Packin' heat

OilField ... it gets that way when it gets personal ... and this topic is not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

http://www.eccie.net/search.php?searchid=3628116

http://www.eccie.net/search.php?searchid=3628128

There are repeated threads started and threads in which "violence" by hobbyists and providers' "companions" have been addressed and/or disclosed with varying responses, including but not limited to, the brandishing of handguns and in many, if not all, of those threads eventually someone starts talking trash about "carrying a piece" ... "carrying heat" ... blowing someone's ass away ... on and on. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Internet mercenaries are a dime a dozen, take it with a pound of salt, it’s just wishful dreaming.

Someone started this thread and I made a comment, which was invited, and then it gets personal with insulting remarks about my stability and agenda Originally Posted by LexusLover

I could not care any less about your stability than I do already.

because I believe that someone ought not to engage in armed confrontations until they are trained to do so. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So if I have not attended advanced training, I should not defend myself.
Should we take legally owned firearms away from everyone who can’t meet your criteria?

My comments were not directed to "John's" theme ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

My “theme” was a response to an elitist attitude that I see prevalent in the shooting world. If an average person makes a statement using street/slang terminology, there is always a “pro” who wants to make fun of them. Get off the high horse, and accept that not everyone knows or cares enough to use the correct nomenclature.

and for him to twist and cherry-pick my words, Originally Posted by LexusLover

They were your words, weren’t they? Did I put words in you mouth? I was pointing out exactly what you said that made it appear that you were attempting to limit “law abiding citizens” right to carry a gun.

while engaging in personal attacks, Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you a professional victim? You sound like one. Please use my words to show me the personal attacks, I think you have overstated the situation.

IS consistent with SandBox dialogue. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I don’t post to the sandbox often, but this is a hot button topic, so I got drawn in.

But he does have his own agenda. Originally Posted by LexusLover

My agenda….. Don’t limit law abiding citizens ability to be legally armed.

John, I have sufficient personal experiences and training to comprehend the seriousness of rapidly progressing circumstances in close proximity when weapons are or may be involved and to be aware of the necessity for sufficient training and skills to properly and adequately respond to the unfolding conditions .... Originally Posted by LexusLover

Good for you, I truly hope it serves you well if you are forced into that situation.

as has been described NUMEROUS times on this board and a past board. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Considering the sheer volume of people that carry, and the “less than ideal” places that the hobby tends to create, I am surprised we don’t hear of it more.

That answers your question as far as I am concerned, and I do not really care what your opinion is about my "status". Originally Posted by LexusLover

I was just curious. With that high level of training, I had you pegged as ‘cocked and locked’ and ready for trouble 24/7.

When one "carries" a handgun to a session I can think of only 2 reasons for doing so ..... defense in response to a threat of "deadly force" as defined by the Texas Penal Code and the case law interpreting the same .... or to impress the provider. You pick your reason. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Let’s see, I said that no provider has ever seen my gun, so figure it out.

And John, thank you for at least acknowledging the desirability of additional training beyond the basic qualifications for a CHL, Originally Posted by LexusLover

Desirable, yes, but not a requirement to attain or keep a CHL.

which is ALL I have been repeatedly expressing as my opinion. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I believe this is the opinionated post that probably got me started

As far as I am concerned a person is not "qualifed" to carry a handgun on their person (or outside the house) until they can CONSISTENTLY un-ass their weapon, fire 2 double taps with soft-ball rounds into center mass on a flip target at 10 feet, and re-secure their weapon inside of 3 seconds. Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Mandate" is your word, not mine, Originally Posted by LexusLover

You may not ‘mandate’, but you do have requirements that would exclude a large portion of legal CHL holders. I have a distinct problem with limiting law abiding citizens rights to defend themselves, even if they are not class A shooter.

and with your attitude here is your reminder " Originally Posted by LexusLover

to avoid being in" my "company....ever." Originally Posted by LexusLover

No fear of that, unless we end up at the same shooting range someday. That could be fun.

What is your agenda, anyway? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Is it that hard to figure out?

Law abiding citizens shall not have right to carry a firearm restricted because they fail to “CONSISTENTLY un-ass their weapon, fire 2 double taps with soft-ball rounds into center mass on a flip target at 10 feet, and re-secure their weapon inside of 3 seconds”
Failure to know the nomenclature of their weapons internals is not required for a CHL. The use of slang or colloquial references are not limiting factors of acquiring a CHL.

Now what is your agenda?

My agenda….. Don’t limit law abiding citizens ability to be legally armed.


