Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

Please tell me -- who appointed you as spokesperson for all gun owners. Your opinions, like those of the NRA, represent a very small segment of gun owners. In your case, no one even on this forum has come to your defense. Idiot.

Don't bother responding. I'm through responding to your inane posts. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There are essentially two sides to this argument, and your lying ass admitted that your opinion 'differs' from that of gun owners: the side that doesn't want more regulation, speedy. That is your unequivocal admission that you are on the side that favors more regulation, speedy.

There are essentially two sides to this argument, and your lying ass admitted that your opinion 'differs' from that of gun owners: the side that doesn't want more regulation, speedy. That is your unequivocal admission that you are on the side that favors more regulation, speedy.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

He's got no dog in this hunt, anyway, until "THEY" find out that there are other weapons that kill people~!!! ... Like pressure cookers!!!!!

It's a real simple analysis from an historic perspective, which is the foundation of the 2nd amendment interpretations in Heller... as opposed to the wishful thinking of the "Disarm America" crowd to which he belongs, whether he will admit it or not.

He's over here talking about a CHL .....

.... I don't need a CHL to carry an AR15!

.... or a Mossberg Maverck HS12.

I don't even need a CHL to carry a handgun in my vehicle!

And I suspect the asshole who decides to take down a club full of whimps from Cedar Park Trailer Park .... isn't too choked up about some "extra training" or an up-to-date "license to carry"! If he really thinks so, perhaps he should do some Friday night strolls in the "right" neighborhoods in Chicago .... you know, get out some! Ask any shooter if he has a CHL?

He's got no dog in this hunt, anyway, until "THEY" find out that there are other weapons that kill people~!!! ... Like pressure cookers!!!!!

It's a real simple analysis from an historic perspective, which is the foundation of the 2nd amendment interpretations in Heller... as opposed to the wishful thinking of the "Disarm America" crowd to which he belongs, whether he will admit it or not.

He's over here talking about a CHL .....

.... I don't need a CHL to carry an AR15!

.... or a Mossberg Maverck HS12.

I don't even need a CHL to carry a handgun in my vehicle!

And I suspect the asshole who decides to take down a club full of whimps from Cedar Park Trailer Park .... isn't too choked up about some "extra training" or an up-to-date "license to carry"! If he really thinks so, perhaps he should do some Friday night strolls in the "right" neighborhoods in Chicago .... you know, get out some! Ask any shooter if he has a CHL? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Thanks for having me on "Ignore". Ignorant, redneck, hillbilly.

And remember. This "whimp" can kick your ass. Not a threat. Simply a fact. BTW, you still haven't told me where the trailer park is in Cedar Park.

Can't take it that I proved your statements about Heller to be incorrect?

I know that a CHL does not apply to an AR-15. I know that a CHL is not required for you to carry a handgun in your car. Never implied otherwise. However, a CHL is required to conceal carry a handgun in the state of Texas. Unless you want to break the law which I doubt you have any problem doing since you are a hillbilly. Laws don't apply to you.

He's got no dog in this hunt, anyway, until "THEY" find out that there are other weapons that kill people~!!! ... Like pressure cookers!!!!!

It's a real simple analysis from an historic perspective, which is the foundation of the 2nd amendment interpretations in Heller... as opposed to the wishful thinking of the "Disarm America" crowd to which he belongs, whether he will admit it or not.

He's over here talking about a CHL .....

.... I don't need a CHL to carry an AR15!

.... or a Mossberg Maverck HS12.

I don't even need a CHL to carry a handgun in my vehicle!

And I suspect the asshole who decides to take down a club full of whimps from Cedar Park Trailer Park .... isn't too choked up about some "extra training" or an up-to-date "license to carry"! If he really thinks so, perhaps he should do some Friday night strolls in the "right" neighborhoods in Chicago .... you know, get out some! Ask any shooter if he has a CHL? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bears repeating, apparently.

I thought I was on "Ignore" by LexusLoser. But I digress.

