Quoted: It's funny, but just the other day I was talking to an older gent at a gun store.  He used to ride his bike through town, rifle across the handlebars, to go out to the woods and hunt. Oddly, he never shot anyone.  His friends never shot anyone.  And yet his possessing the firearm where not regulated in the least.  How very odd. It seems we not only have forgotten what a right is, but we buy into the idea of making things even more illegal.  After all, if you commit ten crimes in murdering someone, you obviously would think twice.  But if you only commit one crime, well hell, then everyone would do it. Please, criminalize actions, not possible actions, not objects.

A lot of these problems can be laid at the feet of politicians.  The are the ones passing these useless laws.  They have this "get tough on crime" facade that they want to portray to the public, so they pass laws that pile on useless laws, and criminalize inanimate objects.  
The 2 main problems we are dealing with here are 1.  The public's abandonment of personal responsibility.  2.  The public's willingness to let the government handle all of their problems.  These problems seem to go hand in hand.

I'm more worried about who they'll give a driver's license to.

Quoted: 338winmag, I agree. I said in my posts before first fix the problem with what is defined as a felony, especially for sex offenders crimes.  As someone pointed out and as I pointed out before that, an 18 year old that has sex with his 17 year old gf isn't a sex crime (talking consentual of course) and the peeing in public thing is pretty rediculous.  Start by fixing these problems with laws, before making a blanket amnesty for everyone, even a 10 year old to have the right to pack a handgun going to school.  Fix the society and the laws making the problems.  I don't have a problem buying any firearm because I haven't commited or plan to commit a felony.   on another note, what is considered in public?  in view of another person who has a problem with it?  I have a big problem if I'm walking downtown and I see some drunk asshole pissing on a building, I don't have a problem if I'm out in the country and I see someone going off into a bush and I can barely see what they're doing. -mark

The problem, in this discussion, arises when what I've highlighted isn't a realistic expectation for what currently passes as "our society".

When legislators won't help......*  When "fellow citizens" != "informed electorate"......



* Which, in the general sense, is our (collective) fault.  However, if you and I are doing our part and no one else -- that's more like a democracy, not a republic.  For example, the police have a general duty to protect, not a specific (i.e. to serve and protect the "general public," not you or I specifically).  If they're not protecting you or I specifically (IOW, they're lacking a "special relationsihp")......... whose job is that?  How can I "do my part" (i.e. provide my own security/protection), if I am not afforded [legally] the ability to do so?

Quoted:   The 2 main problems we are dealing with here are 1.  The public's abandonment of personal responsibility.  2.  The public's willingness to let the government handle all of their problems.  These problems seem to go hand in hand.

Fuggin AMEN.  AND I MEAN..

This is the whole problem right there.

But how do we change dat? Call the NRA... Yeah Right. I know I have not been around this issue and  am not to educated on this but what do they really do?  Take our money and lobby our views?

What call our Reps or Senator's. They only seem to care when its voting time.

Quoted: Quoted:   The 2 main problems we are dealing with here are 1.  The public's abandonment of personal responsibility.  2.  The public's willingness to let the government handle all of their problems.  These problems seem to go hand in hand. Fuggin AMEN.  AND I MEAN.. This is the whole problem right there. But how do we change dat? Call the NRA... Yeah Right. I know I have not been around this issue and  am not to educated on this but what do they really do?  Take our money and lobby our views? What call our Reps or Senator's. They only seem to care when its voting time.

You ask a good question.  There is an answer, but I am not sure that the country is ready for it.  The answer to the first one is, everyone needs to grow a backbone.   You need to stand up for yourself.  Take responsibility for your actions.  This having an excuse for everything has to stop.  This used to be taught in schools.  I guess now it is not.  

The second one is pretty much a continuation of the first one.  You need to take responsibility for yourself.  You have to have a little foresight.  You need to get up off your ass, and turn off the TV and get out and do something.  Staying home and waiting for someone to come and rescue you during an emergency is the kind of thing I am talking about.  If that is not bad enough, then wanting the government to come along and feed and house you  until they build you a new dwelling.

Calling your elected officials is not the answer.  They gain more power by enacting programs to help out in these situations.  More programs means the need for more tax money.  More money means more power.  If you are involved in one of these programs.  These guys have your pecker in their pocket.  You do things their way, or you do not get the money.  It's pretty simple.  They yank the chain.  The last thing that one of these bureaucrats want to see is an independant thinking individual.  If everyone was this way they would be out of a job.  

