was trying to make.

What was your "American History" point? You never explained.

[shootthesheet]

We need to do away with the need for a Texas resident to have a license to carry in the state in any manner they want. CHL can be left to those that want to carry out of state. They can even keep the same standards. The State needs to recognize the Second Amendment by doing away with their ability to control the wearing of arms. I understand the concerns of those that are stuck on getting the governments permission to exercise a civil right. It has been pushed down our throats and now even those that claim to support civil rights don't know they are helping keep the poor and much of the middle class helpless to criminal attack in this state. We don't need temporary licenses. We need no license at all except for travel to other states.

As for the O.P. talking to his wife about CHL. Be patient and understanding for her concerns and lack of concern for the present danger she is in. I have been talking to my wife since she was my girlfriend, over a decade, and she is just now telling me she wants to get one when our youngest is older. I don't understand her wanting to wait but it isn't something I can do anything about. I just love her and pray she and my children are not victims while she is "uncomfortable" having a gun while we have a young child. She understands now that I only have the weapon to stop an aggressor and that concealed carry is not about power or about killing. It is about protecting the innocent. Something every lawful person has the right to do if they choose.

[WarHawk-AVG]

Maybe I would like to see you have "training" and a license in order to exercise your freedom of speech.

Speech cannot kill someone. Not a fair comparison. Although they are both rights given to us under the same document, CHL is a different animal. Along with having a CHL we take on a massive responsibility.

I could NEVER support giving a license without a background check. Then you run the risk of letting convicted felons carry, even if only for 30-60 days. Bad Idea IMO.

I would support lower fees definitely, but someone has to be paid to process the applications ect. I also would like to see more training made readily available. Not as a requirement, but definitely some courses that get more into tactical training, crisis management/tactics. Stuff more along the lines of Police officer training

You really need to take a step back and realize what you are saying...

Causing panic in a crowded building by yelling "fire" and junk like that could kill someone..so please don't patronize us with hollow rhetoric!

Along with a drivers license you take a massive responsibility...I guarantee someone could kill/maim/disfigure many more people with a 4k lb car than with a handgun...oh wait..they have!

A CHL does not make one a peace officer..it just gives us the tools of the wolves to defend ourselves and our loved ones
I have a fire extinguisher in my home in the hopes I NEVER have to use it to stop a fire from destroying my home, I have a violence extinguisher on my person in the hope I NEVER have to use it to stop someone from destroying my life.

Training is available everywhere...one just has to search it out, ever hear of "thunder ranch" and many other "tactical schools" not to mention tons of videos and the like, last time I heard here in TX if you get a moving violation in your vehicle you can take a test on the computer and get it taken off..hows that for "training" with a much deadlier weapon that a firearm?

Oh and I have been next to guys with the pins pulled on hand grenades when I served in the Marines defending your right to be 100% wrong...you are welcome!

[mr.72]

I'm sure you can agree that some people are not responsible enough to own guns.

That is a totally moot point. It's simply not up to you or me to decide whether they are responsible enough. It's not up to the government either, since the power of the government flows from the people. So since I have no right to decide whether you are responsible enough to own a gun, or vote, or speak freely, or post whatever you feel you want to post on this forum, or choose your church, or whatever other right I might want to disallow for you, then neither does government have this right.

Not that it should be illegal, or that anyone should stop them, only that they would misuse it and in the end it would be better if they did not have one. I consider that stupid. That is the only point I was trying to make.

But the only remedy is government, right? That's why this is a moot point. Why point out that some people are irresponsible dolts when it is irrelevant? They have the same rights and it sure sounds like you want to deny them these rights.

What was your "American History" point? You never explained.

There's a reason why the 1st Amendment is first. The exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, free exercise of religion and taking up grievances with the government got many people killed and inspired many people to seek a new country to live in.

And there is a reason why the 2nd Amendment is second. Without the keeping and bearing of arms, we would never have been able to defend our rights from the oppressive government.

These are safeguards against revolution. Revolution is deadly.

[ScrapMetal]

You really need to take a step back and realize what you are saying...

Causing panic in a crowded building by yelling "fire" and junk like that could kill someone..so please don't patronize us with hollow rhetoric!

We have moved past that...later in the thread I said...

I understand that words can escalate a situation to cause death, but you can not kill someone simply by speaking.

