the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

Connecticut??? I've never mentioned Connecticut. Try again.

My "enlightened approach" is currently supported by the overwhelming majority of the 50 states, so I would hardly refer to it as MY enlightened approach. A handful of states do not require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. Get your facts straight for a change. In Texas, less than 3% of citizens 21 and older have a valid CHL. That leaves 97% of us who are either carrying concealed handguns illegally, don't want to invest the time/money to obtain a CHL, or, the largest group by far IMHO, those who don't really care about whether or not the ability to obtain a CHL exists. I firmly believe that the majority of the 97% want people obtaining CHLs to be qualified by a certified course of instruction. I'm sorry that such a "burden" is placed on those such as yourself that would pass a CHL course without having to attend it, but most times laws are made for the majority and not the minority Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Connecticut is in the OP, Speedy. Connecticut ex post facto defined certain types of weapons illegal exposing previously law-abiding owners subject to fines and imprisonment. Didn't you understand that, Speedy? Further, CHLs are like liquor stamps during Prohibition and, as such, are subject to governmental abuse like liquor stamps were abused during Prohibition. But unlike liquor, the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally stipulated right.

No, I think he's REALLY retarded. He should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

+ 100,000,000,000,000,000,000

IBS,et al, are so fucking retarded, they shouldn't be allowed to,speak out against any government program... Especially those that support their retarded lifestyles.

IBS,et al, are so fucking retarded, they shouldn't be allowed to,speak out against any government program... Especially those that support their retarded lifestyles. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Did you say something Assy Fucke?

duhhhh, it's Simpler Jack

The recent decisions (D.C v Heller) by SCOTUS have extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment to include an individual's right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes.

I'm sure you knew that. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Did you have a point? Or has your ability to comprehend dropped suddenly?

Connecticut is in the OP, Speedy. Connecticut ex post facto defined certain types of weapons illegal exposing previously law-abiding owners subject to fines and imprisonment. Didn't you understand that, Speedy? Further, CHLs are like liquor stamps during Prohibition and, as such, are subject to governmental abuse like liquor stamps were abused during Prohibition. But unlike liquor, the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally stipulated right. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I did not comment on the Connecticut part of the discussion at all. If you can find otherwise please let me know. Until then I'll consider your comment a fabrication of your deluded mind. Again, because you still don't get it, the right to bear arms is NOT absolute except in your antiquated delusional mind.

Did you have a point? Or has your ability to comprehend dropped suddenly? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Your earlier comment:

The right to bear arms was not recognized so we can protect ourselves from criminals. It was recognized so we can protect ourselves from GOVERNMENT!

which I fully agree with but most gun rights advocates will not, but recent SCOTUS decisions have expanded the scope to include individuals' right to bear arms. If I still am not understanding the point of your original comment I apologize, Senility setting in.

I did not comment on the Connecticut part of the discussion at all. If you can find otherwise please let me know. Until then I'll consider your comment a fabrication of your deluded mind. Again, because you still don't get it, the right to bear arms is NOT absolute except in your antiquated delusional mind.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When you stated that the states have the right to abridge the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment you were endorsing Connecticut's unconstitutional actions. It's your Kool Aid notion of what the Second Amendment means that is delusional, Speedy.

When you stated that the states have the right to abridge the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment you were endorsing Connecticut's unconstitutional actions. It's your Kool Aid notion of what the Second Amendment means that is delusional, Speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You have made SEVERAL absolutely ridiculous statements in this thread but your first statement is, without doubt, the most absurd. How you can go from point A, my agreeing with a specific gun control law, requirement of a CHL to carry a concealed handgun, to Point B, that I somehow support Connecticut's actions and that I want firearms taken from people, is beyond any reasonable person's thinking. Oh, I forgot. I'm dealing with a senile old idiot.

You are the one who is truly delusional and wants everyone to believe that YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct. I thank God that you are part of a very, very small minority.

You have made SEVERAL absolutely ridiculous statements in this thread but your first statement is, without doubt, the most absurd. How you can go from point A, my agreeing with a specific gun control law, requirement of a CHL to carry a concealed handgun, to Point B, that I somehow support Connecticut's actions and that I want firearms taken from people, is beyond any reasonable person's thinking. Oh, I forgot. I'm dealing with a senile old idiot.

You are the one who is truly delusional and wants everyone to believe that YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct. I thank God that you are part of a very, very small minority. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're trying to distance yourself from your earlier remarks, Speedy.