Quoted: Quoted:   The 2 main problems we are dealing with here are 1.  The public's abandonment of personal responsibility.  2.  The public's willingness to let the government handle all of their problems.  These problems seem to go hand in hand. Fuggin AMEN.  AND I MEAN.. This is the whole problem right there. But how do we change dat? Call the NRA... Yeah Right. I know I have not been around this issue and  am not to educated on this but what do they really do?  Take our money and lobby our views? What call our Reps or Senator's. They only seem to care when its voting time.

I really think it would take a grass-roots calling/mailing effort.  IOW, not NRA per se, but the entire active roster of NRA (for example) taking it upon themselves to call their legislators and say:

"Do you enjoy your comfy seat in Congress/etc?"

"Yes?  Well, enjoy it, and start stocking up on the free towels, etc, because if you don't vote from a RKBA-absolutist (not necessarily 2A) standpoint, this'll be your last rodeo."

If a few ppl call like that, they're crazy.  If 20k+ ppl call with that exact same msg......... *that's* a mandate.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:   The 2 main problems we are dealing with here are 1.  The public's abandonment of personal responsibility.  2.  The public's willingness to let the government handle all of their problems.  These problems seem to go hand in hand. Fuggin AMEN.  AND I MEAN.. This is the whole problem right there. But how do we change dat? Call the NRA... Yeah Right. I know I have not been around this issue and  am not to educated on this but what do they really do?  Take our money and lobby our views? What call our Reps or Senator's. They only seem to care when its voting time. I really think it would take a grass-roots calling/mailing effort.  IOW, not NRA per se, but the entire active roster of NRA (for example) taking it upon themselves to call their legislators and say: "Do you enjoy your comfy seat in Congress/etc?" "Yes?  Well, enjoy it, and start stocking up on the free towels, etc, because if you don't vote from a RKBA-absolutist (not necessarily 2A) standpoint, this'll be your last rodeo." If a few ppl call like that, they're crazy.  If 20k+ ppl call with that exact same msg......... *that's* a mandate.

I agree about the mandate, but you know how these low lifes work.  They just ignore us.  They know that getting us to vote on one issue is like herding cats.  And if we do vote these bums out of office.  There is another low life waiting in the wings that also will not stand up for our rights.  So the answer is to run our own candidate.  Form our own party.  We call it the 2A party.  The media portrays us as a bunch of illiterate hill billies/right wing wackos, and our support from our own people goes down the tubes.  

There are a bunch of us, but there are a hell of a lot more hunters.  You know the ones we make fun of in the fall,  when they come out for the annual blowing the dust out of the bores shoot.  We need their support too.  The only problem is, they are fair weather friends.  A lot of them are black rifle unfriendly.  Some of them are actually anti-concealed carry.  So how do you get these guys in line?  

Regarding the "single-issue" voting, I had an epiphany a few years ago after reading (fmr) Rep Hupp's words:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual...as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

Not that it was anything I didn't already know in the back of my mind, but it gave the idea form.  I used to vote on 2A/RKBA (primarily) and a handful of other issues.  I now vote solely on 2A/RKRA and figure I'll let the chips will fall where they may.

I do understand the want/need to run "our own" candidate.  I just don't see a "2A party" getting much momentum -- even if the media sat on their hands and didn't villify us.  The alternative is to run a "Freedom Party".  WTF is that?  Our platform: "When in doubt, we err on the side of freedom."

(I dunno; I never claimed to have all the answers )

I will say that single-issue parties have a long and illustrious place in the annals of U.S. politics.  That is, if you consider footnotes and margins an illustrious place.  Bottom line is: once a single-issue party starts siphoning off enough votes, the two majors will take notice.

Whatever happened to the "silver std party" (I can't remember their real name)?  They had their issue stolen.  Honestly, I wouldn't mind, though.  That'd mean we'd done our job (or at least some of it).

As for the Fudds..... I don't even really know how to go there.  I'd say to go behind the scenes and push something like VPC to ban guns for duck hunting.    Irony of ironies.  Sadly, I think most of them would turn 'em all in.