Along with a drivers license you take a massive responsibility...I guarantee someone could kill/maim/disfigure many more people with a 4k lb car than with a handgun...oh wait..they have!

What is your point?
Nobody is questioning Driver's licenses. More importantly that is not even relevant because it is not in the Constitution.

Training is available everywhere...one just has to search it out, ever hear of "thunder ranch" and many other "tactical schools" not to mention tons of videos and the like, last time I heard here in TX if you get a moving violation in your vehicle you can take a test on the computer and get it taken off..hows that for "training" with a much deadlier weapon that a firearm?

Again...previously I said

I'm sure training is available out there, but it maybe mentioning it in the class or making people more aware of it would be nice. I wasn't suggesting a change to the system. I guess its just that I don't know where such training is available. That is clearly my responsibility though.

Oh and I have been next to guys with the pins pulled on hand grenades when I served in the Marines defending your right to be 100% wrong...you are welcome!

Opinions cannot be wrong. I think things should be done one way, you think they should be done another. Neither is based on fact, although both may be derived from facts. Just because we disagree does not make either of us right or wrong.

[ScrapMetal]

It's simply not up to you or me to decide whether they are responsible enough. It's not up to the government either, since the power of the government flows from the people. So since I have no right to decide whether you are responsible enough to own a gun, or vote, or speak freely, or post whatever you feel you want to post on this forum, or choose your church, or whatever other right I might want to disallow for you, then neither does government have this right

I'm expressing my opinion here, not asking to make a law out of what think.

Not that it should be illegal

But the only remedy is government, right?

Please show me where I said this? did you even read the part that said "Not that it should be illegal"? I never suggested more government was the answer.

Why point out that some people are irresponsible dolts when it is irrelevant?

I was never trying to say they should not have the right to in the first place, only that it makes me nervous. Again, I'm expressing my opinion here, not asking to make a law out of what think.

These are safeguards against revolution. Revolution is deadly.

I'm not sure I understand?? I would considered them enablers of Revolution, as they give us the ability to Revolt against the current government.

[aardwolf]

Yesterday she was mentioning some places on her route and knowing the part of town she is going to be in (East Austin), I immediately thought "you need to take the gun". But of course, she has no CHL and could not carry it outside the car! Many of the places she must visit are 51% establishments

Even if she gets a CHL, she can't carry in a 51% establishment. You should sign her up for the 10/3 knife class at krtraining.com and she should carry OC whether or not she gets a CHL.

It would probably take 4+ months for her to get her CHL since she lives in the same county as I do (obviously) and I am hovering around day 100 and have not yet completed the background checks.

Take a look at the FL license. They have quicker processing and easier training requirement than Texas. She can get a FL license quicker than a CHL and much quicker than changing the laws.

[flintknapper]

Even if she gets a CHL, she can't carry in a 51% establishment. You should sign her up for the 10/3 knife class at krtraining.com and she should carry OC whether or not she gets a CHL.

Yup!

[fm2]

You should sign her up for the 10/3 knife class at krtraining.com and she should carry OC whether or not she gets a CHL.

Excellent advice, maybe it will be accepted.

Seems like I suggested the small fixed blade knife back in June, and got a

wow

for my recommendation.

[03Lightningrocks]

Have her get the Utah permit. It cost about half as much and gets to her in about 60 days. No shooting test and a half day of class. I had my son do this so he could carry as soon as possible.

[KD5NRH]

I'm really not that passionate about the issue. There's nothing I can do about it, and in fact there is precious little any of us could do about it even if 100% of all CHL holders were in absolute agreement and formed their own PAC. That's still like 1% of the population and as Charles has astutely pointed out, there are absolute political barriers to enacting any meaningful (that is, non-incremental) changes in the current CHL scheme.

1.5% of the voting age population as of 11/2006, and potentially 2% of registered voters, (assuming all CHL holders are registered to vote) to be precise. On the other hand, the actual turnout for the 2006 gubernatorial election was 655,919. 258,162 CHL holders would have been a significant chunk of that.

Assuming no CHL holders voted that year, adding them would have increased the number to 914,081, with 28% of the total being CHL holders. Assuming all CHL holders voted that year, they would have comprised 39% of the total turnout. The actual number would lie somewhere in between, though I would expect it to be towards the high side.

It's hardly political suicide to appease 28-39% of the potential turnout on a single issue. In a two way race, it could be a major deciding factor, and in a three or more way race, it could be the only deciding factor.