Unfortunately, LexusLoser does not mention that the Heller decision also stated the following:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon (arms not weapons refers to personal firearms only so to keep bringing up things like bazookas or explosives is wrong...and a little insane.) whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill (no one said that it did, that is only your feeble assertation), or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings (that has been working pretty well so far hasn't it? Maybe it's time for something new) , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (As the Vickes case in the the 1930s shows, you give the government an inch, it will take a mile.)
States can impose gun control laws as they see fit based on this SCOTUS ruling. LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling. I do not and a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in case brought against the state of New York stated that the NY requirements for obtaining a CHL, which are very restrictive, did NOT violate the Constitution. Yes, requiring people to go through a training course is gun control (I thought the issue was crime and not gun control). So is not allowing people under a certain age to purchase a gun gun control. As is not allowing average citizens to own an M-16 (average people don't have M16s, they own AR15s) . As is banning guns from certain establishments. So is not allowing guns on planes. Background checks are gun control. I can go on and on.

Again, LexusLoser's argument, like so many other gun control arguments, are based on the belief that "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile." Once you start allowing such gun control, the "liberals" will want more and more. When I was stationed in Virginia Maryland wanted to ban "assault rifles", so they did by lying about how often they were used for crime. Then they decided to ban "armor piercing ammunition" by mischaracterizing what it was. Then they went after....wait for it...."sniper rifles". That time people caught own that they were talking about hunting rifles and they failed. Yes, they will take a mile if they can.

I never said that training should be mandatory to possess a firearm. The odds of a gun in someone's home, someone who is totally untrained with the gun, will probably never affect someone outside the home. However, once that person leaves the home with a gun, he/she is a potential threat to others (but mainly criminals which is the purpose) if they are untrained. Very small threat but still a threat. My opinion. So yes, I support the law in Texas that requires a minimum number of hours in order to obtain a CHL. If LexusLoser does not like that law, he can carry illegally, can fight the law in court, or try to remove the law. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your own words, I just corrected and finished them for you.

Your own words, I just corrected and finished them for you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Please keep in mind the "slight of hand" from "handguns" to "guns" ....

.. as I mentioned before the discussion about "climate change" and "global warming" get morphed into the same conversation and they are distinctly different concept.

The 2nd Amendment is not about "handguns" ... and it's also not about "home protection" .... and it's not about "hunting" .....

... the "No Guns Crowd" attempts at every turn to redefine the conversation.

The education from Heller is just that .... the breadth of the 2nd amendment.

When "they" start talking about "CHL" as a basis for permission to have a "gun" in the home for self-protection, like Speedo, they are attempting to narrowly define the 2nd Amendment. Then it's "that is not your home" and "that firearm is not the kind one uses for self-protection"! The next step to choking the scope of the Amendment is to establish the "standards" to have a "CHL" to keep a handgun in the home for self-protection!!!!!

Go back and look at Speedo's rant! Here's an example:

"LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling." .....

Now where did I post that? So now little Speedo is telling me what I "believe"!

That is a ball-faced lie! How can anyone have a discussion with a liar?

How can anyone dismiss the concept of the expansion of the government regulation of behavior once the government gets its foot in the door? Can you say "Obamacare"?

It's "sleight of hand", but who am I to correct the smartest person on the board?

It's "sleight of hand", but who am I to correct the smartest person on the board? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Actually, since I wrote it and meant it as I wrote it .....

.. it's "slight of hand" .... which explains the quotes around it!

Since you don't know about metaphors, you probably don't know about "homophones" either. Or do you think that's your cell phone to use to call your boyfriend?

Keep struggling for relevance.

Go back to the porch where you belong.

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon (arms not weapons refers to personal firearms only so to keep bringing up things like bazookas or explosives is wrong...and a little insane.) whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill (no one said that it did, that is only your feeble assertation), or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings (that has been working pretty well so far hasn't it? Maybe it's time for something new) , or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." (As the Vickes case in the the 1930s shows, you give the government an inch, it will take a mile.)
States can impose gun control laws as they see fit based on this SCOTUS ruling. LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling. I do not and a subsequent SCOTUS ruling in case brought against the state of New York stated that the NY requirements for obtaining a CHL, which are very restrictive, did NOT violate the Constitution. Yes, requiring people to go through a training course is gun control (I thought the issue was crime and not gun control). So is not allowing people under a certain age to purchase a gun gun control. As is not allowing average citizens to own an M-16 (average people don't have M16s, they own AR15s) . As is banning guns from certain establishments. So is not allowing guns on planes. Background checks are gun control. I can go on and on.

