TexasCHLforum.com

loadedliberal wrote:

txbirddog wrote:

USAA is committed to promoting the safety of our employees, visitors, and children on our campuses.

Don't you just love how the libs love to talk about protecting children. Most have no idea how to protect children or anyone else.

Don't dare question my or other "liberals" ability to protect anyone. I see that comment as a huge slap in the face.

Thank you, Sir. The attitude expressed by the poster you quote is precisely the reason many (most?) of the general public consider "gun nuts" to be irresponsible right wing Bubba "gun nuts," and I am not in that crowd, although I am accused of it when I argue in favor of the Second Amendment. I am proud to think of myself as a Liberal with a capital "L," and I have fought long and hard in support of all our constitutional rights -- all of them. I am a member of both the NRA and the ACLU, but comments like the above cannot but cause me to seriously reconsider the former. Thankfully, when I turn to the NRA, itself, looking for where attitudes like this spring, I tend to see adult, thinking, and rational opinions, and little of what I would consider unhelpful.

Posts like the above, in my not-so-humble-opinion, spread around the world via the internet, cause me intense frustration, and I consider them harmful to my cause -- as well as personally insulting, as you do.

Elmo

I not only understand where you are coming from, Katygunnut, but let me assure you that I sympathize. I, too, wore a uniform for a whole lot of years, and I took the same oath -- several times. You are also correct when you imply, if not assert, that I am talking strictly the law as it currently stands, and not morality. The law is not always moral. Was it Jack Kennedy who said "Life is not always fair?" I can never remember who. I do remember that it was Charles Dickens who said, "The law is a ass." [Mod: he was talking about an animal, not human anatomy].

There are those, when discussing the subjects we discuss here, who will say, with some truth, that "a right is a right only after the Supreme Court of the United States says it is."

My position, I will admit, is that we should all take care in stating that something is a "right," or a "Constitutional right," as being a matter of fact, when what we really mean is that in our opinion it is a right, but the Court has not yet spoken on this issue, and the other two branches of the federal government have made no decree to that effect. I am so afraid that by not recognizing the difference we may mislead others to their sorrow.

Again, I understand your position, and I hope you understand mine.

Most respectfully,

Elmo

jimlongley wrote:I was, briefly, a member of USAA in the early 70s, right after I got off active duty. My late wife, who was an insurance agent herself, read some of their literature and talked me into rescinding my membership and I haven't regretted it until now. Now my only regret is that I did not "know my enemy" and keep track of them and their insidious campaign against legal gun possession. They can be assured that I will never even consider doing business with them at any time in the future too, even if they do change their public policy, as I do not think they will ever really change.

In my opinion this discussion, in general, is really wandering off into never-never land, Jim. I say this just after your post not because you are alone, but that you repeat a common theme of this thread, and it may just be the use of loose language.

Neither USAA nor any other 30.06 poster is, according to my reasoning, insidiously campaigning against "legal" gun possession. Does that proper 30.06 sign mean that a CHL-licensee is guilty of illegally carrying a concealed handgun if she ignores the sign? As we all know so well, it only means that if one enters ignoring the sign, if correctly worded, shaped and posted, she would be trespassing. Is she not still legally carrying the handgun? Could she be arrested for illegally carrying a handgun? If USAA is "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession" I could be accused of insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession if I courteously tell a visitor to my home that my home is not open to anyone carrying a handgun, whether CHL-licensed, or not, and she may not enter if she is carrying a handgun.

With the greatest of respect for you and your invariably intelligent well-reasoned postings here, Jim, I feel that it is simply not right, once again in my personal opinion, to assume that my having said this to a visitor is because I am "insidiously campaigning against legal gun possession." Nothing could be more untrue of this particular NRA member, CHL-licensee from the very beginning, and tireless advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

I cannot close without observing that absent the wide circulation given on this forum, and others similarly oriented, to USAA's sign on its premises, one, my being one of them, would not even know of USAA's policy on this, unless they visited the offices, which gives me a serious question as to whether USAA is being "insiduous."

Elmo

Gunner21 wrote:

Cobra Medic wrote:I'm surprised because USAA has really good firearm coverage included standard in their homeowner policy. Maybe the insurance people are different than the banker types.

From my experience the Insurance people are DEFINITELY different than the bank types.

I have been with USAA for more than 50 years, and there is no question but that you are absolutely correct.

Someday when you are "an old and valued customer whose business is appreciated" and you wish to apply for a home mortgage loan, go through the paperwork with USAA at their website, and then get yourself down to your reputable mortgage broker which has the same interest rate or better. You, I suspect, will see the difference.

On the other hand, my USAA insurance coverage, of all kinds, can only be pried out of my cold, dead hands.

Elmo