Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposes lifting all CCW restrictions

...I am not saying that to insult you but who am I to know?...

Well, unfortunately that would count as an insult, and were you to put more thought into your posts prior to hitting "submit" you may one day realize that. For the time being however there other methods of assuring that I'm not insulted by you grouping me in with silly rednecks you see on TV.
 
Honestly Knyte you cannot prove one way or the other any percentage of gun owners are stable or responsible.
Actually one way to do so would be to look at the number of crimes commited by CCW holders compared to the total number of CCW holders in each state.
I dont care how many test you are given or how many safety classes you have taken, it comes down to the individual. As a whole I do not see every gun owner as responsible. As FG pointed out it is from personal experience and perception. Out of all the people I have seen with guns I can say maybe 2 of them follow your strict safety guidelines. Honestly you could be one of those and you might not be because I have only "heard" what you preach about gun safety. For all I know you could be whipping it out at bars and playing "whos gun is bigger". I am not saying that to insult you but who am I to know. That is my point, how do I know that this random person holding a gun is going to be responsible around my child??? Which brings me to my point, it doesnt need to be around my child if I do not chose it to be. Whos to say those school shootings wouldnt have been worse with more guns in play?
Pointed this out in the Vtec thread:
someone on another forum put it best:

One of the consequences of a free society is that some few individuals will not exercise their freedoms responsibly. Instead, they will exploit their liberty to perform the most despicable acts imaginable. I am unwilling to surrender my liberty in an effort to protect myself, or others, from such evil men. A free society will always be vulnerable to the plans of such men.

Those precious lives lost in this horrible event, or any similar future event, can not be redeemed by surrendering our liberties. A great many people have fallen so that we might live as a free people, and not all of them where in uniform or killed in war.
the interesting thing is that he was referring to our freedom of speech, not our right to keep and bear arms
 
Ha ha, yeah it's funny how you repeatedly make generalizations that offend me. What's strange though is how I continually find myself carefully wording and "sugar coating" responses to you on serious matters because in the past you've freaked out whenever someone has come close to offending you or anything close to you.

Personal attacks compared to you putting words into my mouth like "to and from school" is completely different. But try again
 
And could they carry them into airports, onto planes, or in a court room? No.

You wanna carry one to the mall .. go ahead.

Ever wonder why murder suspects wear bullet proof vests from the transport van to the courthouse and then they are removed in the courtroom.. because the people OUTSIDE can have guns .. the people on the side don't.

:lol:

You have absolutely no clue how laws get passed do you? If someone doesnt want you to let anyone have a gun, and you want everyone to have a gun, you put some feel good BS about not having them in certain places in the law and the people who dont feel strongly either way vote your way. Durr-hurr

There is not some grand plan to protect anyone.

Your last example is not even related.
 
Since no one else can argue this point, and since you were apparently on the high school debate team, I'll ask you very clearly....


WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING IN A COURTHOUSE/BAR/CHURCH AND BEING IN A MALL AS FAR AS CRIMINALS COMING IN AND KILLING YOU IS CONCERNED? AND WHY SHOULD PEOPLE NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WHILE IN SUCH PLACES?

I'm vastly in favor of CCW licenses and such, but I'll take up 2 of these.

I don't think being in a bar should matter. But you shouldn't be allowed to carry while you're drunk. Nobody forces you to drink, if you would rather be allowed to carry then I think a person should be able to make that decision. Of course it's only so enforceable but just keeping it off the books isn't really going to help either.

A courthouse really SHOULD be different. I don't know about you guys but where I went to go pay my stop sign ticket seemed pretty close to being a military installation. There are a ton of police, and by far and large I normally agree that you can't depend on the police to keep you safe. It's small enough that you can feasibly disarm everyone coming in (or you should be able to), much like an airplane.

0 guns is the most safe way to be. However just 1 nutjob with a gun is the most dangerous way. If we can't assure absolute 0, I agree that people with CCWs should be allowed to carry there. I think this 0 model works in airplanes and courthouses. I agree with you that schools don't fit here though.
 
Like I said before and again and again...

