TexasCHLforum.com

It is rather odd that the only ones who give up certain inalienable rights when they swear an oath before God to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic is the military. The military even falls under the UCMJ as well as civil and criminal laws of the US and the 50 states.

Yet, most of those who swear to the same oath in supposed service to our states or the United States give up nothing and ignore the constitution or spit on it.

This makes me angrier when considering all of the infringement my rights have suffered and continue to suffer.

As pointed out by a recent poster, no matter how many laws are enacted criminalizing firearms use, criminals will still disobey the law.

I want to point out that no matter how much training in firearm safety is available, people will still be stupid with firearms. Stupid people do stupid things.

Neither stupid people nor criminals can be used as a reason to infringe on my rights.

If governments prohibit certain places to bearing arms then it isn't constitutional carry.

thatguy wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

thatguy wrote:

anygunanywhere 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.

Arguably there are things more dangerous to us all than the citizenry exercising their RKBA. Reference London yesterday.

Some here are very quick to spout about "They needz more training to carry a gun!"

Stupid drivers, reckless drivers, and drunk drivers are a bigger threat than the RKBA. Swimming pools are a bigger threat to children than the RKBA. School teachers are a bigger threat to children than the RKBA.

Common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are the knife cuts that are slowly bleeding our RKBA to death.

More often than not, those who would require citizens take training to exercise a right are the ones who have taken some sort of training and want the rest to be as tacticool as they perceive themselves to be.

My statement was no reference to law but to what our own personal standards should be as responsible citizens negating the necessity for such laws.

Show me where I can find the personal standards for responsible citizenship defined and recorded so I can reference them when the need arises and advise me who sets the standard.

That would be for your own heart to decide brother.

Agree. I just don't want to live up to someone else's standards.

thatguy wrote:

anygunanywhere 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.

Arguably there are things more dangerous to us all than the citizenry exercising their RKBA. Reference London yesterday.

Some here are very quick to spout about "They needz more training to carry a gun!"

Stupid drivers, reckless drivers, and drunk drivers are a bigger threat than the RKBA. Swimming pools are a bigger threat to children than the RKBA. School teachers are a bigger threat to children than the RKBA.

Common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are the knife cuts that are slowly bleeding our RKBA to death.

More often than not, those who would require citizens take training to exercise a right are the ones who have taken some sort of training and want the rest to be as tacticool as they perceive themselves to be.

My statement was no reference to law but to what our own personal standards should be as responsible citizens negating the necessity for such laws.

Show me where I can find the personal standards for responsible citizenship defined and recorded so I can reference them when the need arises and advise me who sets the standard.

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.

Arguably there are things more dangerous to us all than the citizenry exercising their RKBA. Reference London yesterday.

Some here are very quick to spout about "They needz more training to carry a gun!"

Stupid drivers, reckless drivers, and drunk drivers are a bigger threat than the RKBA. Swimming pools are a bigger threat to children than the RKBA. School teachers are a bigger threat to children than the RKBA.

Common sense gun laws and reasonable restrictions are the knife cuts that are slowly bleeding our RKBA to death.

More often than not, those who would require citizens take training to exercise a right are the ones who have taken some sort of training and want the rest to be as tacticool as they perceive themselves to be.

truckster wrote:I didn't read the entire thread but my simpleton take on the whole thing is this.

Just because someone took a class for something doesn't make them more competent on the subject. I know some complete imbeciles with 4 year degrees from good schools and I'm sure some of you know some dummies who have completed the required course for an LTC that have no business even owning a firearm

So rights come with your definition of competency and education?

glock27 wrote:Any laws that could be put in place to make it where govt employees are allowed to carry regardless of policy?

Are government employees special? Why should they be statutorily given permission to do something any citizen should be Able to do?

bblhd672 wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:I personally feel better knowing that an LTC holder has been thoroughly vetted by the state before they are allowed to carry in public.

I know I would feel better knowing voters were properly vetted before voting and if journalists were properly vetted before doing whatever journalists do.

That's fair, and I agree. The only thing that gives me pause is the mentally ill, violent felons, drug addicts, etc. Do they have a 2A right? Should they be allowed to carry in public?

Many voters and "journalists" are mentally ill, violent felons, drug addicts, etc. and have no restrictions on voting or lying to the people.

My comments were posted with just a hint of sarcasm.

flechero wrote:

Lynyrd wrote: That's fair, and I agree. The only thing that gives me pause is the mentally ill, violent felons, drug addicts, etc. Do they have a 2A right? Should they be allowed to carry in public?

I believe most of those folks are already prohibited, per current law. So if they carry, they are doing so illegally. And we all know how effective laws are at stopping criminals from doing things that are illegal. ...lol

This.

Lynyrd wrote:I personally feel better knowing that an LTC holder has been thoroughly vetted by the state before they are allowed to carry in public.

I know I would feel better knowing voters were properly vetted before voting and if journalists were properly vetted before doing whatever journalists do.