TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:RPB, an observation:

I am probably a small minority, but I personally suffer from what is referred to as "Male Pattern Color Deficiency". It means that I can see various colors but I don't see them the way normal folks do, and in some respects is considered color-blindness. What that means is that your multi-colored posts drive me crazy.
This is in no way a personal attack, simply an observation.

//end observation

On the issue of CHL-holders being better shooters than LEO's. I imagine that you have made that observation because of the people that you prefer to hang out with. Based on your posts, I imagine that you have a lot of range time and range buddies. So from your point of view, your statement has some validity.
From a general point of view and observation from a pogue like myself who is at best an intermittent range kind-of-guy, the majority of folks that I observe and or know that have the opportunity to handle firearms are not all that proficient. So I would tend to disagree with you, as it is my belief that the bottom-line is that LEO's and CHL-holders are pretty much hit-and-miss (no pun intended) when it comes to who is good with a firearm, and who is not.

True hit and miss with any people.
The LEO I accompanied to the airport that time only went to the range once a year, but could knock a button off your shirt at 75 yards ... incredibly good eye/hand coordination and steadiness, always qualified better than the rest of the Dept.
Yeah, it's about individuals, not job titles or occupations.
I prefer good guys be armed in most places, to protect innocents from bad guys who are armed.
It baffles me why coffee shops or any business, or schools prefer to prohibit good guys from carrying tools to protect innocents.

Purplehood wrote:RPB, an observation:

I am probably a small minority, but I personally suffer from what is referred to as "Male Pattern Color Deficiency". It means that I can see various colors but I don't see them the way normal folks do, and in some respects is considered color-blindness. What that means is that your multi-colored posts drive me crazy.
This is in no way a personal attack, simply an observation.

//end observation

I suffer from the same syndrome, but ALAS, my doctor says that there is no cure.

WildBill wrote:

Purplehood wrote:RPB, an observation:

I am probably a small minority, but I personally suffer from what is referred to as "Male Pattern Color Deficiency". It means that I can see various colors but I don't see them the way normal folks do, and in some respects is considered color-blindness. What that means is that your multi-colored posts drive me crazy.
This is in no way a personal attack, simply an observation.

//end observation

I suffer from the same syndrome, but ALAS, my doctor says that there is no cure.

I love you too, WildBill!

Sorry bout that, just trying to:
1: relate answers in a reply to similary related comments/questions in a post as a method of organization
and
2) use every color before new years so none feel discriminated against nor left out

LOL

I'll try to cut back though.
All I have is male patterned baldness, but my beard is grey and hair on my head is brown ...
my dad's hair turned grey, mine's turning loose.

OMG. could be it's an obessive compulsive thing ... MAYBE I need counselling

RPB wrote:Sorry bout that, just trying to:
1: relate answers in a reply to similary related comments/questions in a post as a method of organization
and
2) use every color before new years so none feel discriminated against nor left out

LOL

I'll try to cut back though.
All I have is male patterned baldness, but my beard is grey and hair on my head is brown ...
my dad's hair turned grey, mine's turning loose.

OMG. could be it's an obessive compulsive thing ... MAYBE I need counselling

I quit trying to grow a beard. Whenever I do it doesn't match my hair color on the top of my noggin. I don't dye it, it just doesn't match. Do others have this problem?

I don't have the problem of not matching since white goes with almost anything, including bald. :) My former boss, however, was one of those with brown hair and a red beard. Rather than try to match the beard to his hair color, he dyed everything to a color that was close to his original hair color. Now everything matches and it isn't noticeable since it is so close to his regular hair color.

Purplehood wrote: On the issue of CHL-holders being better shooters than LEO's. I imagine that you have made that observation because of the people that you prefer to hang out with. Based on your posts, I imagine that you have a lot of range time and range buddies. So from your point of view, your statement has some validity.
From a general point of view and observation from a pogue like myself who is at best an intermittent range kind-of-guy, the majority of folks that I observe and or know that have the opportunity to handle firearms are not all that proficient. So I would tend to disagree with you, as it is my belief that the bottom-line is that LEO's and CHL-holders are pretty much hit-and-miss (no pun intended) when it comes to who is good with a firearm, and who is not.

I think much of this theory is based on reports from CHL shootings. There seems to be far fewer shots fired by the CHL with a much better hit:miss ratio than with many LE shootings.

Purplehood wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Purplehood wrote:RPB, an observation:
I am probably a small minority, but I personally suffer from what is referred to as "Male Pattern Color Deficiency". It means that I can see various colors but I don't see them the way normal folks do, and in some respects is considered color-blindness. What that means is that your multi-colored posts drive me crazy.
This is in no way a personal attack, simply an observation.

//end observation

I suffer from the same syndrome, but ALAS, my doctor says that there is no cure.

I love you too, WildBill!

Let's not get too personal here, okay?

I wouldn't go to the Red & Black Cafe anyway. I prefer organic cream or half-and-half with my coffee, not soy milk.

Good job guys. Y'all are quite right, we're here.

Let's find some other topic about which to bloviate.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bnc wrote:But of course these types of issues are so important to most people that they immediately jump to the use of government's force, funding by other people's money, to do their bidding. This is much too important for folks to get off of their own rear ends and do something with their own money; righteous indignation seems to come more easily when it requires no following effort.