Again, LexusLoser's argument, like so many other gun control arguments, are based on the belief that "If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile." Once you start allowing such gun control, the "liberals" will want more and more. When I was stationed in Virginia Maryland wanted to ban "assault rifles", so they did by lying about how often they were used for crime. Then they decided to ban "armor piercing ammunition" by mischaracterizing what it was. Then they went after....wait for it...."sniper rifles". That time people caught own that they were talking about hunting rifles and they failed. Yes, they will take a mile if they can.

I never said that training should be mandatory to possess a firearm. The odds of a gun in someone's home, someone who is totally untrained with the gun, will probably never affect someone outside the home. However, once that person leaves the home with a gun, he/she is a potential threat to others (but mainly criminals which is the purpose) if they are untrained. Very small threat but still a threat. My opinion. So yes, I support the law in Texas that requires a minimum number of hours in order to obtain a CHL. If LexusLoser does not like that law, he can carry illegally, can fight the law in court, or try to remove the law.

Your own words, I just corrected and finished them for you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Thanks for the corrections. Address them to SCOTUS the next time since these statements came from them, not me.

The only point I will address is the last one. As stated, it is my opinion. As I previously stated, when I am outside my home I don't worry about criminals OR law-abiding citizens with guns. It is a non-factor as I go through my day. I worry much more about being hit by a car while riding my bike. But while riding, I do as much as I can to keep myself from being injured. I wear a helmet at all times. I ride as far to the right as possible. I listen and watch. There are also laws that protect me. Cars are supposed to give me 3 feet of space when passing me. I am to be treated like any other "vehicle" on the road. You probably think I am digressing but the point is that I want laws that protect me from others. And I see laws that require training to obtain a CHL as intending to do just that. Again, my opinion.

Please keep in mind the "slight of hand" from "handguns" to "guns" ....

.. as I mentioned before the discussion about "climate change" and "global warming" get morphed into the same conversation and they are distinctly different concept.

The 2nd Amendment is not about "handguns" ... and it's also not about "home protection" .... and it's not about "hunting" .....

... the "No Guns Crowd" attempts at every turn to redefine the conversation.

The education from Heller is just that .... the breadth of the 2nd amendment.

When "they" start talking about "CHL" as a basis for permission to have a "gun" in the home for self-protection, like Speedo, they are attempting to narrowly define the 2nd Amendment. Then it's "that is not your home" and "that firearm is not the kind one uses for self-protection"! The next step to choking the scope of the Amendment is to establish the "standards" to have a "CHL" to keep a handgun in the home for self-protection!!!!!

Go back and look at Speedo's rant! Here's an example:

"LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling." .....

Now where did I post that? So now little Speedo is telling me what I "believe"!

That is a ball-faced lie! How can anyone have a discussion with a liar?

How can anyone dismiss the concept of the expansion of the government regulation of behavior once the government gets its foot in the door? Can you say "Obamacare"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Here is your statement from post #94 in this thread:

Once the government gets its "foot in the door" of mandatory, universal training to possess a firearm, it's over as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. That's not a requirement, never was, and should not ever be.

This was a statement made by you after going over in detail the Heller ruling and stating "The Heller opinion actually goes beyond that in dicta (which was incidental to the DC statute of sorts) when the interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Court extended the protection of the 2nd amendment to "bearing" firearms, which was interpreted to mean for self-protection outside of the "home". "

So I am reading those 2 statements as saying you believe the Heller decision went beyond the scope of self-protection in the home (which it did) and should not have. And by doing so, it was going against your OPINION that mandatory, universal training to possess a firearm (which I've NEVER said or supported) is the beginning of the end for the 2nd Amendment.(Training to possess a firearm and training to carry a handgun on the street are 2 different issues.) Now this might be an incorrect assumption on my part but it is hardly a lie.

It is YOU who is muddying up the thread by taking a discussion on mandatory training in order to obtain a CHL and moving it to mandatory training to possess a firearm, which are 2 totally different issues.

CHLs are required to carry a concealed handgun in the majority of the 50 states. Included in the requirements in most of those states is mandatory training. As made clear in the Heller decision and subsequent court decisions, those requirements are Constitutional. This is fact, not opinion. I'm sorry if the facts are contrary to your opinion as how things should be.

