TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

I, me , and mine are not part of the culture that needs fixing.

That's like saying you live in the water but you're not wet.

anygunanywhere wrote:The parts that need fixing are not going to be fixed by schooling and book learning.

Then don't complain when nothing changes to suit your view.

baldeagle wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

I, me , and mine are not part of the culture that needs fixing.

That's like saying you live in the water but you're not wet.

anygunanywhere wrote:The parts that need fixing are not going to be fixed by schooling and book learning.

Then don't complain when nothing changes to suit your view.

The part of the culture that needs fixing is the part where children are instilled with proper conscience formation, the understanding of what is right and wrong. Discipline. Respect. This is taught at home. We should not rely on schools to teach this, especially now since the schools are generally cesspools of communist thought.

That was what I meant by book learning not being the answer. Well, all books except one.

Mine were brought up that way.

Anygunanywhere

I don't have a take a class, qualify, get a permit in order to buy a firearm.

I don't have a take a class, qualify, get a permit in order to carry a firearm in my vehicle under the Motorist Protection Act.

Then I shouldn't have to take a class, qualify, get a permit in order to carry a firearm on my person.

Beiruty wrote:<SNIP>

It is true it is right, a 2ndA right for all. However, would you allow an "insane person" to have access to firearms? Simply not. Same, for 4 yrs old kid, you would not hand him a loaded 1911.

Straw man. There is due process by which a person can be stripped of their liberty. "Insane" being a legal term and not medical, is adjudicated by a court and a judge. So no, an "insane" person would be precluded by law from carrying and has nothing to do with advocacy of the 2A or the arguments for it.

Few 4 year olds could hold a "loaded 1911" but again, straw man; the argument is about the government requiring fees and licensing therein imposing a "privilege" where a natural right exists. Not whether 4 year old children should be holding a loaded 1911 and it certainly does not follow that a person advocating unlicensed and therefore "constitutional" carry is advocating that the insane or violent felons should be allowed to carry.

Dragonfighter wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The second amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms must cost money and require you to carry a piece of paper or plastic with you.

Wait! No it doesn't!

Anygunanywhere

This. I just love it when members of our community say that they would require more "hoops" if it were up to them. If I haven't forfeited the right to self defense by being a violent felon, I should not be restricted from self defense by arbitrary "requirements" even if I am infirm or stupid.

To me it smacks of elitism when I hear someone acting a as if they believe they are the member of a special club by carrying a firearm. LOL... It is naive to think a ten hour class is going to somehow make one person more qualified to enjoy a constitutional right than others. Quite frankly... I find the whole concept of jumping through hoops repugnant. But... As I have posted before. I hold my nose and go through it, not because I feel honored but because they make me.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:The second amendment clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms must cost money and require you to carry a piece of paper or plastic with you.

Wait! No it doesn't!

Anygunanywhere

This. I just love it when members of our community say that they would require more "hoops" if it were up to them. If I haven't forfeited the right to self defense by being a violent felon, I should not be restricted from self defense by arbitrary "requirements" even if I am infirm or stupid.

To me it smacks of elitism when I hear someone acting a as if they believe they are the member of a special club by carrying a firearm. LOL... It is naive to think a ten hour class is going to somehow make one person more qualified to enjoy a constitutional right than others. Quite frankly... I find the whole concept of jumping through hoops repugnant. But... As I have posted before. I hold my nose and go through it, not because I feel honored but because they make me.

Very well said.