TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:

OlBill wrote:
Soldiers can be politically active, they must can't do it in uniform.

I didn't give up any 2nd Amendment rights more than a civilian. I had a permit from the state and carried all the time.

I got married twice and didn't get permission either time.

Right to live?

There's a lot if misconceptions in your post.

I got out in 1980. Maybe things have changed since. Thousands on secret VA waiting lists now doesn't sound like health care needs are being met for our vets. I also lived on base and didn't have those 2A rights. You carried on base? Not in any base I was ever in. You think your medical care was state of the art? I can tell you it wasn't from direct experience. Adequate but not state of the art. Why do you think we have "Wounded Warrior" asking for money? All this needs to be a different thread though as off topic.

rotor wrote:

OlBill wrote:

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Every adult has the inherent right to vote, carry a gun, speak out on political and other matters, etc. So given that these are rights we all have, if the state believes that education is needed to exercise them in a safe and responsible manner, then the state should include those education requirements in our standard curriculums.

Agree with much of what you say. But, have you ever been in the military? You give up many of your inherent rights serving your country.

What rights did I give up?

Were you active duty? If so, you gave up the right to put a political bumper sticker on your car, you gave up the right to be politically active, you gave up many of your 2A rights, you gave up the right to even get married without permission of your CO, you gave up the right of free speech essentially. You gave up these rights while active duty. For many you also gave up the right to vote especially if your mail in ballot never got in while overseas. Many gave up their right to live. Certainly many gave up and still don't have their right to promised health care. When I left the service I was reminded that I would not be able to get a haircut so inexpensively in the civilian world. I did not consider that an inducement to staying in.

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Every adult has the inherent right to vote, carry a gun, speak out on political and other matters, etc. So given that these are rights we all have, if the state believes that education is needed to exercise them in a safe and responsible manner, then the state should include those education requirements in our standard curriculums.

Agree with much of what you say. But, have you ever been in the military? You give up many of your inherent rights serving your country.

superchief wrote:note: the following opining is the result of my lengthy scholarly endeavors and legal training achieved by reading and posting in gun forums like this and talking and complaining about gun laws with my friends and others.

I know we don't need a license or training to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, but in the days of the framers, most of the towns and counties had militias and required men to be in it. The standing army that was formed to fight the Brits was new and not initially viewed as a permanent thing. Those militias, many that had been in place since the formation of a settlement, met at least occasionally, mostly about 4 times a year to drill and practice. The second amendment even says that the reason God gave us our right to keep and bear arms was because a militia was necessary to have a free state.

In context of the times, it is my opinion that the framers could have figured that at least every man knew how to shoot a gun since they had to be in the militia for their town or county. Were there gun accidents/negligence back then? you bet. I've read stories of accidental shootings throughout the country and even kids bringing handguns to school for nefarious purposes in colonial New York.

I draw a correlation between the when the people's dependence grew on the army, and when "general" marksmanship skills faded. Thus the high death toll in the late unpleasantness and the formation of the NRA afterwards to teach marksmanship so that wouldn't happen again.

With regard to voting, i think they assumed the same thing; that the voters (property owning men) would be informed about the issues of the day and be intellectually qualified to make a reasoned decision when voting. Kids don't learn real history anymore or real civics in school and I compare our dependence on TV to get our political education to the people's dependence on the army. I think we've seen "a high death toll" of informed voters as a result. Maybe we need a "National Voter's Association" to train people how to be politically effective.

I personally am torn about HB1911. I am a staunch 2nd supporter, TSRA and NRA lifer. I also teach LTC classes and would hate to lose that income since it is the source of my toy money, but if that's the way the ball bounces, I will enjoy the fresh recognition of my freedoms.

God bless America - and no one else
superchief

Jusme wrote:

s3779m wrote:Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

I think the majority of members here are LTC holders. The infuriating issue for most of us, is the fact that having to get an LTC to be able to carry "legally" flies in the face of the Second Amendment. The words "shall not be infringed" are hollow, when a government requires some type of licensing to exercise a right. The second amendment is very clear, and concise, as it should be. But through the years, we have allowed our elected officials, to pass laws, that are in direct conflict. As of now, in our State, the only way to be able to carry, outside of our homes, and automobiles, is to be given "permission"

The other issue, being debated, is whether or not, we should be required to pass a competency test, to exercise the right. The founding fathers, saw no reason to make that a condition to the amendment, and there are no such conditions, on any other Constitutional right.

s3779m wrote:Just out of curiosity, for those who want constitutional carry so they can legally carry, why have you not taken the classes to get your license?

thatguy wrote:

OlBill wrote:

thatguy wrote:We have a God given right to constitutional carry, it is self evident. We also have an absolute responsibility to mitigate risk to the public.

Interesting perspective. What risk?

We have inalienable (God given and self evident) right to self defense of our person, our families and some cases third party. We don't have the right to to risk hurting innocent people in the process but we do risk just that when presenting deadly force (in this case a gun) leaving us all with a quandary whether we accept it or not.

There is no getting around this vexing problem for there is no guarantee that I couldn't hurt or even kill mine or someone else's innocent child, mother, father, brother, grandchild etc. My personal plan is to practice and train mentally and physically to strengthen my mindset of what would I do if this or that occurred. What I've personally discovered is that a well thought-out, practiced, trained and determined plan to defend myself and others allows me to wait just a little bit longer. I can think about other options, like running, distracting, discouraging through eye-contact and so forth. Trained guns stay in their place (holstered) longer and when my gun stays holstered it is very unlikely to hurt an innocent. Untrained guns or unsure guns on the other hand come out first putting the public in danger much faster.

By accepting our own personal responsibilities we negate the need for law in the first place.

thatguy wrote:We have a God given right to constitutional carry, it is self evident. We also have an absolute responsibility to mitigate risk to the public.

Oldgringo wrote:

OlBill wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OlBill wrote:Going back to the Constitution is always a good idea.

Amen to that.

I am not convinced that federal judges should be appointed for life and I also believe there should be definite TERM LIMITS for congressional offices. Other than that....meh.

Both of which I believe would require Constitutional amendments, but I could be wrong.
Meh?

Yes. There have been 27 Constitutional Amendments thus far and at least one more is sorely needed.

'Meh' signals that the rest of it is pretty much okay; however, I'm not really for pushing this constitutional carry thinghy overly far. There's still more of them than there are us and, as you know, the majority rules. I'm perfectly okay with licensed OC and CC.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OlBill wrote:Going back to the Constitution is always a good idea.

Amen to that.

I am not convinced that federal judges should be appointed for life and I also believe there should be definite TERM LIMITS for congressional offices. Other than that....meh.