TexasCHLforum.com

Bitterclinger wrote:
Because: history.

Because: Inertia.

First of all I want to thank Charles in particular, and the many others in general, for all their hard work in getting these important baby steps accomplished.

That said, I also agree, if only tacitly, with bitterclinger (I would have avoided that tag just because of the possible association with Max of MASH) that our ultimate goal should be the conditions that existed in 1791 (not 1776, bitter) and will continue to campaign, proselytize, and put my money where my mouth is with that agenda in mind, while recognizing that it is not something we will see change tomorrow, or even in my lifetime.

Barring a miraculous SCOTUS decision, returning the nation as a whole, much less any particular state, to full "Constitutional Gun Possession" will take generations, just as it took generations for the anti-gun nuts to nibble away at it. Just like the frog in the pot, our forefathers allowed the heat to be turned up slowly, the edges to be nibbled away, until it finally came to our notice that we were being boiled, and now we lack the manner and means to just jump out of the pot.

And I have been on this campaign since Oswald's mail order rifle served as the excuse to ban such sales.

----------------------------------------------------

When my wife and I took our first CHL class, we were singularly unimpressed with the quality of the training presented. Having been a long time technical trainer myself, it was obvious that our trainers had little or no training or experience in being trainers even if they thought they were doing a good job (which opinion was shared with us during one of the few breaks in a ten hour day).

At the inception of class, the presenters told us that our class was mixed, some new students and some renewal, so they would be presenting the renewal portions of the class first, and then those persons would leave, which happened. But this led to some confusion as stuff that got presented before got presented a second time from a slightly different viewpoint and with more filler and background. Not that anything was said that contradicted something that went before, just with different emphasis and more information.

Then the paperwork started, and a huge amount of time was spent doing paperwork without ANY other instructional activity. We got fingerprinted, pictures got taken, and other stuff that we understood was not part of class time, and indeed, except for fingerprinting, we had already done before attending class, as we had been told we should. When inquiring about the class, and about where to get fingerprinted, we had been told that we could, as an option, be fingerprinted there, after class, so not to bother going to the police as we had been instructed.

I could easily have done without the couple of hours of sitting there through "Now on the back of the first photograph, no sir, you need to turn it over, you will need to write your signature." and other such, and always felt the class could have been significantly truncated.

Our first renewal even included the range time, which in this case was combined with the range time from that instructor's initial training class too.

Beiruty wrote:

jmra wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

No, and that is a specious argument, in the time frame and in context it was well understood that those persons had no rights anyway.