Cedar Park Dad wrote:libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?
They may own guns, but I would bet that a lot of those that are pushing for registration and the ultimate confiscation own them. Shoot, Diane Feinstein owns them and had a carry permit. She wants to take ours away but she THINKS she is immune, an elite.
THAT is the hypocrisy that makes them libtards. They deserve the term.
Having an "elitist attitude" is one of the things i think cost State Sen. John Carona his job last
time the elections rolled around.
Beiruty wrote:
I for one feel mandating training and learning the laws of use of deadly force in order to carry in the public (OC or CC) is not a bad idea.
Take the bolded out and I would agree with you whole-heartedly...
How about instead of "mandate", providing free training, ammo, and teaching the laws of the use of deadly force?
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
Beiruty wrote:
I for one feel mandating training and learning the laws of use of deadly force in order to carry in the public (OC or CC) is not a bad idea.
Take the bolded out and I would agree with you whole-heartedly...
How about instead of "mandate", providing free training, ammo, and teaching the laws of the use of deadly force?
The problem is, none of this is free. Somebody is getting paid to provide the training, and someone is paying them. Someone is paying for the facility. Someone is paying for the electricity and air conditioning (this IS Texas). Etc., etc., etc. I just don't like it when people say something is free, because NOTHING in life is free. When we use the word, we deceive ourselves, and "free" is behind a large part of the national disintegration.
I think it is much better if we say, "the state will provide training, ammo, teaching, etc., and here is how it will be paid for." ONLY then can we have a rational discussion about whether or not this is a good idea.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
Let me explain, we all went through CHL course, came here as fast as we can and dwelled on this forum to learn the ins and outs of the firearms and the use of deadly force laws. In addition, we spent many hours, training at the range, competing at matches, and seeking defense use of firearms training so we do not act like that stupid old man who shot a person over loud music disagreement.
In my heritage, carrying personal weapon is recommended, it is a huge responsibility too. It is the sign of manhood where kids become men when they are trusted with deadly force. It is the responsibility to train and being proficient in the weapon you carry. It is the responsibility to defend yourself, your beloved ones, and your property. It is the responsibility to be an aid for the victim, to defend the weak against the tyrant and the criminal who would inflict grave harm on the defenseless.
So, how come some are against making sure that those who would like to carry a deadly weapon are responsible enough shouldering this great burden?
There are a lot of crazy people in the society,
There are a lot of people who are on bipolar meds and walking among us,
There are a lot of people who never touched a pistol and would like to carry,
There are a lot of people who think that if someone start yelling at them, they can pull a gun and shoot the bully,
There are a lot of people who do not know when deadly force is justified,
One could say that most likely anyone who would like to OC or CC without a license would at least have a basic shooting training at the range. However, I am certain virtually none would have a clue about Chapter 46 of the Taxes statues.
We see all the time good shoot and bad shoot, and bad shoot would end one in the jail for a lifetime.
One has to understand, the unjustified use of deadly force could result in a dead person and one jailed for life. Both are a tragedy.
In a nutshell, this is why I think that asking for, providing the knowledge of the law, and basic firearm training is not a bad idea.
Otherwise, we rely on the good judgment and responsibility of the people to seek what was mentioned above.
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
Beiruty wrote:Otherwise, we rely on the good judgment and responsibility of the people to seek what was mentioned above.
A return to Personal Responsibility is the solution. No amount of State intervention is going to give one Personal Responsibility and good judgment. The actions of the State are more inclined to destroy Personal Responsibility and good judgment.
Many Americans have carried arms for centuries and never killed someone who didn't need killing. No "accidental discharges". Firearms were always loaded around children and those children never shot anyone. My father leaned his dad's Winchester against the back of the wall of the schoolhouse right next to all the other rifles to attend class in a one room building that was also a church on Sunday. All the boys hunted before and after school. If you didn't hunt, you didn't eat where my father grew up. Even that basic personal responsibility has been removed by the State. You don't work? No worries we will feed you by stealing from your neighbor.
I like that Chicago guys T Shirt. "I'm a Man. Don't I need a gun" No sir you don't. The solution is 911.
We now look to the State for solutions to the problems they alone created. How crazy is that?
rbwhatever1 wrote:The actions of the State are more inclined to destroy Personal Responsibility and good judgment.
I'm going to quibble with this sentence and say that it would be more accurate if "more inclinced" was changed to "intended" or "designed." There have been too many decades of the State destroying personal responsibility to assume any longer that it is an unintended consequence.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Progressives ( aka "libtards" ) proudly boast an amazing ability to continually raise the bar in the art form of confounding, convoluting, and corrupting logic.
Footnote: Just because a progressive admits to owning a gun.....don't assume for a minute that they think YOU should.
Remember Wendy Davis coming out in support of open carry................?
rbwhatever1 wrote:The actions of the State are more inclined to destroy Personal Responsibility and good judgment.
I'm going to quibble with this sentence and say that it would be more accurate if "more inclinced" was changed to "intended" or "designed." There have been too many decades of the State destroying personal responsibility to assume any longer that it is an unintended consequence.
You are correct. If Society had no issues who would need the State? Always a "boogie man" just around the corner...
Bubbba, while there may be some and I say MAY be some liberal(democrats) that don't buy into the current philosophy they aren't a vocal majority. Most of the vocal majority of Liberals(dems or repubs) are constantly citing incomplete or adjusted statistics or just downright lying about the reality of firearm ownership and crime, they constantly espouse "common sense" laws "assault weapons' bans bans on "high capacity" magazines "enhanced background checks" "gun free zones" and licensing schemes that make it all but impossible to meet the requirements of the license. Of most of the Liberals I know that do own guns espouse many of the above ideas and are adamant about these and even more restrictive "common sense" gun laws including the gun show loophole must be in effect to control who can have a gun. Notice if you will the ONE word in that belief that eradicates all common sense and makes all the arguments moot, CONTROL, that's all its about controlling the populace of this and all other countries if we control the spice we control the universe and we decide what is god for everyone period
