Newspaper Article: "Gun-toting liberals and getting a C

[dpatterson]

Nice little article, better than most, from a Liberal Columnist in our local paper. Good to see some of them are at least open to the idea of self protection.

http://www.lufkindailynews.com/opin/con ... rders.html

By GARY BORDERS
The Lufkin Daily News

Sunday, June 10, 2007

AUSTIN — My buddy Frank and I are sitting bleary-eyed in a Masonic Lodge at 7 a.m. on a Saturday in Leander, which used to be 25 miles northwest of River City before folks started gobbling up all the country for subdivisions. Now Leander is Extremely North Austin.

A dozen or so of us have gathered to take a 12-hour concealed handgun class, taught by a duly certified instructor. We will learn the laws concerning concealed handguns — when it's legal or not to use deadly force; a primer on anger management; the difference between a semi-automatic and a revolver; and several stories about the instructor's wife and grandchildren. Eleven hours of talking is a large hole to fill, after all. We'll actually get to shoot for just an hour or so.

Frank is my longest-tenured friend. We met 36 years ago while volunteering at a Longview crisis hotline manned by teens who had no business counseling themselves, let alone anyone else. The males became involved in hopes of meeting girls who would overlook their inherent nerdiness and raging acne, and actually be attracted — even if only briefly — to a guy with the sensitivity to listen to someone on the phone engulfed in teen angst.

Actually, this approach sort-of worked, but that's another story. I'm here to talk about gun-toting liberals. I am a GTL, as is Frank. We're designing a T-shirt; e-mail me to place an advance order.

Make no mistake. I'm a liberal. If that was an option I could check on the census form, I'd do it. I realize in these parts that may be a minority opinion, but that's the great thing about being a liberal. We are absolutely in favor of people having minority opinions! Not so sure that's the case with a lot of conservatives I run across.

Given this liberal caveat, I am also a strong backer of the Second Amendment, though not as rigidly as my conservative friends. I am close to a First Amendment absolutist. Since the Second Amendment deals with bullets instead of words, I am a bit more cautious. Someone could get hurt. And you couldn't talk me into joining the NRA if you put a gun to my head. Well, maybe then.

I've shot guns since my dad took me out plinking with his single-shot Remington .22 rifle when I was a squirt. Hunting never appealed to me, because I don't like to kill animals, really don't want to cut them up, and anyway have evolved into a quasi-vegan lately. I've quit eating mammals — strictly fish and fowl these days — and often no meat at all. This does not make me a better person, but maybe it will lower my cholesterol.

So the only things I shoot are targets and cans, with one of three handguns I own. And I have a half-century old Remington 16-gauge Sportsman 48 shotgun I take out occasionally to try shattering clay pigeons, with limited success.

Anyway, Frank and I decided to take the CHL class. I travel a lot on weekends and feel safer carrying a handgun in my car. I may be a liberal, but I intend to protect myself if necessary.

A few observations about this CHL process:

n Folks who go through the hoops required to get the permit are extremely unlikely to use a gun in an inappropriate manner. The background checks are thorough, and the number of incidents involving CHL holders going postal or robbing liquor stores is miniscule. The knotheads buying handguns on the street pose the greater risk.

n Anybody with a clean record and the forbearance — or padding — to survive sitting in a hard-bottomed chair for 12 hours can pass the classroom portion of the course. I made a 98 on the test; Frank made a 100. (He's always been an overachiever.) I'm pretty sure I would have made a 90 without ever taking the class; 70 or better is passing.

n Though being legally blind is a hindrance to holding a CHL, it wouldn't stop one from passing the shooting portion of the test. It's ridiculously easy. Anyone who can't pass that portion probably shouldn't be driving. (I will modestly say here that I had a perfect score and beat Frank. We're a bit competitive that way.)

I now hold a CHL, having passed the background check with flying colors, even after being fingerprinted. I went to a gun show with Frank a few weeks ago and bought a lightweight .357 Smith and Wesson five-shooter to carry in the car when traveling.

It was my first gun show. I immediately noticed how polite everyone was; it pays to be civil when surrounded by that much firepower. I bought a bumper sticker that made me chuckle, given my line of work: "If guns kill people, then do pencils misspell words?"

Wish I could blame the pencil, largely replaced these days by the keyboard. Especially when the e-mails start pouring in from NRA members. And non-GTLs.

[Venus Pax]

That's a good article. It reminds us that not all gun owners and supporters of RKBA think the same way.

[shootthesheet]

All he seemed to do was to say the class was useless and the test was too easy. I agree it was just long and not difficult. For me, I read the book thru a few times though. I would imagine he did the same. That reason alone was enough to make it less hard if not easy. I also was a shooter before going to the class. I knew how to hit the target. I think the class is as long as it is for those who do nothing more than show up.

I am glad some liberal types are getting CHLs. Smart. They shouldn't have a problem because the entire process of purchasing the right to carry is as leftist an idea as can be conceived. The only reason most Conservatives I know except it is for the legal protections it provides. That is as long as we do exactly the right thing inside the confines of the law. It seems to me, with as much government intrusion as CHL provides, more liberals/Liberals and other Leftists would jump for the ability to defend themselves from the BIG, BAD, CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY that has so repressed their ability to say and do what they want without restriction. I see the article as ambiguous at best and, hostile to the process for not being more restrictive in order to keep the less elite among the population out. That is my opinion. It could be that I am just so Conservative that anytime a Liberal expresses themselves I automatically go into Thug Mode to keep them from giving their opinion though.