I'm sure since I'm on "ignore" you won't respond. Ignorant redneck hillbilly.

It's "sleight of hand", but who am I to correct the smartest person on the board? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And he will be the first person to agree with you!!

Please keep in mind the "slight of hand" from "handguns" to "guns" ....

.. as I mentioned before the discussion about "climate change" and "global warming" get morphed into the same conversation and they are distinctly different concept.

The 2nd Amendment is not about "handguns" ... and it's also not about "home protection" .... and it's not about "hunting" .....

... the "No Guns Crowd" attempts at every turn to redefine the conversation.

The education from Heller is just that .... the breadth of the 2nd amendment.

When "they" start talking about "CHL" as a basis for permission to have a "gun" in the home for self-protection, like Speedo, they are attempting to narrowly define the 2nd Amendment. Then it's "that is not your home" and "that firearm is not the kind one uses for self-protection"! The next step to choking the scope of the Amendment is to establish the "standards" to have a "CHL" to keep a handgun in the home for self-protection!!!!!

Go back and look at Speedo's rant! Here's an example:

"LexusLoser believes that requiring training in order to obtain a CHL is in conflict with the Heller ruling." .....

Now where did I post that? So now little Speedo is telling me what I "believe"!

That is a ball-faced lie! How can anyone have a discussion with a liar?

How can anyone dismiss the concept of the expansion of the government regulation of behavior once the government gets its foot in the door? Can you say "Obamacare"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

The government knows all it needs to do is get its foot in the door with innocuous, small stuff, then it can burrow its way deep into the issue, never to be dislodged.

It requires constant vigilance to protect against our own government's overreach. which infringes upon our rights as free men.

It requires constant vigilance to protect against our own government's overreach. which infringes upon our rights as free men. Originally Posted by DSK

That's one concept the "entitlement" crowd never has grasped .... "the rules"!

Actually, since I wrote it and meant it as I wrote it .....

.. it's "slight of hand" .... which explains the quotes around it!

Since you don't know about metaphors, you probably don't know about "homophones" either. Or do you think that's your cell phone to use to call your boyfriend?

Keep struggling for relevance.

Go back to the porch where you belong. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LOL! Yeah, that's it! I'm struggling for relevance on a hooker board. You must be bored to make such a ridiculous claim on this board. Homophone, right?

...as for being on "ignore" ..... you are! When someone else quotes you it shows .....

... so you believe that if I carry my weapon outside the home it is "illegal"?

The state of Texas cannot "constitutionally" tell me I cannot have a firearm outside of my home, and the State of Texas has not said that in my adult life time ... Before you start discussing the law, you should probably know about it.

When you want everyone to be "trained" before they can go outside with a weapon then you are engaging in "gun control" .... then when you start dictating how much training, etc, you are furthering that "gun control" ....

Speedo:"States can impose gun control laws as they see fit based on this SCOTUS ruling." .... That statement alone is incorrect. D.C. couldn't! There's not one standard for the Feds and another for the States. The 2nd amendment applies to both.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

First, ignore is ignore, whether it is directly or second-hand. You are not only an ignorant redneck hillbilly but you are a hypocritical ignorant redneck hillbilly.

My statement about states being able to impose gun laws as they see fit is totally CORRECT. Here is the background on the Heller suit:

In February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."[16] They filed for an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina dismissed the lawsuit."

D.C. in fact passed the law and the Heller decision overturned it. End of discussion.
You should really try to understand what the Heller decision stated before discussing it.

Yes, when I say want people to be trained when they carry a handgun outside the home, I understand it is gun control. The state of Texas, and most other states requires training in order to obtain an LTC (formerly known as a CHL). I really don't care if you think it violates your 2nd Amendment rights. I support it because I believe it is in the best interest of the majority of the people. That is an opinion, one which I am certain you disagree with, and I have no problem with that.

In all fairness I'd really like to understand this statement of your's better:

"The state of Texas cannot "constitutionally" tell me I cannot have a firearm outside of my home, and the State of Texas has not said that in my adult life time ... Before you start discussing the law, you should probably know about it."

Let's forget for a moment the "constitutionally" part of the statement. Can you legally walk down a public street in the state of Texas with a concealed handgun without an LTC? Yes or no?