Speed Racer DID NOT advocate for new gun control laws

I took time out this weekend to look for something to refute what SpeedRacer has been saying; that he did not take a position or advocate for new gun laws. He implied a little bit, he brushed beside it but he did not say it or write it. Most of his postings were about concealed carry which he doesn't like. He does not want to be forced to own a gun (nobody said he had to) and he would prefer that everyone who has a CCW has training and the temperment to do so. Of course the former is a given and the latter is a hope.

I was wrong in saying that he was pushing for MORE gun control and so is anyone else who says that he did.

I took time out this weekend to look for something to refute what SpeedRacer has been saying; that he did not take a position or advocate for new gun laws. He implied a little bit, he brushed beside it but he did not say it or write it. Most of his postings were about concealed carry which he doesn't like. He does not want to be forced to own a gun (nobody said he had to) and he would prefer that everyone who has a CCW has training and the temperment to do so. Of course the former is a given and the latter is a hope.

I was wrong in saying that he was pushing for MORE gun control and so is anyone else who says that he did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Thank you JD. Appreciate you taking the time to go back and do the research.

The only point I would like to stress is that I am NOT against CCW. I understand that some people almost require a handgun for protection in their daily lives and others feel much safer with it. I don't LIKE the fact that a few states like Wyoming do not require a CHL to carry a concealed handgun, and some states like Utah do not require even owning a handgun let alone showing competence with it before getting a CHL. But just as N.Y. and N.J. are doing what they believe is right for the majority of their citizens in making CHLs VERY difficult to obtain, Wyoming and Utah are doing the same for their citizens.

Thanks again.

You obviously missed these posts by Speedy, JD.

I am looking at the laws that protect me as a non-gun owner... Requiring people who want to carry a concealed handgun to get a CHL which requires a test of shooting proficiency and a basic knowledge of when and where the handgun should be used helps to protect my rights as a non-gun owner when I am outside my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

... I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who deems it necessary to carry a concealed handgun to do so AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A CHL AND HAVE MET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

... I simply want as much protection as possible from ANYONE carrying a handgun... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

.... What rights other than a CHL requirement have I tried to abridge...[/B] Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Take note, JD, in that last cited post Speedy openly and clearly concedes he wishes to further abridge the rights of American citizens, and he continues to vote for the likes of Odumbo, et al, who are for abridging the rights of American citizens. Note too, JD, Speedy never defines "who" gets to set the "minimum requirements"; hence, leaving the standards vague. Remember Prohibition, JD, many thought that only hard liquor was being outlawed when they voted for the 18th Amendment, and they were unpleasantly surprised to learn that beer was also being outlawed by "those" who set the "minimum requirements".

"No matter how we reform health care, I intend to keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan." Odumbo, June 11, 2009

They come close (and that last one is very close indeed) but they, as far as I could find, do not advocate MORE gun laws. As always, the devil is in the details on what you mean and who gets to do what. I have to go by what I found and not make any leaps to obvious conclusions.

They come close (and that last one is very close indeed) but they, as far as I could find, do not advocate MORE gun laws. As always, the devil is in the details on what you mean and who gets to do what. I have to go by what I found and not make any leaps to obvious conclusions. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Again, you are correct and IB, as usual, is dead wrong. He has more than a tendency to LEAP at conclusions. His belief -- I voted for Obama therefore I supported all the planks in Obama's platform. That is as wrong as saying when I voted for GWB twice, Dole, George Bush twice, and Reagan twice, that I fully supported all the planks in their platforms. Simply not true.

Regarding this comment of mine:

What rights other than a CHL requirement have I tried to abridge

Since I could not find the statement I can't say what was meant when I said ". . I tried to abridge". It could be the current Texas law that allows all colleges to ban handguns from classrooms and dormitories, which I have fought for keeping. If this is indeed where the statement was used, I am NOT proposing additional gun control laws, since the law currently exists and I want the law to remain on the books as is.

Anyway, I've stated several times my thoughts on CHLs. Yes, I would like ALL states to require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun and I would like the applicant for a CHL to show a minimum competence in using the handgun and a minimum knowledge of when that handgun is to be used. Very similar to requiring a license in order to drive a vehicle which can also kill when used by an inexperienced person or a person who does not understand the laws regarding use of the vehicle.

But it is a state's right to enact gun control laws, or not enact gun control laws, as the state sees necessary. If Wyoming wants to allow its citizens to carry a concealed handgun with no CHL, that is its right. Very simple to understand. Only IB does not get it.

IBidiot would walk a mile under a camel.

That he spent time trying to foster more acrimony and mean spirited ugliness on the board indicates his unparalleled assholiness.

The Fabian Socialist Left will not quit and they don't need any help from our side!

A question: Why isn't a person committing a crime with a deadly weapon, in this case a firearm, not automatically charged with a Capitol crime?

