TexasCHLforum.com

Principle - an adopted rule or method for application in action.

Policy - a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party, etc.:

Tactic - a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.

You asked specifically about AQ, not one of the socalled peaceful muslims. What is the difference between a peaceful christian, buddhist, muslim, or atheist carrying weapons?

Principle - Do not allow illegals, terrorist, and criminals to either enter or operate freely within the defined borders of the USA.

Tactic - round them up, expel them, if they resist, erase them with extreme prejudice in line with the principle stated.

This has more to do with everyday life than airlines.

Anygun

nitrogen wrote:

Liberty wrote: I have a problem with liberals giving speeches, however there are things we live with in the name of freedom.

That was uncalled for. Seriously. You owe him an apology.

Honest I really didn't mean that to sound like an attack. It wasn't
At first when i saw Frankies response I couldn't understand why he was upset. I can see that he and yourself read that I was refering to Frankie as a liberal, .. Not what I meant at all .. I was taking perhaps a cheap shot at liberals in general. I was just trying to draw parallels on 2 different Rights of freedom.

Whats funny about it is that Obama was blathering on the tube as I posted my responce. I was wishing he would shut up as I was typing.

anygunanywhere wrote: Principle - Do not allow illegals, terrorist, and criminals to either enter or operate freely within the defined borders of the USA.

Tactic - round them up, expel them, if they resist, erase them with extreme prejudice in line with the principle stated.

This has more to do with everyday life than airlines.

Anygun

If you could actually accomplish the above without divine intervention, the idea of anyone carrying guns for protection would seem ludicrous. There would be no need.

Since we are not gods, we have to confine ourselves to the possible. (i.e. no magic wands allowed.)

In the real world, a policy where anyone could carry any gun anywhere and at any time would lead to disaster.

Especially on airliners.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In the real world, a policy where anyone could carry any gun anywhere and at any time would lead to disaster.

How did the nation survive its first 200 years? Why has the rate of violent crime never been as low after 1968 as it was before? Why are crime rates highest in places with the strictest "gun control"?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:How did the nation survive its first 200 years? Why has the rate of violent crime never been as low after 1968 as it was before? Why are crime rates highest in places with the strictest "gun control"?

- Jim

Isn't that the million dollar question? I would guess that several variables account for our high crime rate, gun-control being one of them.

I would LOVE to take part in some research on this at the university level.
Here are a few of my guesses:
#1. Urbanization. People live closer together and irritate eachother more often. LEOs can list many homicides that began over something trivial.
#2. Moral decay. This one provides a vast cornucopia of reasons:
A) lack of accountablilty.
B) lack of value on human life.
C) glorification of violence in diverse media outlets aimed at developing minds.
The list could go on.

Then there are the reasons that have been with us from the time that God created Adam and Eve and their two "little angels":
greed, evil,

Venus Pax wrote:#2. Moral decay.

Precisely. People who cannot govern themselves can be governed only by a dictator.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:
I think any adult who is not under legal disability should be able to carry any gun anywhere.

Legal disability has to be defined by the legislature,

- Jim

I'm not clear on the Disabled person part?

SkipB wrote:

seamusTX wrote:I think any adult who is not under legal disability should be able to carry any gun anywhere.

Legal disability has to be defined by the legislature,

I'm not clear on the Disabled person part?

Legal disability is the term that lawyers use for someone who has lost some of their rights by being charged with an offense, convicted, or found mentally incompetent.

- Jim

OK I got it. Thanks, little slower and grayer these days.

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:In the real world, a policy where anyone could carry any gun anywhere and at any time would lead to disaster.

How did the nation survive its first 200 years? Why has the rate of violent crime never been as low after 1968 as it was before? Why are crime rates highest in places with the strictest "gun control"?

- Jim

I don't know the answers to your questions.

But I do know that in times past we were not trying to defend ourselves from suicidal jihadist fanatics and terrorists. In times past, it seems that even warfare had rules that combatants followed.

Nor did there seem to be any Cho types (think VT shootings) around. My recollection is that the guy who shot people from atop the UT Clock Tower back in the 60's was the first of that breed. (And yes, I am fully aware that armed citizens were instrumental in helping the police take him out.)

I don't know why we have to contend with people like that today, but I'm pretty sure that gun control is not the reason.

If we had an "any gun anywhere anytime" policy in place (i.e. no "infringements" of any kind allowed), I have no doubt that the jihadists, terrorists, and Chos would take advantage of it and wreak even more havoc than they do today.

As one SCOTUS justice (it might have been Holmes) once put it, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I do know that in times past we were not trying to defend ourselves from suicidal jihadist fanatics and terrorists.

No, just hostile Indians, the British, the Canadians, the Spanish, brigands, pirates, and outlaws.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Shays Rebellion:

There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

This was a time when any free person could carry any gun anywhere.

We have "gun control" and mass murders now. Obviously "gun control" isn't the solution. We need to find out what creates mass murderers and how to cure them or prevent them from killing.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But I do know that in times past we were not trying to defend ourselves from suicidal jihadist fanatics and terrorists.

No, just hostile Indians, the British, the Canadians, the Spanish, brigands, pirates, and outlaws.

Here's what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Shays Rebellion:

There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

This was a time when any free person could carry any gun anywhere.

We have "gun control" and mass murders now. Obviously "gun control" isn't the solution. We need to find out what creates mass murderers and how to cure them or prevent them from killing.

- Jim

Frankie, respectfully, I am just going to have to disagree with you on your point that if we had any gun, any time, anywhere, by any one there would be mass disaster.

Not having any gun, any time, any where, by any one has led to the death of over 80 million humans worldwide. The carnage is happening right now, this very instant. Gun confiscation leads to mass genocide. That is the disaster. That is infringement to the extreme.

That is why any infringement is wrong. Small infringements lead to eventual confiscation, and you can not give me any example on earth where that is not the case.

Anygunanywhere etc.

stevie_d_64 wrote:I'm actually liking the idea of having a tank in the arsenal...Perfectly good, gently used Russian tanks and BMP's are available for the price of a nice American SUV these days...

The poll sure is a roller coaster of a ride though...

The Second Amendment is what it is in my book...They can have them only if ever I run out of ammo, and am breathing challenged...

I gotta say I'd not pass on a free tank if someone was offering!
Preferably an old red commie one.

lawrnk wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:I'm actually liking the idea of having a tank in the arsenal...Perfectly good, gently used Russian tanks and BMP's are available for the price of a nice American SUV these days...

The poll sure is a roller coaster of a ride though...

The Second Amendment is what it is in my book...They can have them only if ever I run out of ammo, and am breathing challenged...

I gotta say I'd not pass on a free tank if someone was offering!
Preferably an old red commie one.

At 4 gallons a mile...good luck feeding that beast!