[dpatterson]

But you know, I will take ambiguous articles from Liberals over the constant slamming that we usually get. : ) When I read the title I was worried that the article would be another one of those slams.

I think the saying should be for all liberal columnist...

"If you cannot say anything mean about the Conservatives, do not say anything nice"

DP

[doublepush]

I know the place; I used the same instructor. Darn straight, he likes to talk a lot of stories. But a lot of them are related to CHL issues... kinda like the lessons learned here as we comment on situations. Too bad the writer didn't mention that part. The instructor was very well versed in CHL law, a fact slightly betrayed by the "duly certified instructor" bit. I see that phrase as intended to make the instructor's certification into more of a rubber stamp than a seal of approval.

-Brent

[stevie_d_64]

So you can't be hurt by something said under the First Amendment???

- That just kinda lept out at me just now...I need to think about that for a while...

I believe words can eventually be parlayed into policies that can hurt people...But thats just my knee-jerk reaction...

[frankie_the_yankee]

So you can't be hurt by something said under the First Amendment???

- That just kinda lept out at me just now...I need to think about that for a while...

I believe words can eventually be parlayed into policies that can hurt people...But thats just my knee-jerk reaction...

Something about, "The pen is mightier than the sword.", hey?

[jimlongley]

Wrote a reply to him congratulating him for receiving permission from the state to avail himself of a right and wondering how he would feel about similar licensing for the First.

[Rex B]

Jim, I like that. I hope you post his reply, if any.

[nitrogen]

About licensing a "right":

I actually am not against the CHL class and the background check at all. I AM against the $150 government fee on allowing the state of Texas to allow me my rights.

As far as the "liberal" moniker, I think you guys are being too hard on him.
The shooting test IS easy, but it does serve its purpose. Anyone that can handle a gun properly can pass the shooting test. One person in my group failed the test; so I know it IS possible.

Remember, everyone: Liberals aren't necessarily your enemy. Gun Grabbers are. Paul Helmke is a Republican, so is John Mccain. John Dingell is a Democrat.

Be welcoming to the Liberals, into "our fold", make them feel welcome. We need as many people on "our" side as possible. Feel free to telll 'em they are wrong on Abortion or Illegal Immigration, but welcome them to the camp that realises what the 2nd amendment really is.

[shootthesheet]

nitrogen,

I agree that we should welcome everyone who chooses to take on the great responsibility to carry a concealed handgun. You are right. I don't think that was the point of him writing the article though. I think he wrote it to tell people it was too easy and should be made harder. Liberal writers use this ambiguity, from much of what I have read, to try to get the idea across that they want to push. That is just what I saw as his point. I could be totally off but he wouldn't be the first to do it.

As far as Elected servants go. Being a Liberal or Conservative has little to do with what political party they belong to. If an official is against any 2A rights he/she is a Liberal on that issue. It is the same if they are against any Constitutional right. They cannot be called Conservative. Moderate maybe because they hold both anti-Constitutional and pro-Constitutional positions. Few, if any, true Conservatives or Liberals exist in the U.S. . Most officials are moderates. It just depends how they vote for any given issue. McCain is a liberal because most of what he does is anti-Constitutional and against our rights. Same for our President. He is better than anything the Democrats ran against him and that is why I voted for him twice. Republican or Dem or whatever party it doesn't matter because every party has Conservatives and Liberals. It just depends on how much they want to take or protect our rights. Just like with this Liberal writer. He said he will not support the NRA and is questioning our 2A rights and if they are absolute as given to us by God(nature). It seems to me he thinks it is okay for him but not for others. That is a liberal and elitists idea and what "gun control" is based on. The Constitution reflects that as proof.

I believe that no gun related laws should exist. Anyone that harms another or takes their rights should either be imprisoned until they can be trusted with their full rights or put to death. Otherwise the innocent are punished for others crimes.

All this is my personal opinion and I do not know the writer of the article or his motivations. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[TX Rancher]

I agree with Nitrogen, that a liberal that likes guns should be welcomed into the fold. Any chink in the anti-gun armor should be taken advantage of, and a liberal sitting on the fence is more apt to listen to a gun loving liberal then a conservative saying the exact same thing. This guy is a potential asset.

As for the article, I guess I didn’t see it as that bad, and it certainly didn’t read to me as anti-gun / anti-CHL. As others have said, the test is easy, both written and shooting, and that’s what the guy said. I don’t recall him ever putting forward either one should be made more difficult. As a mater of fact, he made a nice comment about CHL folks:

“Folks who go through the hoops required to get the permit are extremely unlikely to use a gun in an inappropriate manner. The background checks are thorough, and the number of incidents involving CHL holders going postal or robbing liquor stores is miniscule.�

I think I’m going to take an opposite tack from some of the other folks on the forum. I’m going to write the guy an email and welcome him to the family, and I’ll let him know I’m a member of the NRA and TSRA.

He’s made a step in the right direction, it may not be all the way to where I think he should be, but it’s in the right direction. I figure I stand a better chance of getting him the rest of the way by encouraging him instead of picking on him…something about catching more flies with honey then vinegar comes to mind

[dpatterson]

+ 1

I agree with you completely... Its like getting a kid to eat his veggies... you have to take baby steps and let them get hooked on something first.

DP

[TX Rancher]

Its like getting a kid to eat his veggies... you have to take baby steps and let them get hooked on something first.

DP

I like it, dealing with the anti gun crowd is analogous to dealing with children…and not very bright ones