I am all for your right to carry, go right ahead. There are just some situations such as a classroom with 30 children in it that you should NOT be able to bring it. Ill say the same as wren to, there is no reason for you to have a loaded gun on you when your state of mind is altered. As for courtrooms of course you should not be able to carry the weapon. It is usually a room full of emotions. Also, if you have a gun and pull that weapon in defense how is the police officer going to tell the difference? If I am standing in a courtroom as a cop and multiple people pull guns, Ill shoot first ask questions later.
 
I'm vastly in favor of CCW licenses and such, but I'll take up 2 of these.



I don't think being in a bar should matter. But you shouldn't be allowed to carry while you're drunk. Nobody forces you to drink, if you would rather be allowed to carry then I think a person should be able to make that decision. Of course it's only so enforceable but just keeping it off the books isn't really going to help either.



A courthouse really SHOULD be different. I don't know about you guys but where I went to go pay my stop sign ticket seemed pretty close to being a military installation. There are a ton of police, and by far and large I normally agree that you can't depend on the police to keep you safe. It's small enough that you can feasibly disarm everyone coming in (or you should be able to), much like an airplane.



0 guns is the most safe way to be. However just 1 nutjob with a gun is the most dangerous way. If we can't assure absolute 0, I agree that people with CCWs should be allowed to carry there. I think this 0 model works in airplanes and courthouses. I agree with you that schools don't fit here though.



Well paint my face red and call Sally Sue over fer a cookout, someone actually brought up a relevant point in response to my questions.



When carrying it's illegal to have any alcohol whatsoever in your system. Not even a single beer, period. Do so and your license is removed and you'll likely never get another one.



Courthouse security would remain almost unchanged EXCEPT FOR CCW permit holders would not have to give up there weapons at the door. There would still be armed police. There would still be metal detectors for now CCW permit holding citizens.



As far as airports go the law would allow carriers to have their guns IN THE AIRPORT BUILDING ITSELF. The same rules would apply for carrying them on an airplane.
 
No, laws are put in place to punish people. Laws cannot restrict anyone - smart or stupid, good or bad - from doing anything. Words on a piece of paper have zero effect on someone intent on commiting crimes.

Laws have to be broken before they can be applied.

True. Yet it is the punishments for breaking those laws that keep most people from breaking them, and that keep the majority of us safe. Take those laws away .. I refer back to my point of giving some people an inch .. and they will take a mile. You don't give them that inch .. it makes it much harder for them to make the mile.

It isn't failsafe .. nothing is. But it does at least keep somewhat of a buffer in place.

I'll ask you very clearly....

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING IN A COURTHOUSE/BAR/CHURCH AND BEING IN A MALL AS FAR AS CRIMINALS COMING IN AND KILLING YOU IS CONCERNED? AND WHY SHOULD PEOPLE NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WHILE IN SUCH PLACES?

I dont understand WHY you would need a gun in church, so I don't really care about that. A bar is a public place as well, so it falls under my *I care* radar as well. Those are all public places, you know up front that you could be shot. You don't find many derranged people going into a mall and picking people off.

Most people who do thesort of thing I'm talking about have a specific agenda on their plate. They have a problem with an individual or a group of individuals. They have a specific target in mind when they set about ther mission. Usually it is well planned out.

A person who is distraught is willing to do things your normal person won't.

Police officers are trained weapon carriers. That doesn't mean they aren't corrupt, or dumb, or irrisponsible. But that is their job. They keep guns out of airports and courthouses to cut down the CHANCE/RISK of a violent situation from occurring.

Most courthouses are not one story. They are designed that way for a purpose .. to contain problems. They put metal detectors at the door to stop as much as they can. If someone does happen to get past them .. they can/will lock the elevators down. Most courthouses don't grant you access to the stairwells because of that.

You let people start walking in with weapons, they don't know to do that. They get on the elevator, go to the floor they want, walk into court, sit down, hear what they thought they were going to .. and problem escalates. No one had any warning.

