5/02/2007 11:19pm, #21
I just think it's ANOTHER step in the wrong direction.
5/03/2007 9:00am, #22Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
There is something wrong with the motives or the mental health of someone that continually claims that allowing law abiding people to protect themselves is somehow going to turn a city, school, or whatever into the "wild west." Every time someone proposes less restrictions on self defense there are people making these outrageous, hysterical claims of doom, gloom, and blood in the streets that have never come to fruition. Yet time and time again the same people are regurgitating the same lies. I guess they're firm believers in the saying that if you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth.If God carried a gun, it would be a 1911.
Assiduus usus uni rei deditus et ingenium et artem saepe vincit - Cicero
Fortitudine Vincimus - Ernest Shackelton :englishmo
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill
5/03/2007 10:04am, #23
Having tons of guns around means more accidents with guns and ammo, no matter how careful people are. You can't argue with that.
5/03/2007 10:05am, #24
5/03/2007 10:13am, #25
Yes, I should stop trolling OTHER THREADS.
5/03/2007 1:42pm, #26Originally Posted by Kein Haar
Cracky, as a self professed anarcho-socialist (or some such anarcho-Xism) who has railed against the very existence of the police, I would think that you would be in favor of law abiding citizens having the means to protect themselves and others. Even with the police, if you rely on 911, you're more likely to end up receiving the services of the coroner than the police if someone is genuinely intent on doing you harm. 911 didn't really help the kids at Columbine or VT, and it won't help you if you really need it, either.
Oh, Don, one other restriction on CHL holders in Texas is that property owners can decide to make their property gun free zones on their own and a CHL holder on their property that is packing can be charged with trespassing if the owner has properly posted his property stating that concealed weapons are not allowed.
Also, employers can prohibit their employees from carrying, even to the extent of having the firearms in their locked vehicles in the parking lot. Most of the high tech firms in Austin have just such a policy. There is a bill by Represenative Patrick Rose (D) being considered in the Senate right now that would prohibit employers from prohibiting employees from having firearms in their locked vehicles.
Last edited by TEA; 5/03/2007 1:49pm at .
5/03/2007 4:17pm, #27Cracky, as a self professed anarcho-socialist (or some such anarcho-Xism) who has railed against the very existence of the police, I would think that you would be in favor of law abiding citizens having the means to protect themselves and others.
5/03/2007 4:28pm, #28
So, I take it you don't own any guns, then.
5/03/2007 4:37pm, #29
No, I would if the laws were laxer, or if I hadn't lost my wallet when I took the gun safety course (no ID, no gun license for me), but I'm not shelling out hundreds more dollars just so I have legal permission to buy one. When I want one and have the money to waste, I'm just gonna break the law.
5/04/2007 6:30am, #30Originally Posted by Cracky McSlugHoot