You may not ‘mandate’, but you do have requirements that would exclude a large portion of legal CHL holders. I have a distinct problem with limiting law abiding citizens rights to defend themselves, even if they are not class A shooter.


Law abiding citizens shall not have right to carry a firearm restricted because they fail to “CONSISTENTLY un-ass their weapon, fire 2 double taps with soft-ball rounds into center mass on a flip target at 10 feet, and re-secure their weapon inside of 3 seconds”
Failure to know the nomenclature of their weapons internals is not required for a CHL. The use of slang or colloquial references are not limiting factors of acquiring a CHL.

Now what is your agenda? Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

See my post #34.

Reading comprehension 101 or are you "cherry-picking" again?

Like many threads when someone wants to make a point of off-topic you have re-directed the discussion to a general 2nd amendment platform and away from the specific context in which the discussion was directed AND my observations about carrying a weapon and the need for training above the basic CHL level. All your other personal remarks are to augment your weak argument about why folks do not need additional training, which justifies the general passing out of handguns to the general population to "frighten" criminals.....or did you say .... "scare the shit out of them"?

I just saw video on the news of some guy walking into a restuaruant in the area of 45 and Richey with a revolver and shooting a security guard who had run him out of a parking spot ... while customers sat around .... in shock.

The guy was probably scared shitless that someone eating their might have a CHL!

Give it up, and go shoot it up, somewhere.

I asked the question “what is your agenda”

See my post #34. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So here it is….

No, but here IS my point with a question: Originally Posted by LexusLover

You have a hard time just answering a question, don’t you…typical ploy

In "boot camp" or "competition" were you trained or judged on being "ambushed" by yourself in a 20 x 30 foot room in low light unexpectedly by some asshole pushing his way through the door while his "partner" was next to you or in close proximity so that you had at most a couple of seconds to evaluate and respond to the situation unexpectedly presented to you in a manner that does not injure or kill those collateral present who were either outside or next door (downstairs) even, who were non-threatening? Originally Posted by LexusLover

No amount of training can guarantee a positive outcome 100% of the time. This is not the only possible scenario. The recent story of an attacker trying to break through a home owners front door comes to mind. The homeowner acquired his weapon, and shot the attacker. Did he require elevated training to protect his house? Did he even have a CHL. The news never said. Bad guy shot, law abiding citizen save. Sounds like a win/win to me.

My other point IS that some of this "testosterone" and "machismo" ... with the chest beating .... gets people hurt.... and in trouble. Some folks actually believe the shit they see on the internet, on TV, and in the movies. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Some people do stupid things. What else is new? Sky diving, mountain climbing, racing, and just about any other activity you can think of has the potential of death.

Should I answer? The football coach. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I have said it before. He was an idiot.

John, I am not advocating no firearm carrying. I am advocating knowing what must be LEARNED through repetitive, intense training and continual "refreshing" to be able to adequately protect oneself in an uncontrolled environment Originally Posted by LexusLover

How exactly do you intend to that? That is the question I have been trying to get you to answer, and admit your agenda. You have continually sidestepped it, because if you show your real intention, you would be labeled for what you really are.

When the incident unfolds in seconds.... Originally Posted by LexusLover

Does every incident unfold in seconds? Is there ever an incident where someone without high end training could still protect themselves. Your use of extreme situations is the problem, the world does not always happen as you describe.

Without that skill and knowledge the introduction of a firearm increases the risk to yourself and those around you. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The attacker is the greatest risk. I will take my chances on being armed.

The CHL standards are minimum, just like driver's education is to a driver's license. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And as long as a law abiding citizen can maintain those standards, they shall continue to have that CHL.

Reading comprehension 101 or are you "cherry-picking" again? Originally Posted by LexusLover

You sidestep the questions, so now I will take every word you say, and break it down to answer you

Like many threads when someone wants to make a point of off-topic you have re-directed the discussion to a general 2nd amendment platform and away from the specific context in which the discussion was directed AND my observations about carrying a weapon and the need for training above the basic CHL level. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your observations, and critique of those who use terminology you disagree with, are what I have an issue with.

All your other personal remarks are to augment your weak argument about why folks do not need additional training, Originally Posted by LexusLover

I never said ‘need’. I have always said ‘required’. You are twisting the words.

which justifies the general passing out of handguns to the general population to "frighten" criminals.....or did you say .... "scare the shit out of them"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Law abiding citizens shall not have their right to carry infringed due to excessive requirements.

I just saw video on the news of some guy walking into a restuaruant in the area of 45 and Richey with a revolver and shooting a security guard who had run him out of a parking spot ... while customers sat around .... in shock. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How many of those shocked customers had a CHL? How many had a weapon on them at the time? Without the information, your story is a worthless argument in regards to training. It only proves that those people were not able/capable to respond to a threat.

