testtest

Texas Does It Again!

iklwa

iklwa

Master Class
www.breitbart.com

Texas on Verge of Becoming 21st Constitutional Carry State

The Texas Senate followed the Texas House's lead and passed legislation to abolish the state's concealed permit requirement this week.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

There was once a time where if a person was caught carrying a handgun under cover, he was thought immediately to be up to no good because only the Bad Guys did that.

As the times changed and the Yankee carpet baggers made their way across the fruited plain, it became uncomfortable for the creeps to be around so many openly armed, law-abiding citizens. They were now accused of “spoiling for a fight” and cajoled into believing the police would protect them and there was “no need” for the personal ownership of firearms. Slowly laws changed to prevent citizens from openly carrying their arms. Of course, laws were also passed to prevent citizens from carrying their arms concealed too!

Now, the criminals (those previously named carpet baggers) were free to predate on normal citizens at their leisure without fear of being shot.

It would appear that after a hundred years or more of this nonsense, we are slowly returning to our senses and once again allowing the law-abiding to protect their own loved-ones, property, and lives without getting permission from a non-existent law enforcement agency.

You will note: There have been no on-going riots in Texas where citizens are being threatened by BLM terrorists with guns.

Do ya have to ask why?
 
...to carry a handgun for the protection of themselves or their families, in public places, in a holster,...
Click to expand...
It's sad that they needed to put that in the law, but that's indeed a public safety concern - morons that carry in pockets or waistband without proper holsters and end up with a negligent discharge.
Anyway, good for Texas, it's not all corrupted... like Austin.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Constitutional carry does not invalidate stupidity. Lots of folks that want to carry a sidearm NEED training badly. I think to carry, one should be required to take a basic fundamentals of handgun class
Click to expand...
Used to be "PA" taught it or another family member or good friend taught training out in vacant fields....Now?
Sort of like a warped version of Beverly Hillbillies? Sadly, "City life" has it's perks, but sometimes also it's drawbacks?
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Constitutional carry does not invalidate stupidity. Lots of folks that want to carry a sidearm NEED training badly. I think to carry, one should be required to take a basic fundamentals of handgun class
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. We've had this exact conversation here 5 million times already so I ain't getting any further into it, other than to say there are several states with all kinds of "Training" regulation requirements before you can exercise your god given rights.
 
SoNic said:
It's sad that they needed to put that in the law, but that's indeed a public safety concern - morons that carry in pockets or waistband without proper holsters and end up with a negligent discharge.
Anyway, good for Texas, it's not all corrupted... like Austin.
Click to expand...
I'm a moron. Been carrying in the right front pocket for years, no holster. Have a barrel loop installed in the pocket to keep it in place.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Constitutional carry does not invalidate stupidity. Lots of folks that want to carry a sidearm NEED training badly. I think to carry, one should be required to take a basic fundamentals of handgun class
Click to expand...
But that should be a personal responsibility to be taken upon by each individual. Much like operating a chainsaw, if you do not know what you are doing, it is your responsibility to learn, before doing so.
 
Bassbob said:
I couldn't disagree more. We've had this exact conversation here 5 million times already so I ain't getting any further into it, other than to say there are several states with all kinds of "Training" regulation requirements before you can exercise your god given rights.
Click to expand...

Twisted meanings maybe misinterpreted? Thoughts maybe same?
"Should" and "Shall" are two different words and meanings.
Should basically means maybe or possibly.
Shall is more definite means you will or must.
Either way, is an infringement. Likely darned good ideas though?
In some ways is like: Which comes 1st? Chicken or the egg? Guess what, it doesn't matter? - Safety 1st matters.

Simply put: Federal or state governments do not actually have the right to enforce firearm or safety training or to state/say or enforce who may or may not own or use firearms according to 2nd Amendment. It's an infringement to Our 2nd Amendment Rights. Government taking over individual rights in this country is simply wrong. If our legal system was actually just it would reflect that and not the biases?

Someone who abuses those rights should be prosecuted for crime committed, firearms or not, while the right to own or possess firearms should be mute because it is every citizen of this country right to bear arms.

Where and how is also an infringement. Good or not in some peoples minds, there is a right for every person/citizen to bear arms in this country wherever they choose without stipulation or infringement. Doesn't mean they must carry or use firearms, only that they have the right to do so if they choose. Denying that right to choose is also an infringement.
 
Bassbob said:
I couldn't disagree more. We've had this exact conversation here 5 million times already so I ain't getting any further into it, other than to say there are several states with all kinds of "Training" regulation requirements before you can exercise your god given rights.
Click to expand...
90% of folks at the gun range are horrible at using a firearm. Heaven forbid they attempt to use it in public.
I’ll stop right there before I say stuff I shouldn't

edit: texans born after Sept 1971 are required to have a hunters educational safety class to have a hunting license in Texas. Same should be for carry. A safety/shoot class of basic 101.

no need to register your gun or person with the state, but you should be able to have a safety card similar to hunters Ed.
 
