TexasCHLforum.com

Using the derogatory label "uneducated redneck" is similar to using the "n-word". Well educated people would know this and refrain from it's use.

Jasonw560 wrote:Thanks. I'm 40, married almost 11 years, and I still don't understand women.

Hoi, thanks for putting it like that. I will definiitely bring up cornered cat, too.

HOI maybe hit it on the head. You don't have a gun problem, you have a wife problem.

Marriage should be a two way street...that's what I told all of my wives.

Oldgringo wrote:
Marriage should be a two way street...that's what I told all of my wives.

It is. Her way or the highway.

I am married to a fairly liberal, beautiful Asian woman who doesn't exctly agree with me carrying but chalks it up to, "boys will be boys."

Her dad was down this weekend, and was his first visit to TX. He caught me putting my glock IWB one morning and started zapping me with questions. He is a very liberal, legal immigrant, and said that "you say everyone in Texas carries, but your the only one I have seen." He walks back into the living room where my grandpa, two cousins, and brother are sitting. They all raise their shirts to show grips of an array of handguns. Chaching**

By the way, I hold a BA in biochemistry, and consider myself educated :) And for the record, my wife is a pharmacist and her dad is a college professor- PHD in mechanical engineering. I'm out educated, and a redneck. Fail.

Education or economic level does not play an important varible. The ablity to pass the background checks and the historic record of the few people with a CHL proves the quality of the individual.
The sad truth is that the 2nd amendment is only available for people of certain economic excesses. The numbers of CHL holders in poor neighborhoods dramaticaly decreases due to the cost of guns, training, and the license.

I think that the original point of the post has been proven. That is, many people who are college educated and have good jobs also have CHLs.

WildBill wrote:I think that the original point of the post has been proven. That is, many people who are college educated and have good jobs also have CHLs.

Yes, yes it has. And this is something I already knew. I thank each and every one of you.

If I ruffled any feathers, I apologize.

Jasonw560 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:
Marriage should be a two way street...that's what I told all of my wives.

It is. Her way or the highway.

We must be married to the same woman.

kjolly wrote:The sad truth is that the 2nd amendment is only available for people of certain economic excesses. The numbers of CHL holders in poor neighborhoods dramatically decreases due to the cost of guns, training, and the license.

I fear you are correct. It can be a financial hardship for a family of working class status to come up with the funds needed for the class and the cost of the license. Add in a 500 dollar weapon plus ammo for practice and you are approaching 800-900 dollars to exercise your rights.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

kjolly wrote:The sad truth is that the 2nd amendment is only available for people of certain economic excesses. The numbers of CHL holders in poor neighborhoods dramatically decreases due to the cost of guns, training, and the license.

I fear you are correct. It can be a financial hardship for a family of working class status to come up with the funds needed for the class and the cost of the license. Add in a 500 dollar weapon plus ammo for practice and you are approaching 800-900 dollars to exercise your rights.

That's the problem with the Constitution. It's all negative rights...

- Can't infringe your RKBA
- Can't unreasonably search or seize
- Can't restrict your "free exercise thereof (religion)"
etc.

What about positive rights?

- Right to a free or subsidized gun.
- Right to free training.
- Right decent target shooting access.
- Right to housing.
- Right to decent health care.

We need people of certain economic excesses...to pay a little bit more, so that people can have access to guns, and the ability to carry them. We need a comprehensive benefit for the ~100 million "ungunned". We need to protect our seniors and autistic childrens' right to guns....er sorry, health care. Why can only the fortunate (i.e. lucky) afford guns?

snatchel wrote: "you say everyone in Texas carries, but your the only one I have seen." He walks back into the living room where my grandpa, two cousins, and brother are sitting. They all raise their shirts to show grips of an array of handguns. Chaching**

thats awesome!

edit to add: I was helping put an event together when someone needed a knife. I pulled out my SOG visionary 2, which is a pretty decent sized knife. (borrowed a pic for size)


The guy's eyes got wide and he said "good lord! do you have a gun too?".

I just laughed.

I always pull out my Cold Steel Voyager when I or someone else needs a knife.

My boss told me one day, "Put that way...weapons aren't allowed here" which I know isn't true, since there is no hospital policy against them.

ScottDLS wrote:We need people of certain economic excesses...to pay a little bit more, so that people can have access to guns, and the ability to carry them. We need a comprehensive benefit for the ~100 million "ungunned". We need to protect our seniors and autistic childrens' right to guns....er sorry, health care. Why can only the fortunate (i.e. lucky) afford guns?