Ok, EXAMPLE: (this is a solid example .. it has happen before)

so let's say a CCW card carrier is doing this. He pulls out his gun and kills the defendant (who really was innocent btw) the bullet tears through him and into his lawyer and kills her too.

Bring in this new law: (this is theoretical)
You stand up, take out your gun and shoot the person, killing them. Problem is the bullet also passes through him and ends up in one of the baliff's who was standing close to him (paralizing him).

Problem solved?

hmm...

Now, you look around you at the pandemonium that is in process. People are runnig everywhere, screaming and crying. What about the 10 people who were trampled in the process of everyone in the court room scrambling to get away? Some being children. (Not all parents can secure childcare for court. They do allow them in the courtroom.)

The problem I see.

Who is responsible for all the commotion? Do you feel responsible for shooting the Baliff? Should the senator feel responsible for allowing guns in the courthouse in the first place? How should the family of the people injured feel? What happens to/for them?

I feel the same way in regards to a plane/airport.


Long story short. Guns are not NEEDED in these places .. it's simply the fact that people WANT to be able to have them in those places.
 
True. Yet it is the punishments for breaking those laws that keep most people from breaking them, and that keep the majority of us safe. Take those laws away .. I refer back to my point of giving some people an inch .. and they will take a mile....

K, you realize that you just fabricated 3/4 of that post and then cited it as an example, right?

Oh, and your personal definition on where a gun is "needed" is irrelevant when we're talking about someone's RIGHT to have one there.
 
Last edited:
Long story short. Guns are not NEEDED in these places .. it's simply the fact that people WANT to be able to have them in those places.

Ironically guns aren't really needed anywhere, it's simply the fact that some people don't WANT other people to have them in certain places.
 
Courthouse security would remain almost unchanged EXCEPT FOR CCW permit holders would not have to give up there weapons at the door. There would still be armed police. There would still be metal detectors for now CCW permit holding citizens.
The issue was already raised regarding previously licensed CCW permit holders deciding to dish out some vigilante justice, say if their kid got raped and the guy was gonna walk. It was also mentioned that defendants at risk wear bulletproof vests outside the courtroom, but not inside.

Since the security is already in place to ensure no one besides law enforecement can carry a gun inside a courtroom i see no reason to open it up to CWW permit holders.

This is a really specific one though, and is likely to come up before the bill has been hammered out in the house.
 
lol .. whatever.

Like I've said before .. I'm not tryin to change your mind. You aren't going to change mine either. That is simply my opinion on the matter and my stance behind that opinion.

Be it right, be it wrong, or be it retarded in your opinion.
 
True. Yet it is the punishments for breaking those laws that keep most people from breaking them, and that keep the majority of us safe. Take those laws away .. I refer back to my point of giving some people an inch .. and they will take a mile. You don't give them that inch .. it makes it much harder for them to make the mile.


Laws don't keep people safe, and they don't persuade most people to remain lawful. We do that on our own, as social animals. We always have, and we always will. Laws only provide the government with a justifiable means to remove certain elements from society or impose a sanctioned penalty for something. Laws prevent arbitrary rulership, which is a manifestation of peoples' need to remove chaos from their surroundings. In other words law is the effect, not the cause.
 
True. Yet it is the punishments for breaking those laws that keep most people from breaking them, and that keep the majority of us safe. Take those laws away .. I refer back to my point of giving some people an inch .. and they will take a mile. You don't give them that inch .. it makes it much harder for them to make the mile.

It isn't failsafe .. nothing is. But it does at least keep somewhat of a buffer in place.
Just like having an armed populace will also keep most people from not just breaking laws but threatening the lives of others. The simple fact is that if a potential shooter is planning on coming into a courtroom and shooting the defendant that he believes killed his son he's going to think twice if he realizes that not only are there probably half a dozen people in that courtroom that could take him out but that the defendant's family themselves could be armed and neutralize him before he accomplishes his task.