In the long run, I think any real headway would have to be made outside the normal political process.  Almost like a secret society of 2A/RKBA friendly politicos.  But then again, these could just be the deranged rantings of a lunatic..........

Just to add to the above, there are only [really] three positions on firearms ownership/possession:

1) You think everyone should have guns
2) You think no one should have guns
3) Somewhere between the two "extremes"

If you choose 3, how do you articulate the argument, logically?  I posit that it's "easier" to take either position 1 or 2 than it is to take 3.

I choose 3.  There are people out there who I have flat out refused to sell a firearm to because of their maturity level, mindset and intended use.  

Quoted: I choose 3.  There are people out there who I have flat out refused to sell a firearm to because of their maturity level, mindset and intended use.

You as an individual have this choice.  As a government, where do you draw the line?  And who should be making that decision?  Some pencil necked bureaucrat in Washington?  How about the person selling the firearm?  Don't you think you know how to make decisions better than that bureaucrat?  Btw, I am voting for you.

I vote for number 1.  I think everyone should have access to firearms.  I think having access will make the society a lot more responsible.  Knowing that the person you are about to hand an ass chewing might be putting something cold and shiny under your chin might make you think twice.  If anything, it will take the really stupid people out of the gene pool.

Quoted: Those who tow this line honestly want convicted sex offenders the freedom to walk into academy and buy a 12-guage?

You realize, that the concept of prohibiting felons from owning guns is a new one, started in 1968?  Of course, we all know it is silly, as there is not a SINGLE felon in the US who wants a gun and does not have it, so the whole theory of prohibiting guns to felons is as silly as prohibiting drugs or alochol to minors.

The real problem is not whether to allow felons to own guns or not, but why we as a society allow felons who we think are too dangerous to own guns, to be freed from jail, where .... they can go obtain guns and prey on society again. Even Homer Simpson can see the stupidity in that.

Quoted: Quoted: Those who tow this line honestly want convicted sex offenders the freedom to walk into academy and buy a 12-guage? You realize, that the concept of prohibiting felons from owning guns is a new one, started in 1968?  Of course, we all know it is silly, as there is not a SINGLE felon in the US who wants a gun and does not have it, so the whole theory of prohibiting guns to felons is as silly as prohibiting drugs or alochol to minors. The real problem is not whether to allow felons to own guns or not, but why we as a society allow felons who we think are too dangerous to own guns, to be freed from jail, where .... they can go obtain guns and prey on society again. Even Homer Simpson can see the stupidity in that.

Great point.

Quoted: 338winmag, I agree. I said in my posts before first fix the problem with what is defined as a felony, especially for sex offenders crimes.  As someone pointed out and as I pointed out before that, an 18 year old that has sex with his 17 year old gf isn't a sex crime (talking consentual of course) and the peeing in public thing is pretty rediculous.  Start by fixing these problems with laws, before making a blanket amnesty for everyone, even a 10 year old to have the right to pack a handgun going to school.  Fix the society and the laws making the problems.  I don't have a problem buying any firearm because I haven't commited or plan to commit a felony.   on another note, what is considered in public?  in view of another person who has a problem with it?  I have a big problem if I'm walking downtown and I see some drunk asshole pissing on a building, I don't have a problem if I'm out in the country and I see someone going off into a bush and I can barely see what they're doing. -mark

OK, a little clarification is in order.  In Texas, a person can have sex with a person under 17 if the two are not more than 2 years apart in age.  So an 18 year old can legally have sex with his 16 year old girlfrend.  A 17 can legally have sex with his 15 YO GF.  


In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.  

Quoted: In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.

Disorderly Conduct is, though.  

ETA:  Oh, and it's three years.

Quoted: In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.

Now ya see, all of yall Texans can take a lesson strait from the Choc. City, and their residents at Mardi Gras time.


Use this and never have to worry about peeing in Public Ever Again.

Link:

http://www.sneakyleaker.com/

Laugh, but it works

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Those who tow this line honestly want convicted sex offenders the freedom to walk into academy and buy a 12-guage? You realize, that the concept of prohibiting felons from owning guns is a new one, started in 1968?  Of course, we all know it is silly, as there is not a SINGLE felon in the US who wants a gun and does not have it, so the whole theory of prohibiting guns to felons is as silly as prohibiting drugs or alochol to minors. The real problem is not whether to allow felons to own guns or not, but why we as a society allow felons who we think are too dangerous to own guns, to be freed from jail, where .... they can go obtain guns and prey on society again. Even Homer Simpson can see the stupidity in that. Great point.