It is the laws that have been passed by the states and upheld by the court systems that are relevant. Or in many cases not even challenged. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

According to laws passed in many states it does. Do YOU understand that? Again, it does not matter what you or I think on the subject. It is your OPINION against FACT. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Regarding that "minority" opinion:



"Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans who don't have a gun in their household think the United States needs stricter gun control laws. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in households with a gun disagree."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_two_americas

You're trying to distance yourself from your earlier remarks, Speedy.



Regarding that "minority" opinion:



"Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans who don't have a gun in their household think the United States needs stricter gun control laws. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in households with a gun disagree."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...s_two_americas Originally Posted by I B Hankering

First, there is a HUGE difference between "stricter" gun control laws and "nonexistent" gun control laws which you support. Even you must understand that. And the gun control law, CHL requirement, is irrelevant in your chart since it already exists in most states so would not be considered a "stricter gun control law" in any but about 5 states which do not require a CHL to carry a concealed handgun. If your are going to present data to back up an opinion, make it relevant.

Regarding my 2 statements that you cited, I stand behind them 100%. No where in either statement am I talking about any specific law or ruling, or even whether I personally agree with them. You tend to get off on tangents and not take any time to even try to comprehend the statements of other people. All I'm saying is that it does not matter at all what YOUR opinion or what MY opinion is on 2nd Amendment rights. Your opinion is that no CHL should be required in order to carry a concealed handgun. My opinion is that it should be. I'm sure Wyoming doesn't give a damn what I think and N.Y doesn't give a damn what you think. And NO WHERE in either of those 2 statements does it say I necessarily agree with all gun control laws in affect in all the states. The FACT is that gun control laws exist despite what you believe should be.

How many times do I have to tell you that it is NOT in any way MY ilk to pick and choose. What I believe and what you believe is totally irrelevant. It is the laws that have been passed by the states and upheld by the court systems that are relevant. Or in many cases not even challenged. A 16 year old in Texas cannot get a CHL. A person can't legally carry a gun into my office building, my Credit Union, or any other business which has a sign stating it is illegal to do so. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT???? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, there is a HUGE difference between "stricter" gun control laws and "nonexistent" gun control laws which you support. Even you must understand that. And the gun control law, CHL requirement, is irrelevant in your chart since it already exists in most states so would not be considered a "stricter gun control law" in any but about 5 states which do not require a CHL to carry a concealed handgun. If your are going to present data to back up an opinion, make it relevant.

Regarding my 2 statements that you cited, I stand behind them 100%. No where in either statement am I talking about any specific law or ruling, or even whether I personally agree with them. You tend to get off on tangents and not take any time to even try to comprehend the statements of other people. All I'm saying is that it does not matter at all what YOUR opinion or what MY opinion is on 2nd Amendment rights. Your opinion is that no CHL should be required in order to carry a concealed handgun. My opinion is that it should be. I'm sure Wyoming doesn't give a damn what I think and N.Y doesn't give a damn what you think. And NO WHERE in either of those 2 statements does it say I necessarily agree with all gun control laws in affect in all the states. The FACT is that gun control laws exist despite what you believe should be. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your entire thesis is bogus, Speedy. You cannot cite where a single community in this country isn't already subject to some sort of gun regulation; yet, you lib-retards are not happy and insist on more laws and regulations!

Your entire thesis is bogus, Speedy. You cannot cite where a single community in this country isn't already subject to some sort of gun regulation; yet, you lib-retards are not happy and insist on more laws and regulations! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are really STUPID. You are totally unable to grasp the most simple statements. I have NEVER stated that there is anyplace in the U.S. that is not subject to some sort of gun regulation. There is NOWHERE in my previous post where I am asking for more gun control laws or regulations. JUST ONCE GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT.

And then of course you resort to your ultimate insult of calling me a lib-retard. Believe me, if a lib-retard is the opposite of you, an ignorant, senile, decrepit old gun monger, I am very happy being one.

You are really STUPID. You are totally unable to grasp the most simple statements. I have NEVER stated that there is anyplace in the U.S. that is not subject to some sort of gun regulation. There is NOWHERE in my previous post where I am asking for more gun control laws or regulations. JUST ONCE GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT.

And then of course you resort to your ultimate insult of calling me a lib-retard. Believe me, if a lib-retard is the opposite of you, an ignorant, senile, decrepit old gun monger, I am very happy being one. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your statement, Speedy, you own it -- now prove it!

First, there is a HUGE difference between "stricter" gun control laws and "nonexistent" gun control laws which you support. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're the Kool Aid sotted fool that lives in fear and who is decrepitly insecure about someone else having and exercising rights you don't approve of, Speedy.