Last edited:
KillerFord1977 said:
Agree, but some sort of class should be recommended. A drivers license needs mandated training. A firearm should as well.
Click to expand...

So you are arguing for more government mandated rules in order for someone to exercise a constitutional right which was codified by our founding fathers with no such stipulation? Interesting.

Of course training should be recommended.

The fact is no small number of cops on any given shooting range are horrible. And they presumably "Qualified". Do you suppose some state mandated firearm course would somehow exceed that? Is there a test? Maybe there should be. And maybe a test to vote as well.

It's also worth noting that driving is a privilege not a right.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
90% of folks at the gun range are horrible at using a firearm. Heaven forbid they attempt to use it in public.
I’ll stop right there before I say stuff I shouldn't

edit: texans born after Sept 1971 are required to have a hunters educational safety class to have a hunting license in Texas. Same should be for carry. A safety/shoot class of basic 101.

no need to register your gun or person with the state, but you should be able to have a safety card similar to hunters Ed.
Click to expand...
I like your idea in principal; however, these cards are always tied to your drivers' license. Governments, being what they are, find it impossible to not track and record individuals' behaviors for future reference.
I would much prefer firearms safety courses be given to EVERYONE in Junior and then Senior High school settings. The cards could be issued independently of ID and only need be shown when purchasing hunting licenses.
 
Simply put: Federal or state governments do not actually have the right to enforce firearm or safety training or to state/say or enforce who may or may not own or use firearms according to 2nd Amendment. It's an infringement to Our 2nd Amendment Rights. Government taking over individual rights in this country is simply wrong. If our legal system was actually just it would reflect that and not the biases?

I couldn't disagree more. We've had this exact conversation here 5 million times already so I ain't getting any further into it, other than to say there are several states with all kinds of "Training" regulation requirements before you can exercise your god given rights.

This is the most rewarding aspect of this forum to me. One can get many legitimate views, then read a post that has the purest interpretation of the Constitution (or the issue) and come away with a more solid position, better worded than myself might have stated. Thanks guys.

While many folks should and could use instruction/training to raise their level of expertise (in many things) it sure as hell is not the Governments function to set the standard or administer approval. Better to face the possible incompetence of an individual than the certain incompetence (and abuse) of Government.
 
Bassbob said:
So you are arguing for more government mandated rules in order for someone to exercise a constitutional right which was codified by our founding fathers with no such stipulation? Interesting.

Of course training should be recommended.

The fact is no small number of cops on any given shooting range are horrible. And they presumably "Qualified". Do you suppose some state mandated firearm course would somehow exceed that? Is there a test? Maybe there should be. And maybe a test to vote as well.

It's also worth noting that driving is a privilege not a right.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
BobM said:
Federal or state governments do not actually have the right to enforce firearm or safety training or to state/say or enforce who may or may not own or use firearms according to 2nd Amendment. It's an infringement to Our 2nd Amendment Rights. Government taking over individual rights in this country is simply wrong. If our legal system was actually just it would reflect that and not the biases?
Click to expand...
C. Sumpin said:
Simply put: Federal or state governments do not actually have the right to enforce firearm or safety training or to state/say or enforce who may or may not own or use firearms according to 2nd Amendment. It's an infringement to Our 2nd Amendment Rights.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, your freedom stops where it infringes others. That's where "safety" comes in play.
The system allows the safety of MANY to direct restrictions of ONE, when the PEOPLE decided that is indeed warranted (by laws made in Congress).

Example:
The liberty of MANY to drive on the street without fear of being killed by another driver imposed driving laws and driving licenses on INDIVIDUALS and allowed cops to detain people for infraction of that driving law.
 
SoNic said:
On the other hand, your freedom stops where it infringes others. That's where "safety" comes in play.
The system allows the safety of MANY to direct restrictions of ONE, when the PEOPLE decided that is indeed warranted (by laws made in Congress).

Example:
The liberty of MANY to drive on the street without fear of being killed by another driver imposed driving laws and driving licenses on INDIVIDUALS and allowed cops to detain people for infraction of that driving law.
Click to expand...
C. Sumpin said:
Simply put: Federal or state governments do not actually have the right to enforce firearm or safety training or to state/say or enforce who may or may not own or use firearms according to 2nd Amendment. It's an infringement to Our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Clarification:

SoNic: Though I agree with the statement, the above is not my quote; rather a quote from another poster that I used in my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top