No shit.  I wish there was an anim icon that said "Winner!"

Sort of like one of these: ; .

Quoted: Quoted: In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.   Disorderly Conduct is, though.   ETA:  Oh, and it's three years.

What if they can see your winkie?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.   Disorderly Conduct is, though.   ETA:  Oh, and it's three years. What if they can see your winkie?

If Wee Willie is out with the intent to arouse, it's indecent exposure.  If it's out to take a piss and you're reckless of people seeing it, it's disorderly conduct.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.   Disorderly Conduct is, though.   ETA:  Oh, and it's three years. What if they can see your winkie? Disorderly conduct and indecent exposure. I had a former brother-in-law that was popped for 'obstructing a highway' when he stopped to urinate.  It was going to be a DUI charge, but he was not in the vehicle.  It was pleaded down to Obstructing a Highway, after he spent several thousand in attorney fees. TRG

Did he stop to piss in the middle of the highway?

(that sounds like something TexRdnec and I might have done a thousand and one years ago........)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In Texas, peeing in public is not a crime either.   Disorderly Conduct is, though.   ETA:  Oh, and it's three years. What if they can see your winkie? If Wee Willie is out with the intent to arouse, it's indecent exposure.  If it's out to take a piss and you're reckless of people seeing it, it's disorderly conduct.

I hope my words here don't end up hanging me, but there's precious little time My Buddy is out and about without the *intent* to arouse being present.  Even if I have to piss like a racehorse, if'n there's "of age" female flesh within a 40mi radius, My Buddy is there to impress first, and piss second.

No I don't think the Texas CHL requirements should be raised.  Texas CHL requirements are already some of the most strict shall issue requirements in the nation.  It's much cheaper and easier to get a license in other states:

"Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Percentage of Adults With Carry Permits in "Shall Issue" States

I am reproducing in its entirety a post by Ken Grubb which appeared this morning on the PA-CCW mailing list. This ranks each of the "shall issue" CCW states by the percentage of adults who have a permit to carry a concealed firearm.


After crunching through the 2000 Census and 2003 Census estimates, the numbers in Chris Bird's Fourth Edition "The Concealed Handgun Manual", some official sources online which are a little more current, and filling in a few gaps from a 1998 CCRKBA report, the winners are:

Percent of Adults with a License to Carry in each Shall Issue State

7.45% South Dakota
6.79% Indiana
6.76% Pennsylvania
5.23% Connecticut
5.12% Washington
4.34% Idaho
4.10% Utah
3.86% Oregon
3.45% Tennessee
3.15% Alabama
2.72% Florida
2.71% Kentucky
2.67% Wyoming
2.41% Maine
2.18% Arkansas
2.11% Virginia
1.94% West Virginia
1.76% Arizona
1.75% Oklahoma
1.70% Montana
1.70% Michigan
1.62% Texas
1.39% South Carolina
1.34% North Dakota
1.00% North Carolina
0.86% Mississippi
0.62% Louisiana
0.58% Nevada
0.45% Minnesota
0.36% Missouri
0.33% Ohio
0.20% Colorado
0.17% New Mexico <-- Slight correction 12/22/04, per Ken Grubb

Honorable mentions go to Georgia and New Hampshire. These are "old wave" Shall Issue states--IOW, pre Florida. Because issuance is scattered among many local agencies, no one in either Georgia or New Hampshire is collecting statewide numbers on how many folks are packing. Seems reasonable to place 'em somewhere between the two statistical extremes among the other "old wave" states (South and North Dakota). However, if I were a bettin' man I'd put 'em near the top, and probably above Washington.

Total licensees among the Shall Issue states (excluding Georgia and New
Hampshire):
3,079,246

Total population living in True Right To Carry states (Alaska and Vermont):
1,267,925 (0.44 percent)

Total population living in Shall Issue states:
185,039,207 (63.75 percent)

Total population living in May Issue states:
81,350,620 (28.03 percent)

Total population living in No Issue states:
22,588,641 (7.78 percent)

Ken Grubb
Bellevue, WA"

blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Dakota and New Hampshire residents licenses are only $10.  We need cheaper licenses and more gun training in schools.