The fear of being killed is a far stronger deterrant than the fear of going to jail.
I dont understand WHY you would need a gun in church, so I don't really care about that. A bar is a public place as well, so it falls under my *I care* radar as well. Those are all public places, you know up front that you could be shot. You don't find many derranged people going into a mall and picking people off.
It's not so much being at church it's the fact that people are not in protective bubbles when they go to and from certain places. One is just as likely to be mugged on the way to church or to school or to the mall as while actually there.

As for bars, they are considered "public" places but they are private property. If I own a bar and feel that I want to allow people to bring their firearms that's my right. If I don't want people to bring their firearms, that's also my right.
Ok, EXAMPLE: (this is a solid example .. it has happen before)

so let's say a CCW card carrier is doing this. He pulls out his gun and kills the defendant (who really was innocent btw) the bullet tears through him and into his lawyer and kills her too.

Bring in this new law: (this is theoretical)
You stand up, take out your gun and shoot the person, killing them. Problem is the bullet also passes through him and ends up in one of the baliff's who was standing close to him (paralizing him).

Problem solved?
This is why I get confused when people complain about hollowpoint rounds. Yes, they're designed to fragment inside the body and thus cause a lot more damage. They're also designed to do that so the bullet doesn't pass through the target and hit anyone else. :o

Yet antigunners bitch and moan that these are more deadly bullets that are banned even in warfare. :lol:
I feel the same way in regards to a plane/airport.


Long story short. Guns are not NEEDED in these places .. it's simply the fact that people WANT to be able to have them in those places.
This is where I disagree. :o Court houses I can begrudgingly accept, but not airplanes. There is no reason people that are qualified to carry at sea level cannot carry at 30k feet. None. There's no such thing as explosive decompression so you don't have to worry about the plane falling out of the sky.

Holes in the plane are nothing to worry about. Holes in the pilot, on the other hand, you have a problem. On September 11 2001 three thousand people were killed because eight pilots died. There is no reason they should not be allowed to defend themselves, there is no reason cockpits cannot be bulletproof and there is no reason passengers should not have the ability to reduce a durka durka to swiss cheese if he threatens to hijack the plane.
 
So I'm going back and forth between F5'ing this thread and playing CS. Then it came to me. We should have a limbo contest to decide who's right.

6474637b00914105.png


I win.
 
lol .. whatever.

Like I've said before .. I'm not tryin to change your mind. You aren't going to change mine either. That is simply my opinion on the matter and my stance behind that opinion.

Be it right, be it wrong, or be it retarded in your opinion.

:heart: you're a nice internet lady and a milf, i would be a retard to call you a retard

I still disagree with you :p but if everyone that disagreed with me was a retard the world would be one giant Special Olympics event


watch them laugh
watch them fall
watch them try to catch a ball
olympics
special olympics
 
This is where I disagree. :o Court houses I can begrudgingly accept, but not airplanes.

There is no reason people that are qualified to carry at sea level cannot carry at 30k feet. None. There's no such thing as explosive decompression so you don't have to worry about the plane falling out of the sky.

Holes in the plane are nothing to worry about. Holes in the pilot, on the other hand, you have a problem.
Because cops wear bulletproof vests and they'd prefer people not be able to readily buy ammo that penetrates it would be my 1st guess.

If the gun wasn't allowed ON the plane in the first place there wouldn't be any problem to begin with .. you wouldn't have a problem at all. You wouldn't have to make the cockpit bullet proof, or spend extra money. The passengers could just beat the shit out of him like real men.

The people trampling people reason is one of my reasons behind that. My 2nd reason .. You wanna gang up and pound the shit out of someone trying to muscle the pilot around .. go ahead .. but I'd really prefer to not have 10 people stand up shooting at someone at the front of the plane and have my 2 overly large co-passengers squash me trying to duck, or have bullets ricocheting around my head .

Call me crazy, but just the thought of that happeneing... makes me wanna driver EVERYWHERE :lol:
 
True. Yet it is the punishments for breaking those laws that keep most people from breaking them, and that keep the majority of us safe.
Your understanding of crime and punishment is juvenile. I suggest you bone up on it. Punishment is not an effective deterrence, ever.