Knowing that I'll automatically get put in his "leftist, commie" pigeon hole:
It's pretty obvious from his statements above that I B Hankering never passed the reading comprehension portion of the C.A.T. back in elementary school.
I'd even be willing to bet that he never took it, citing "general principles" opposition to standardized testing.

jd....
why would you even care....you must actually think this is more than a political forum on a hooker site....of the total amount of members here how many or what percentage do you think regularly read this forum....it's always the same group of people responding in every post with the same predictable responses and insults....
do yourself a favor and get over yourself and the importance of this forum....
carry on which I know you will....
and I know all your buttons which makes it fun....

I took time out this weekend to look for something to refute what SpeedRacer has been saying; that he did not take a position or advocate for new gun laws. He implied a little bit, he brushed beside it but he did not say it or write it. Most of his postings were about concealed carry which he doesn't like. He does not want to be forced to own a gun (nobody said he had to) and he would prefer that everyone who has a CCW has training and the temperment to do so. Of course the former is a given and the latter is a hope.

I was wrong in saying that he was pushing for MORE gun control and so is anyone else who says that he did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

jd....
why would you even care....you must actually think this is more than a political forum on a hooker site....of the total amount of members here how many or what percentage do you think regularly read this forum....it's always the same group of people responding in every post with the same predictable responses and insults....
do yourself a favor and get over yourself and the importance of this forum....
carry on which I know you will....
and I know all your buttons which makes it fun.... Originally Posted by stevepar

You read this forum, yet people don't read this forum. Interesting.

cog...
another one that can't pass the reading comprehension test and failed logic 101....
I asked what percentage of the entire membership are regular readers of this forum....

You read this forum, yet people don't read this forum. Interesting.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, you read it, stevebogey. If you don't want to, you don't have to. This forum is here for a reason. If St Chris didn't think this forum drew readers who view the advertising he sells, it wouldn't be here. Maybe some take this place too seriously. So? Who cares? You're right about that - almost no one. But if you don't like it, don't read it. Oh, and STFU.

Well, you read it, stevebogey. If you don't want to, you don't have to. This forum is here for a reason. If St Chris didn't think this forum drew readers who view the advertising he sells, it wouldn't be here. Maybe some take this place too seriously. So? Who cares? You're right about that - almost no one. But if you don't like it, don't read it. Oh, and STFU. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

HanoiCog-Well, you read what steve had to say. If you don't want to, you don't have to. This forum is here for a reason. If St Chris didn't think this forum drew readers who view the advertising he sells, it wouldn't be here. Maybe some take this place too seriously. So? Who cares? You're right about that - almost no one. But if you don't like what steve has to say, don't read it. Oh, and STFU

Again, you are correct and IB, as usual, is dead wrong. He has more than a tendency to LEAP at conclusions. His belief -- I voted for Obama therefore I supported all the planks in Obama's platform. That is as wrong as saying when I voted for GWB twice, Dole, George Bush twice, and Reagan twice, that I fully supported all the planks in their platforms. Simply not true.

Regarding this comment of mine:

What rights other than a CHL requirement have I tried to abridge

[B]Since I could not find the statement I can't say what was meant when I said ". . I tried to abridge". It could be the current Texas law that allows all colleges to ban handguns from classrooms and dormitories, which I have fought for keeping. If this is indeed where the statement was used, I am NOT proposing additional gun control laws, since the law currently exists and I want the law to remain on the books as is.

Anyway, I've stated several times my thoughts on CHLs. Yes, I would like ALL states to require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun and I would like the applicant for a CHL to show a minimum competence in using the handgun and a minimum knowledge of when that handgun is to be used.Very similar to requiring a license in order to drive a vehicle which can also kill when used by an inexperienced person or a person who does not understand the laws regarding use of the vehicle.

But it is a state's right to enact gun control laws, or not enact gun control laws, as the state sees necessary. If Wyoming wants to allow its citizens to carry a concealed handgun with no CHL, that is its right. Very simple to understand. Only IB does not get it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What part of your own posts do you not understand, Speedy? You conceded your position is for further abridgment of rights. You conceded you want laws that are more stringent than are in place in Utah and Wyoming, Speedy. Quit lying Speedy! You are advocating for more laws -- laws that are more stringent than those currently in place, Speedy. Your previous posts are "simple enough to understand".

What rights other than a CHL requirement have I tried to abridge. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Simple enough to understand?? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

IBidiot would walk a mile under a camel.

That he spent time trying to foster more acrimony and mean spirited ugliness on the board indicates his unparalleled assholiness. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Knowing that I'll automatically get put in his "leftist, commie" pigeon hole:
It's pretty obvious from his statements above that I B Hankering never passed the reading comprehension portion of the C.A.T. back in elementary school.
I'd even be willing to bet that he never took it, citing "general principles" opposition to standardized testing. Originally Posted by FoulRon

What part of Speedy's posts do you not understand, FoulRon? Speedy conceded his position is for further abridgment of rights, FoulRon. Speedy conceded he wants laws that are more stringent than are presently in place in Utah and Wyoming. Aren't Speedy's posts "simple enough [for you] to understand", FoulRon? You really need to go back to 2nd grade, FoulRon.