The guy was probably scared shitless that someone eating their might have a CHL! Originally Posted by LexusLover

It appears his anger was larger than his concern for his own safety.

Give it up, and go shoot it up, somewhere. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Take your own advice.

Until you have the power to force your requirements on others, you are just a blowhard, telling the world that we are not good enough to protect ourselves.

Your observation and a dollar will get a cheap cup of coffee.

Your observations, and critique of those who use terminology you disagree with, are what I have an issue with.
Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

Finally! Now that was not so difficult was it?

Beyond this, if it makes you feel better or you think it makes you "look" better, then have the last word in the thread.

Finally! Now that was not so difficult was it?

Beyond this, if it makes you feel better or you think it makes you "look" better, then have the last word in the thread. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Showing that you are an idiot was not difficult at all. You refused to answer direct questions, because your position was not defendable. Your "pie in the sky" dream of removing guns from law abiding citizens who did not meet your criteria was laughable. Your motive? I still suspect either finical, or maybe law enforcement. You would not be the first cop I have come across with similar views. That condescending attitude towards normal civilians is hard to miss.

Try not to fall off that high horse. I hear it's a long way down.

Oops! I thought this was another big dick thread.

It regressed to that.
Read between the lines.

This thread has/had so much potential.

That said, would many of us be surprised that many of the ladies also have their CHL's and are often carrying. I know of at least 3 well reviewed providers that regularly carry and that leads to regularly carrying to a session/at a session.

.... you are an idiot .... I still suspect either finical, or maybe law enforcement. ..... Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

.... you are an idiot .... Your motive? I still suspect either finical, or maybe law enforcement. ... Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

I am ex-military and have had the terminology beaten into me for many years, but this smacks of grammar police caliber remarks. Don't be the elitist.

How many here would preclude our wives, daughters, sons, or grand parents the possibility of armed self protection, because they have not been through boot camp or because they don't compete at IPSC events on a regular basis? I have not shot competitively in over 10 years, should I turn my guns in? Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

Sell them to me!!! Why would a client take a firearm to an incall unless he was planning to rob the place? He can certainly overpower me in a male vs. female situation. If he's gonna try that mess we'll play the "mine's bigger than yours" game and in closer reach....My room, my turf, my rules.

On another note I KNOW to never pull it out and deter if I can because if I pull it out I will use it. Thanks to the Gents on here that taught me the correct stances the correct grips and the most efficient way to use weapons.

Memorial gun range offers 360 degree training. Low light training and MOSTLY all the situations one might encounter....

Plus I don't want blood on my carpets. That's just nasty....

I rarely go to inkalls but when I do, just as in the case of any other private residence, I never enter armed without her permission...this only occurred once, it was the 1st time she ever held a handgun, and now she wants me to take her to Top Gun whenever she comes to town.

Outkalls to my place, however, might as well occur in an armory. Only once have I had a complaint, predictably by a nitwit who was well aware there were weapons all over the place that she somehow missed seeing the other times she had visited, but this time she caught sight of a revolver that was where it had always been, only visible this time. Nitwit. I guess she thought it would sprout legs and chase her around. The squirrelly thing is that she already knew weapons were thick in there; she was like the see-no-evil monkey. NEXT! Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

"Sprout legs and chase her around?" hahaha Do you have a dog? Maybe she thinks you showed your Chihuahua how to use it since the last time you saw her...........


THIS IS TEXAS PEOPLE!!! We all have firearms....Personally I thinck your a fool if you don't! The economic times have increased crime. Thieves are getting bold....Did anyone catch those thieves that robbed the high end men's store on San Felipe for suits on the news? Insane crime in areas that would have not had such acts in the past..

Tanglewild has some burglars running loose.......If there is anything running around in my house at night I will shoot it! Daytime too if I don't invite you in......

I'm a nice lady....I'll ride with you in the ambulance and ask WTF you were doing in my house and if I can call anyone for you....If you can still talk....

A client might take it into the incall if he carries 100% of the time. Hopefully, he would take precautions to conceal it during the session as well.

While I am not interested in selling any gun I own, everything is for sale if the price is right. What are you offering.

That all depends on the size.....

A client might take it into the incall if he carries 100% of the time. Hopefully, he would take precautions to conceal it during the session as well.

While I am not interested in selling any gun I own, everything is for sale if the price is right. What are you offering. Originally Posted by texasjohn1965

How would he conceal it in a session? His purse?