Results 13 to 24 of 263
Thread: Guns...
-
Re: Guns...
Laws anti-guns = 0
Laws pro-guns = 2
it may not be a large sample but theres without question more support that hes for guns than against, or at worst, like you said, apathetic.
As far as a National Concealed Carry law, that just seems to make sense to me. Forcing states with relaxed laws on guns to be stricter so were all on even ground will be a headache and come off anti-gun even on a pro-gun issue though wouldnt it?-JAB
-
11-08-2012, 12:03 PM #14Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Guns...
Agree to disagree.
I am not calling for a national law. If Illinois and California want to ban concealed carry, as backwards as I think it to be, that's their right.
I just don't want the federal government deciding something opposite of what the Constitution decided long ago.
-
Re: Guns...
oh, i thought you were referring to The National Reciprocity act.
Conceal carry was left to the states so thats just an issue they have to make national in which all would have to abide or not. youll have to get license to carry in each state you choose to or one national to make it simpler. i liked the idea of just having it be an addition to your license and plugged into a database. Im not a gun owner nor plan to be, but i do think its your right to own a gun. just not anyone mentally unstable or with bad intentions. Seems to be moot though as both the House and Senate seem to agree with the law, just needs tweaked and finalized to be put into effect. That would be a third gun law under obama thats pro-gun... if he doesnt veto it.-JAB
-
11-08-2012, 12:19 PM #16Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Guns...
I am for the reciprocity act in spirit, but I don't like much of the language.
-
-
11-08-2012, 12:24 PM #18Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: Guns...
Best argument I have ever read from the pro-gun stand point can be found here. And it's not even written by someone from this country.
March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
-
-
11-08-2012, 04:39 PM #20Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
What Daddy is getting for his 40th birthday ....
http://www.hk-usa.com/military_produ...16_general.asp
-
-
11-08-2012, 04:56 PM #22Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
-
11-08-2012, 05:31 PM #24Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Doesn't matter the state. You have to go through the ATF for that.
Texas isn't as easy as you think for a CHL though. You have to attend a two day class, pass a written test, qualify with your weapon (shoot 80% or better), get fingerprinted and pass a criminal background check.
Bookmarks