TexasCHLforum.com

The_Busy_Mom wrote:

Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.

Well, I can tell you that I am not a CHL instructor for the money. And as I posted a while back, I wasn't even alive, nor voting age, when the laws that affected our gun-carrying abilities were implemented. I am simply helping to educate those around me so that they can carry within the law, and do my part to change the law from the inside out. The more people we have carrying within the law, then maybe the greater chance we have to get back to the original meaning of 'shall not be infringed'. But shame on your for not having enough sight to understand that your 'lump-'em-all-together' approach won't win you what you want. Keep Calm, Carry On.

TBM

Most of this stems from a editorial mistake. I had originally used the adjective "opportunistic" in an attempt to distinguish unscrupulous instructors (lawyers and lawmakers) from those who, like yourself, have our best interests at heart. I took it out because it seemed weak, and I wanted to make the point more strongly.

I will however stand behind my point. That being: when we (through mismanagement of OUR government) create huge bureaucracies to manage licensing and other forms of regulations we also create a class of people dependent on those bureaucracies (bureaucrats.) Sometimes, we even allow this class to create powerful unions and lobbying groups which seems OK until we realize the bureaucracy was created in error, or that it is no longer necessary. At that point the bureaucrats will usually have positioned themselves so as to make it more or less impossible to dismantle said bureaucracies with anything short of an armed revolt.

Because: history.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.

You chose an appropriate username. Your post is nothing but a rant and if you don't see these bills as major gains, then you will never be satisfied with any advancement short of repeal of any and all gun laws. You belittle the effort to improve gun laws and expand gun rights, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing other than whine that someone else isn't doing enough.

Chas.

I want to publicly apologize to Charles and anyone else I offended with my thoughtless post. I am frequently frustrated by those who seem to feel that the right to effective self-defense is a privilege bestowed on us by our government rather than the "unalienable" right I believe it to be. I apologize that this frustration led me to vent my frustrations here. I also regret saying that the bills represent a minor victory while in fact they are quite formidable and I am personally grateful to him and all those who work to defend the rights of Texans who, like me, have a family to defend and would prefer to do so effectively and legally.

My user name was a reaction to a anti-christian slur made by the current President, but I realize it has outlived the memory of the slur that inspired it, so I would be happy to change it if necessary. How about "Onesimus?" That's a pretty good user name.

I have done my best to support the efforts of gun rights advocates, but you are right; It's not enough. I will increase my contributions and correspondences and I will continue to remember you in my prayers, praying that you may meet with even more success in your endeavors on our behalf.

Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.