An argument against 30.06

[A-R]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

LEOs are a perfect example of when someone else's gun-carrying rights supercede a business owner's ... what was TAM's word? ... oh yeah .... hoplophobic rights

And we need some stinkin' CHL badges too!

ok, i'm kidding about that last part

[frazzled]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

[frazzled]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

LEOs are a perfect example of when someone else's gun-carrying rights supercede a business owner's ... what was TAM's word? ... oh yeah .... hoplophobic rights

And we need some stinkin' CHL badges too!

ok, i'm kidding about that last part

OOh I want a badge. Not a CHL badge though, I want a badge from the DCM (Department of Chocolate Management). Us sworn DCM agents have to insure that the public has proper stores of fresh chcolcate, so we are forced to sample any chocolate we come across, to insure freshness.

[Embalmo]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

Nope-You missed my point. "In that respect" refers to not being subject to ignorantly fearful individuals stripping me of my right to defend myself, just as LEOs aren't. There seems to be a belief that because LEOs are commissioned to enforce the law, they are the only targets and potential victims of violent crime and should therefore be allowed to defend themselves whenever/wherever. I've gone through the same background check as LEOs, if not more stringent, so why should I not have the same self-preservation opportunities.

And I believe in my heart that many that would post a 30.06 would keep LEOs from carrying if they legally could.

Embalmo

[frazzled]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

Nope-You missed my point. "In that respect" refers to not being subject to ignorantly fearful individuals stripping me of my right to defend myself, just as LEOs aren't. There seems to be a belief that because LEOs are commissioned to enforce the law, they are the only targets and potential victims of violent crime and should therefore be allowed to defend themselves whenever/wherever. I've gone through the same background check as LEOs, if not more stringent, so why should I not have the same self-preservation opportunities.

And I believe in my heart that many that would post a 30.06 would keep LEOs from carrying if they legally could.

Embalmo

Your background check means jack. No one is stripping you of anything. You have the right to not enter private property. The have the SAME rights to their own property as they see fit. The right against trespass pre-exists your right to firearms by nearly 1,000 years.

[SQLGeek]

The right against trespass pre-exists your right to firearms by nearly 1,000 years.

Unless you are an LEO, then not so much. All he's saying is that he would like the same unfettered right to carry a gun that LEOs already have.

Embalmo, from what I have seen and experienced, LE applicant background checks are more rigorous and the standards higher than a CHL background check.

[Embalmo]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

Nope-You missed my point. "In that respect" refers to not being subject to ignorantly fearful individuals stripping me of my right to defend myself, just as LEOs aren't. There seems to be a belief that because LEOs are commissioned to enforce the law, they are the only targets and potential victims of violent crime and should therefore be allowed to defend themselves whenever/wherever. I've gone through the same background check as LEOs, if not more stringent, so why should I not have the same self-preservation opportunities.

And I believe in my heart that many that would post a 30.06 would keep LEOs from carrying if they legally could.

Embalmo

Your background check means jack. No one is stripping you of anything. You have the right to not enter private property. The have the SAME rights to their own property as they see fit. The right against trespass pre-exists your right to firearms by nearly 1,000 years.

Wow-Do you really believe that the background check means nothing for any of us here? And do you really believe that we have no basic human right of self preservation and a cop does? In reality, business owners cannot deny people because of their color, or religious affiliation, so why this? This is discrimination out of fearful ignorance and shouldn't be tolerated.

The "just don't go there" argument is invalid because it's not a matter of just not shopping somewhere. Not being allowed to enter a post office, hospital, university, public school, government building is not an option for any of us. Please don't start talking about Internet postage and and switching doctors because that is not realistic. What are we supposed to do, asked the folks to come out into the parking lot to conduct our business? This law needs to be changed before one of us, or one of our family members gets killed.

Embalmo

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I agree with embalmo and self preservation pre-exists tresspassing for thousands of years...since the begining of life itself.

[frazzled]

In that respect, I think, there should be no distinction between LEO and CHL.

While I respect your opinion I disagree. We have no law enforcement powers, nor do we want them. Thats where that is coming from.

Nope-You missed my point. "In that respect" refers to not being subject to ignorantly fearful individuals stripping me of my right to defend myself, just as LEOs aren't. There seems to be a belief that because LEOs are commissioned to enforce the law, they are the only targets and potential victims of violent crime and should therefore be allowed to defend themselves whenever/wherever. I've gone through the same background check as LEOs, if not more stringent, so why should I not have the same self-preservation opportunities.

And I believe in my heart that many that would post a 30.06 would keep LEOs from carrying if they legally could.

Embalmo

Your background check means jack. No one is stripping you of anything. You have the right to not enter private property. The have the SAME rights to their own property as they see fit. The right against trespass pre-exists your right to firearms by nearly 1,000 years.

Wow-Do you really believe that the background check means nothing for any of us here? And do you really believe that we have no basic human right of self preservation and a cop does? In reality, business owners cannot deny people because of their color, or religious affiliation, so why this? This is discrimination out of fearful ignorance and shouldn't be tolerated.

The "just don't go there" argument is invalid because it's not a matter of just not shopping somewhere. Not being allowed to enter a post office, hospital, university, public school, government building is not an option for any of us. Please don't start talking about Internet postage and and switching doctors because that is not realistic. What are we supposed to do, asked the folks to come out into the parking lot to conduct our business? This law needs to be changed before one of us, or one of our family members gets killed.

Embalmo

Background checks are completely utterly irrelevant. Its not about background checks, its about fundamental rights of property.
Citizens have never had rights to be armed on government property.
Citizens have never had rights to weaponry that pre-empted property owners rights.

Your right to defend yourself is utterly irrelevant when compared to my rights to my property and my right to exclude you from it.
You may disagree but too bad. Thats free rights of private ownership, contract, and a thousand years of stare decisis against, well nothing. You have no rights here.

[frazzled]

I agree with embalmo and self preservation pre-exists tresspassing for thousands of years...since the begining of life itself.

Nonsense. Your right to preservation is fully served. Stay off the property.

[Embalmo]

I agree with embalmo and self preservation pre-exists tresspassing for thousands of years...since the begining of life itself.

Nonsense. Your right to preservation is fully served. Stay off the property.

I think that you are debating ideology versus reality. I wish I could choose not to go to college, or pick my child up from school, or rush my wife to the nearest emergency clinic, or walk in the the dark parking garage of the Texas Funeral Service Commission. When my wife gets raped in a 30.06 posted hospital garage, it's not really a celebration of private property rights, is it?

Embalmo

[SQLGeek]

Citizens have never had rights to be armed on government property.

That is not true at the local, state (Texas) and in some cases, Federal level.

[frazzled]

When my wife gets raped in a 30.06 posted hospital garage, it's not really a celebration of private property rights, is it?

Embalmo

And thats when the discussion fell off a cliff. Never mind.

[Embalmo]

I guess the most frustrating thing about liberal anti-gun sentiment is that if they don't want to carry a gun, they fix it so no one can carry a gun. I'm sure there's probably something in the constitution about having a fundamental right to bear arms. I think I read that somewhere; probably just internet conjecture.

Embalmo

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I think it states that...

the right to keep and bar arms from property shall not be infringed.