Free Allegiance Forums

I am already have a CCW but this is what i like.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-leg...hnJY?li=BBnb7KB

I worry about going "full on Western". How many are going to be accidentally shot by nervous cops?

Americans surely love their guns.

peet wrote:QUOTE (peet @ Dec 8 2016, 08:15 AM) Americans surely love their ̶g̶u̶n̶s̶ freedom.

Fixed

Legally, I believe states should be allowed to have as much gun control as they want -- or, as in Texas's case, as little as they want. I disagree with the ruling in DC v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia" (although Heller did also find that "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"). I also disagree with McDonald v. Chicago which incorporated (this interpretation of) the 2nd amendment against the states.

Practically speaking, I'm glad I live in Washington and not Texas. I believe people should generally be allowed to own guns, but the right to carry in public should require training, regulation, and licensing.

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Dec 8 2016, 02:11 PM) ...but the right to carry in public should require training, regulation, and licensing.

Do those things provide any benefit to anyone?

Given that any criminal will disregard those potential laws...Since the outlaw won't seek training, or care about licensing and regulations, we can assume that those matters won't apply to them.

How many persons were injured by a concealed firearm where there was a lack of training, regulation or licensing? What is the benefit to having such restraints on gun ownership?

Wasp wrote:QUOTE (Wasp @ Dec 8 2016, 11:39 AM) Given that any criminal will disregard those potential laws...Since the outlaw won't seek training, or care about licensing and regulations, we can assume that those matters won't apply to them.

This is the dumbest argument in the history of dumb arguments. Your other question is actually somewhat reasonable, but it is eclipsed by the sheer monstrous stupidity of the question that preceded it, that I can't possibly respond to it without getting this out of the way first.

Taken to a logical extreme, your point boils down to this: why have any laws at all, if criminals will just disregard them? Answer: society doesn't rely on the willing cooperation of criminals. That's why we have law enforcement. We write laws so that they can be enforced.

How can you enforce a law that doesn't exist? If we can say, "such-and-such person shouldn't have a gun", then if the police ever finds that they do in fact have a gun, we should have a law that says they can be arrested and charged -- perhaps before they've had an opportunity or motive to use it criminally. Doncha think?

Do you not see how that results in fewer criminals having guns? It won't stop them all -- no one is pretending that -- but it does have a positive effect. If your point is "some criminals will still be able to get guns", then fine. Some criminals will still be able to murder. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have a law against murder.

I'll disagree with many people on many things. Sometimes it's because they're ignorant -- there's a critical fact that they don't know. Sometimes we just disagree on a matter of opinion. But sometimes it's because they're not a very careful thinker -- or perhaps they're even being willfully obtuse. This is one of those arguments that lets me know a person might belong in that last category, and that I shouldn't even bother to try having a serious conversation with them.

It's not just criminals either.

Even if you're an ordinary citizen -- if you are carrying a firearm (open or concealed) in public, and you don't know how to use it, or WHEN to use it -- then you are a danger to yourself, and everyone around you. I don't think this is even controversial. Even the most hard-core gun aficionado has to agree on that ...

Even if a law put a dent in THAT number, it would be worthwhile.

I don't see why NRA doesn't see forced gun training as an advantage. After all damage= firepower*accuracy. And criminals do the training as part of their daily business anyway.

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Dec 8 2016, 04:26 PM) Do you not see how that results in fewer criminals having guns? It won't stop them all -- no one is pretending that -- but it does have a positive effect.

ROFL...

You are completely retarded if you believe that a CCW law is any deterrent to a criminal robbing a convenient store or anyone who uses a gun for non-defensive reasons. As if that training law and regulation on gun ownership would change their mind? LOL That line of thinking shows just how little thinking you do.

I love your paranoid reaction to "ordinary citizens" carrying firearms. You build up your argument suggesting first that they don't know how or "WHEN" to use it and what a danger they are to themselves and others thus; they need regulation and mandatory training. Did it occur to you that ordinary citizens might actually train and consider "how and 'WHEN'" to use a firearm without mandatory laws in place?

A solution (law) looking for a problem (crime).