Take those laws away .. I refer back to my point of giving some people an inch .. and they will take a mile. You don't give them that inch .. it makes it much harder for them to make the mile.
Again, refer to above. Anyone can do anything they are physically capable of. Having a 'law' is not going to stop it from happening, only dispense justice after the fact.

It isn't failsafe .. nothing is. But it does at least keep somewhat of a buffer in place.
In other words, it feels good.

Most people who do thesort of thing I'm talking about have a specific agenda on their plate. They have a problem with an individual or a group of individuals. They have a specific target in mind when they set about ther mission. Usually it is well planned out.
If it is well planned, nothing is going to prevent it from happening. You just made your own point moot.

A person who is distraught is willing to do things your normal person won't.
Like soccer moms, distraught that their precious children could ever be harmed.

Police officers are trained weapon carriers. That doesn't mean they aren't corrupt, or dumb, or irrisponsible. But that is their job. They keep guns out of airports and courthouses to cut down the CHANCE/RISK of a violent situation from occurring.
porc?

Most courthouses are not one story. They are designed that way for a purpose .. to contain problems. They put metal detectors at the door to stop as much as they can. If someone does happen to get past them .. they can/will lock the elevators down. Most courthouses don't grant you access to the stairwells because of that.

You let people start walking in with weapons, they don't know to do that. They get on the elevator, go to the floor they want, walk into court, sit down, hear what they thought they were going to .. and problem escalates. No one had any warning.
if, if, if

[Ok, EXAMPLE: (this is a solid example .. it has happen before)
really? Could you link it?

so let's say a CCW card carrier is doing this. He pulls out his gun and kills the defendant (who really was innocent btw) the bullet tears through him and into his lawyer and kills her too.
link? cmon

Bring in this new law: (this is theoretical)
You stand up, take out your gun and shoot the person, killing them. Problem is the bullet also passes through him and ends up in one of the baliff's who was standing close to him (paralizing him).
That was a stretch. The bullet could also dislodge dust from the light fixtures making someone sneeze, which might cause someone else to duck out of the way and bump into the janitor. Now the janitor after working there for years is finally fed up with his job, because that is the last straw. So he becomes a spy for the chinese and steals secrets from Los Alamos Nationaly laboratry. Once the chinese get the technology they kill him and make it look like a heart attack, then they secretly threaten the US for improved trade relations, and the president being a wuss leading other wusses decides to capitulate creating a huge trade defecit...

Problem solved?
:tard:

hmm...

Now, you look around you at the pandemonium that is in process. People are runnig everywhere, screaming and crying. What about the 10 people who were trampled in the process of everyone in the court room scrambling to get away? Some being children. (Not all parents can secure childcare for court. They do allow them in the courtroom.)

The problem I see.

Who is responsible for all the commotion? Do you feel responsible for shooting the Baliff? Should the senator feel responsible for allowing guns in the courthouse in the first place? How should the family of the people injured feel? What happens to/for them?
The trade debt after building up for a couple hundred years eventually becomes untenable due to declining natural resources. The chinese decide to invade the US but after making it to the west coast Canada launches an offensive from British Columbia, backed up by the British.

I feel the same way in regards to a plane/airport.
Seattle devolves into a siege. The chinese unable to retrieve their personelle and not caring, start to execute civilians....

Long story short. Guns are not NEEDED in these places .. it's simply the fact that people WANT to be able to have them in those places.
The US finally nukes most of CA. The Canadians break through the lines at seattle. The chinese are eliminated and NATO launches an invasion of mainland china eventually ending with the overthrow of the communist government. The Republic of China (Taiwan) assumes control with UN backing and there are permanent bases established in china...
 
:heart: you're a nice internet lady and a milf, i would be a retard to call you a retard

I still disagree with you :p but if everyone that disagreed with me was a retard the world would be one giant Special Olympics event


watch them laugh
watch them fall
watch them try to catch a ball
olympics
special olympics

/transfat
 
As for bars, they are considered "public" places but they are private property. If I own a bar and feel that I want to allow people to bring their firearms that's my right. If I don't want people to bring their firearms, that's also my right.
what about smoking bans and bans on underage people?