Fine. Then I promise that I will never again drive over to Seattle (from DFW) to buy a cup of their commie coffee.

Are you suggesting that righteous indignation is out of place because that business is 2,122 miles from here? Please. People are entitled to their opinions, all of which are worth exactly what yours is worth. My worthless opinion is that people like the collectivist worker hive who own that coffee shop would not be able to have and express their opinions about collectivism, to be safe in their persons and their property, or to have any success in their enterprise, if it were not done on the backs of people like the cops they refuse service to, and on the backs of capitalist ship owners who sell them space on their capitalist ships to import their "fair market" coffee which they sell for a capitalist profit, etc., etc.

I'm not advocating government interference. I am advocating that they be allowed to die out just like every other bad idea. But that doesn't stop me from being righteously indignant at their lack of a moral center, which is based on a parochial attitude about economics, and which is demonstrated in discrimination against people about whom they know nothing.

My comments weren't directed at you or anyone else on this forum. It was aimed at those who would rather use the force of government (a force that is purely violent) to impose their particular values, including "social justice", "equality", and all of the other vague terms, on individuals rather than use their own efforts to influence society. It is easy to be righteous while the police, military, or whomever, are the ones actually imposing a particular policy. People who are willing to go out of their way to avoid a business who's values they do not agree with are doing exactly what they ought to do: exercise their right of free association without preventing others from doing the same.

Bïlly wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:BTW, a trained off duty LEO is not the same as a citizen with a CHL and a citizen with a CHL is definitely not the same as a trained off duty LEO. If CH licensees want to be LEO's they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

Thank you for talking common sense. A civilian with a hand gun license should be limited to having a pistol in their home, place of business, or a shooting range. There's no reason for a civilian to walk around in public with a pistol. If someone wants to strap a gun on their hip they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. Just like you said. Nobody except the police and military needs a pistol in public places.

I'm not sure citizens should have them in their places of business or homes either where people could get hurt. Perhaps a better solution is like Austrailia has where ALL privately owned firearms are stored AT the police Dept. When you want to go hunting or to a shooting range you check yours out, like at a library, then check it back in when finished. All you need is a day or so advance notice from the little street gangs and robbers that they'll be driving their car into your house and stabbing you with sizzors and chopping you with axes, or robbing your business so you can be prepared with bigger sizzors. Also, if the criminal who shot people at the airport had given advance notice he was going to be illegally carrying a gun, they would have been more prepared and checked their guns out at the Police Dept earlier. So, we really need a mandatory criminal training course program to advise them on giving proper notice of when they'll be attacking/robbing/murdering people. We also need better trained coral snakes, rattlesnakes, cottonmouths, moccasins, copperheads, rabid skunks and rabid bats, coyotes, bobcats and wild boar (isn't a "trained" "wild" animal an oxymoron?) People should NOT be allowed to check out their gun to go hunting and killing our furry freinds like Bambi's mom. Guns should ONLY be allowed to be checked out for properly scheduled self defense at appointed times ... (not after dark when the noise would bother anyone.)

I was seriously considering moving to Australia because they have a GREAT "FREE" Healthcare, but I didn't qualify for enough "immigration points" on their point system, unless I become a beautician (more points for job shortage areas) Also, the mayor of Adelaide outlawed possession of cats, because he liked birds ... now they obsess over bird flu ... Adelaide AU also had a 5-year cemetary plan where you can only lease, and after 5 years ... up you come, to make room for the next guy.

"Just like you said. Nobody except the police and military needs a pistol in public places"
I really don't think the Military should have them either ... look at what occurred at Fort Hood when a military guy had one ...
If that guy had more training on calling ahead and scheduling a time ...

But I digress, sorry for getting off topic again, but at least I refrained from over-colorization this time.

If posting satrically or sardonically, it's a good idea to use smileys so people know, I assume you already know that no CHL is required at home, place of business, or a shooting range ...

Bïlly wrote:A civilian with a hand gun license should be limited to having a pistol in their home, place of business, or a shooting range. There's no reason for a civilian to walk around in public with a pistol.

I'm trying to find something to post that won't get deleted but I'm coming up short.

Bïlly wrote: Thank you for talking common sense. A civilian with a hand gun license should be limited to having a pistol in their home, place of business, or a shooting range. There's no reason for a civilian to walk around in public with a pistol. If someone wants to strap a gun on their hip they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. Just like you said. Nobody except the police and military needs a pistol in public places.

Billy,

Your profile lists nothing about you while your above third post on this forum speaks volumes. Comments such as the above, while allowed by our Constitutiion, will not win friends on this CHL forum. If it is attention that you are seeking, you have found a way to get it.

bnc wrote:My comments weren't directed at you or anyone else on this forum.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I'm a grumpy old poop, aren't I?

Bïlly wrote: Thank you for talking common sense. A civilian with a hand gun license should be limited to having a pistol in their home, place of business, or a shooting range. There's no reason for a civilian to walk around in public with a pistol. If someone wants to strap a gun on their hip they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. Just like you said. Nobody except the police and military needs a pistol in public places.

You sound suspicously like another person:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

* Heinrich Himmler, head of the Waffen SS