[IllSic_Design]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I think Texas just wants to buck the system this administration wants to create, so they're going all out on ringing the freedom bell. Florida is soon to follow.

Yeah these are my thoughts also. More power to them...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by IllSic_Design

Yeah these are my thoughts also. More power to them...

Additionally I think the TX government wants to prove a point that armed citizens aren't tantamount to more gun violence.

[TiMSport]

Sedan, as a LEO, I'm always curious but would you rather see folks in California be able to legally carry without any form of a license, training or background check? Again, I'm asking you as a cop, not a private citizen.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

Sedan, as a LEO, I'm always curious but would you rather see folks in California be able to legally carry without any form of a license, training or background check? Again, I'm asking you as a cop, not a private citizen.

Honestly, no. Licensure, training and a background check are necessities IMHO, but I'm all for legalized carry by non-criminals. I would like to see carry available to anybody without a record with mandated requirements to shoot/qualify bi-annually; quarterly even.

If someone wants to carry, they should be required to have concealed carry insurance (…which is the cost of one large pizza a month) and they should be required to maintain a reasonable level of skill/accuracy at 7-10 yards. That is not too much to ask for someone who is carrying a firearm.

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Honestly, no. Licensure, training and a background check are necessities IMHO, but I'm all for legalized carry by non-criminals. I would like to see carry available to anybody without a record with mandated requirements to shoot/qualify bi-annually; quarterly even.

Okay, THAT is what I was curious about. So you also feel Texas (and likely Florida) is going too far, right? Like I was alluding to, it just seems radical not to at least have some general requirements in place. I don't want to start a political debate on this but I just thought this topic was of interest here.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

Okay, THAT is what I was curious about. So you also feel Texas (and likely Florida) is going too far, right? Like I was alluding to, it just seems radical not to at least have some general requirements in place. I don't want to start a political debate on this but I just thought this topic was of interest here.

I definitely feel like much of what TX and FL are doing is to give Biden's administration the middle finger. I think it's going a bit toooooo far, but I understand it despite not agreeing with it in totality. Our administration sucks. Also, see my edit above.

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I definitely feel like much of what TX and FL are doing is to give Biden's administration the middle finger. I think it's going a bit toooooo far, but I understand it despite not agreeing with it in totality. Our administration sucks. Also, see my edit above.

I understand what you mean.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

Not even remotely related. Not sure what your point is about voting.

Very similar. Both are RIGHTS. Not privileges. As such training and background checks aren't a part of it. So if you feel everyone that might carry a firearm needs training and licensing and background checks then why not for something also important like voting? Why are we letting morons with no education vote?

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

Very similar. Both are RIGHTS. Not privileges. As such training and background checks aren't a part of it. So if you feel everyone that might carry a firearm needs training and licensing and background checks then why not for something also important like voting? Why are we letting morons with no education vote?

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. In any case, you guys have your own issues in the state of Arizona. Cyber Ninjas? LOL. Keep looking for those bamboo fibers.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. In any case, you guys have your own issues in the state of Arizona. Cyber Ninjas? LOL. Keep looking for those bamboo fibers.

No clue what cyber ninjas means.

But the argument is just one you don't comprehend. You seem afraid of people not certified by the state carrying a weapon but not people exercising other rights without certification.

Is voting a right? Do you have to prove competence to vote?

Is the 1st A a right? Do you need an education to opine freely about issues of the day?

Is owning and carrying a gun a right? Do you have to prove competence to exercise that right?

is that clearer for you?

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

No clue what cyber ninjas means.

But the argument is just one you don't comprehend. You seem afraid of people not certified by the state carrying a weapon but not people exercising other rights without certification.

Is voting a right? Do you have to prove competence to vote?

Is the 1st A a right? Do you need an education to opine freely about issues of the day?

Is owning and carrying a gun a right? Do you have to prove competence to exercise that right?

is that clearer for you?

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the group doing the "audit" in your state continuing to push the big lie. In any case, it's laughable.

I totally get what you're trying to argue and what your position is. You don't need to make it clearer for me. I just don't agree with it. As for owning and "carrying" a firearm, my opinion is that you should be competent with it. Hell, even the resident expert around here agrees with that.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the group doing the "audit" in your state continuing to push the big lie. In any case, it's laughable.

I totally get what you're trying to argue and what your position is. You don't need to make it clearer for me. I just don't agree with it. As for owning and "carrying" a firearm, my opinion is that you should be competent with it. Hell, even the resident expert around here agrees with that.

So the comment about the audit was just an attempt to make me feel - dumb? A diversion? To categorize me and marginalize me? I have no idea what the audit will return and I don't dwell on it. Don't lose sleep over having it done either. Any time either major party wants an audit it should be done at their expense.

As to resident expert - who? It doesn't matter if you or someone else doesn't like untrained people with guns. I don't like the idea of incompetent people carrying a gun. I cringe watching many people on the range but at least they are there to hopefully learn. But you still miss the point.

It doesn't matter if we are uncomfortable with it. it is a right. You are disagreeing with a fundamental right. If you can disagree with that right what next? An IQ test to get your card to vote?