A large part of the cost is the government's requirements on training and licensing, which also means babysitting costs, loss of income, travel expenses, certification ammo, photograph printing, instruction fees, and other direct and indirect costs that the government is placing as a burden on those wanting to have a CHL. I am happy that the government has a reduced cost fee structure for those who can prove poverty. The government's requirements still place a disproportionate burden on the poor through the indirect costs related to complying with the government standards that can be too burdensome for many of the most vulnerable to be able to handle. Comparing a complaint about the cost to promotion of socialized healthcare is not an accurate comparison.

Setting aside the issue of philosophical purity and legal consistency (pie in the sky ideal), it does not make sense that they require standardized training. If you can pass the written and shooting tests, what does it matter if you learned it by browsing this forum for a few months off and on, by your mother tutoring you, by absorbing it from time spent shooting in a competition league, by studying the DPS materials from their website, by attending a CHL class, or any combination of the above? Getting rid of the precise training requirements and instead focusing on the end result (mastery of content), they better address the actual concern while they decrease the burden on women, minorities, and the poor. LightingRocks's pointing out an excessive burden does not mean he was advocating for gun welfare. There are other legitimate ways of addressing the problem.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:We need people of certain economic excesses...to pay a little bit more, so that people can have access to guns, and the ability to carry them. We need a comprehensive benefit for the ~100 million "ungunned". We need to protect our seniors and autistic childrens' right to guns....er sorry, health care. Why can only the fortunate (i.e. lucky) afford guns?

A large part of the cost is the government's requirements on training and licensing, which also means babysitting costs, loss of income, travel expenses, certification ammo, photograph printing, instruction fees, and other direct and indirect costs that the government is placing as a burden on those wanting to have a CHL. I am happy that the government has a reduced cost fee structure for those who can prove poverty. The government's requirements still place a disproportionate burden on the poor through the indirect costs related to complying with the government standards that can be too burdensome for many of the most vulnerable to be able to handle. Comparing a complaint about the cost to promotion of socialized healthcare is not an accurate comparison.

Setting aside the issue of philosophical purity and legal consistency (pie in the sky ideal), it does not make sense that they require standardized training. If you can pass the written and shooting tests, what does it matter if you learned it by browsing this forum for a few months off and on, by your mother tutoring you, by absorbing it from time spent shooting in a competition league, by studying the DPS materials from their website, by attending a CHL class, or any combination of the above? Getting rid of the precise training requirements and instead focusing on the end result (mastery of content), they better address the actual concern while they decrease the burden on women, minorities, and the poor. LightingRocks's pointing out an excessive burden does not mean he was advocating for gun welfare. There are other legitimate ways of addressing the problem.

I posted a response but like this one better and it is what I was trying to say.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:We need people of certain economic excesses...to pay a little bit more, so that people can have access to guns, and the ability to carry them. We need a comprehensive benefit for the ~100 million "ungunned". We need to protect our seniors and autistic childrens' right to guns....er sorry, health care. Why can only the fortunate (i.e. lucky) afford guns?

A large part of the cost is the government's requirements on training and licensing, which also means babysitting costs, loss of income, travel expenses, certification ammo, photograph printing, instruction fees, and other direct and indirect costs that the government is placing as a burden on those wanting to have a CHL. I am happy that the government has a reduced cost fee structure for those who can prove poverty. The government's requirements still place a disproportionate burden on the poor through the indirect costs related to complying with the government standards that can be too burdensome for many of the most vulnerable to be able to handle. Comparing a complaint about the cost to promotion of socialized healthcare is not an accurate comparison.

Setting aside the issue of philosophical purity and legal consistency (pie in the sky ideal), it does not make sense that they require standardized training. If you can pass the written and shooting tests, what does it matter if you learned it by browsing this forum for a few months off and on, by your mother tutoring you, by absorbing it from time spent shooting in a competition league, by studying the DPS materials from their website, by attending a CHL class, or any combination of the above? Getting rid of the precise training requirements and instead focusing on the end result (mastery of content), they better address the actual concern while they decrease the burden on women, minorities, and the poor. LightingRocks's pointing out an excessive burden does not mean he was advocating for gun welfare. There are other legitimate ways of addressing the problem.

The fee reduction for those below the poverty line is an appropriate step to reduce the governmental burden on the exercise of CHL rights. However, as a practical matter the cost of the gun, ammunition, and some training/practice (legally mandated or otherwise) make up the bulk of the expense. Relief of requirements around the required CHL class standards photo/print fees, etc. would be nice, but realistically the gun, ammo, and practice are the limiting factors.

How do the current standards specifically increase the burden on women and minorities who are not poor? There are poor white men too...I think...

10 hours of minority person's time is more of burden than that of a non-minority's? Our kids don't need to be taken care of somehow when my male "life partner" is attending the CHL training, getting photo'ed, printed...