TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:OlBill,

They're not imported.

They come here of their own free will attempting to sway us into adopting their absurd, reality defying, anti-Constitutional, leftist ways and we, the deplorables are supposed to agree with them and acquiesce.

Never!

They remind me of the slow influx of islamist terrorists...

We must fight them tooth and nail.

I was being sarcastic. Having said that someone offered him the jobs.

Are we so short of jackasses in this state we have to import one from California?

I agree with the ideas of information campaigns and free training. Worthwhile uses of public funds in my opinion. But not as conditions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatl ... le/264449/

On yelling fire.

I like the prior restraint comment a lot. It boils down, in my opinion, to the difference between democracy and a republic and where the sovereignty lies.

At the end of the day, crimes cannot be prevented: only punished. And that is the purpose of laws. It is folly to believe otherwise in the face of such evidence to the contrary.

No law can make us safe, we have to do that for ourselves - as individuals.

Ruark wrote:

parabelum wrote:Because you posed a question based upon a reducto ad absurdum argument. Thanks for the invite, but I will not follow you into rabbit hole, respectfully of course.

Yet, the question has merit. Even if we allow the example of a 5 year old to be reducto ad absurdum, how about an 8 year old? A 12 year old? A college frat boy?

In any case, the concept of reducto ad absurdum has its counterpart: reasonableness. The point was well made that free speech is a different horse; speech won't accidentally blow your head off. I guess you're against the hunter safety course requirement for kids, too.

Who determines "reasonable"?

Caliber wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Caliber wrote:Well, I'm not for unlicensed carry for the following reason:

When I took my CHL class a long time ago, there was a woman in the class that could NOT handle a firearm. She struggled to load, fire, and couldn't hit the target half the time. She clearly had no business trying qualify for a CHL.

So, I can imagine that if unlicensed carry passes, there would be some people that would go buy a gun and not learn how to use it which puts themselves in danger as well as you and me. With required licensing, at least of those idiots are weeded out.

Those "idiots' have the same Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as anyone else. They "should" take the responsibility to be properly trained with firearms, but it should not be mandated by the government. No other Constitutional right, requires, proving that you know how to exercise it properly.

The constitution does not discriminate by age or mental capacity either. So, using your argument, is it OK for a 5-year old child to "bear arms"? I don't think applying some reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment is unreasonable.

"Reasonable" - normative morality.

Liberty wrote: The reference in the 2nd amendment to "a well regulated militia" is about training. At least to me it does, I think while it is claims that we have a right to arm ourselves there is a suggestion that we should be trained and prepared to use them. While I won't suggest that the 2nd amendment demands that we all need CHLs and training. I think that the militia reference suggests that we should not only be armed but well trained.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

The militia exists because of the right, not vice versa.