Is that woman being stalked by her ex that just bought a revolver and hasn't had time to learn much about it supposed to wait until some formal training session the state approves? Is that your position?

You say you get it but you show you don't. Rights are not subject to training and govt approvals. All Texas is doing is re-establishing that the 2nd A meant exactly what it said.

Or maybe you do get it and in your world rights are government privileges to be handed out on a whim.

[The Wind Breezes]

Being outside of law enforcement, I love guns and think gun owners tend to be the worst thing about the gun scene by far.

Guns are a magnet to get absorbed in political issues that don't actually matter to you. What, you think you're the person who's going to make or break an issue like that?

To what extent do cops get tired of the gun crowd and their obsession with politics they have no control over?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

Being outside of law enforcement, I love guns and think gun owners tend to be the worst thing about the gun scene by far.

Guns are a magnet to get absorbed in political issues that don't actually matter to you. What, you think you're the person who's going to make or break an issue like that?

To what extent do cops get tired of the gun crowd and their obsession with politics they have no control over?

Cops are extremely political people, be it they swing right, left or remain squarely in the middle. The majority of law enforcement ARE part of the gun crowd and most have no issues with people owning/carrying guns lawfully and responsibly.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I think Texas just wants to buck the system this administration wants to create, so they're going all out on ringing the freedom bell. Florida is soon to follow.

Sort of like cutting off your nose despite your face.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

No clue what cyber ninjas means.

But the argument is just one you don't comprehend. You seem afraid of people not certified by the state carrying a weapon but not people exercising other rights without certification.

Is voting a right? Do you have to prove competence to vote?

Is the 1st A a right? Do you need an education to opine freely about issues of the day?

Is owning and carrying a gun a right? Do you have to prove competence to exercise that right?

is that clearer for you?

All rights have limits on them. Why is 2A different?

[JReis]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

All rights have limits on them. Why is 2A different?

What are the limits to other rights? Before you roll out the argument about screaming fire in a crowded theater, that is not a limitation on the 1st. That says you cannot hide behind that right to do something harmful or illegal. It does not limit the 1st.

The 2nd has already been restricted, some would say unconstitutionally, by limiting the types of firearms, magazines, etc.

If we use the logic you are implying in your post, then we should not have freedom of speech when it comes to certain topics that the government deems too dangerous. Does that sound like a good idea to you? No more speaking out about the current administration or ANY politicians as it could be dangerous. Oh, and we could impose limits on how often you can speak your mind. And while we're at it, we can sue journalists and authors who may have been favored by criminals and contributed to their decision to do something like murder. After all, if the authors provided the framework (or the tool) to justify committing the crime, they must be at fault as well.

So what limits do the others have? And WHAT is more of a fundamental right than the ability to protect oneself? By limiting that, you are telling individuals that their own personal safety is less important than assuaging another's fear.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by JReis

What are the limits to other rights? Before you roll out the argument about screaming fire in a crowded theater, that is not a limitation on the 1st. That says you cannot hide behind that right to do something harmful or illegal. It does not limit the 1st.

The 2nd has already been restricted, some would say unconstitutionally, by limiting the types of firearms, magazines, etc.

If we use the logic you are implying in your post, then we should not have freedom of speech when it comes to certain topics that the government deems too dangerous. Does that sound like a good idea to you? No more speaking out about the current administration or ANY politicians as it could be dangerous. Oh, and we could impose limits on how often you can speak your mind. And while we're at it, we can sue journalists and authors who may have been favored by criminals and contributed to their decision to do something like murder. After all, if the authors provided the framework (or the tool) to justify committing the crime, they must be at fault as well.

So what limits do the others have? And WHAT is more of a fundamental right than the ability to protect oneself? By limiting that, you are telling individuals that their own personal safety is less important than assuaging another's fear.

Go into an active court room, start speaking, & don't stop. Or a school, library, etc.

"The 2nd has already been restricted, some would say unconstitutionally...."

And some would say not.

[JReis]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Go into an active court room, start speaking, & don't stop. Or a school, library, etc.

"The 2nd has already been restricted, some would say unconstitutionally...."

And some would say not.

Again, not a restriction of the 1st if you are breaking a law. Big difference that some are unable/unwilling to see.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by JReis

Again, not a restriction of the 1st if you are breaking a law. Big difference that some are unable/unwilling to see.

Well it seems we have laws that restrict "rights".

[Murf993]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Go into an active court room, start speaking, & don't stop. Or a school, library, etc.

"The 2nd has already been restricted, some would say unconstitutionally...."

And some would say not.

Not being an American but living in a country that has a similar protection in our Charter, that being the right to Free Expression.

Your right isn't limited in the courtroom or the library, you are free to go out on the front steps and express your opinion/excercise your free speech. If you want to speak in a courtroom in Canada you can apply for standing and I know you can rent library space to hold meetings etc.

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by Murf993

Not being an American but living in a country that has a similar protection in our Charter, that being the right to Free Expression.

Your right isn't limited in the courtroom or the library, you are free to go out on the front steps and express your opinion/excercise your free speech. If you want to speak in a courtroom in Canada you can apply for standing and I know you can rent library space to hold meetings etc.

Yeah, rules are rules all over, except where there is anarchy.