Author Topic: Strong Willed TEXAS Woman (Read 1086 times)

Sweet2th · « **on:** April 19, 2007, 08:12:48 AM »

This Woman has my VOTE 100%

That mayor looks like an arse.He is most likely to be robbed after this, but for some reason i think he would like it if the robber was rough with him, i don't know really, he seems like he has KooL-AiD in his pockets.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=BDE2B107-50CB-4E71-9E94-B419C7D276D5&f=imbot_us_default&fg=copy

RedTop · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2007, 04:21:45 PM »

Yes she is , and she made her points very well against an idiot. She didn't even have to work hard to make it either.

And your sig...you mispelled her name. Hupp

ravells · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2007, 05:41:59 PM »

I thought she lost the argument.

The CCW permit that Lazs (and many other people advocate) has two flaws to my mind.

The first one is that a CCW permit is legislation which governs who should be allowed to carry a gun where it might make a difference which is contrary to the view that anyone should be allowed to defend themselves (provided that they're old enough etc)

The second is that if you believe the guy in the video (and I have no idea if what he was saying is right - the woman was saying they had to jump through hoops) virtually anyone can have a CCW as long as they're American nationals without a felony record.

So is the CCW permit just words to control gun ownership (where it really matters) by another name?

Seems to me kind of dishonest of the gun lobby to say....we all should have the right to carry guns and then say...weeeeeeelll some more than others. That smacks of the gun lobby recognising that loons can get hold of guns and use them to terrible cost. In which case, why not just say the state will provide gun licenses (and thereby control who gets to buy them) rather than allowing loons to buy them, conceal them and then use them to kill innocents.

Ravs

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:30:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
I thought she lost the argument.

The CCW permit that Lazs (and many other people advocate) has two flaws to my mind.

The first one is that a CCW permit is legislation which governs who should be allowed to carry a gun where it might make a difference which is contrary to the view that anyone should be allowed to defend themselves (provided that they're old enough etc)

The second is that if you believe the guy in the video (and I have no idea if what he was saying is right - the woman was saying they had to jump through hoops) virtually anyone can have a CCW as long as they're American nationals without a felony record.

So is the CCW permit just words to control gun ownership (where it really matters) by another name?

Seems to me kind of dishonest of the gun lobby to say....we all should have the right to carry guns and then say...weeeeeeelll some more than others. That smacks of the gun lobby recognising that loons can get hold of guns and use them to terrible cost. In which case, why not just say the state will provide gun licenses (and thereby control who gets to buy them) rather than allowing loons to buy them, conceal them and then use them to kill innocents.

Ravs

Ravs
What your saying indicates you do not know much about the subject. Not everyone can get CCW permit, only 38(39?) states have laws that make it so a normal non criminal can get them. States like Cali its almost impossible in most areas. I think she would love to see a federal version that trumps the states that try and prevent it like mine.

The only hoops most states that allow it make you go through are a test that show you know how to use the weapon and fees.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:43:32 PM »

I’ve seen her before. She was in a restaurant with her parents and left her gun in her car; the law made it illegal to bring a gun into a place like a restaurant. A whacko came in and started assassinating people including her parents. She regrets obeying the law and the fact that the law exists in the first place.

bustr · « **Reply #5 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:53:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ravells
So is the CCW permit just words to control gun ownership (where it really matters) by another name?

Seems to me kind of dishonest of the gun lobby to say....we all should have the right to carry guns and then say...weeeeeeelll some more than others. That smacks of the gun lobby recognising that loons can get hold of guns and use them to terrible cost. In which case, why not just say the state will provide gun licenses (and thereby control who gets to buy them) rather than allowing loons to buy them, conceal them and then use them to kill innocents.

Ravs

CCW permits are a comprimise to the U.S. and 38 state constitutions by which a law abiding citizen of a certain minimum age can apply to carry conceiled upon his\her person in public and use, a pistol for self protection. In most of those states openly carrying in a holster is lawful due to the placing in those afore mentioned constituions words similar or the same as: "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". Ravs it is the fact of that statement being the law of the land that your trolling here on this subject is disengenuous. You have heard all of this befor from BBS members like Laz I suspect. We are not "Nationals", we are Citizens of the United States which means our Rights are open for anyone to investigate by reading our constitution which recognises our right to keep and bare arms "PERIOD". We may need to depose one of our Kings some day dont cha know......

Laz is it 38 states now with CCW or shall issue permits?

In most states of the U.S. any law abiding citizen over a minimum age can purchase firearms. There is a quick query to the FBI which if you have no disqualifying information on record you can pick up your firearm after some number of days waiting period. Aproximently 80M citizens in the U.S. own a firearm or two or even many. Over sesationalization by our biased media downplays the fact that with 80M owners of firearms our safety record of those 80M is the best in the world. Nutjobs like the killer at VT and the inner city criminals who commit the majority of killings with firearms are a infitesimal but highly colorfull blip on our national record that our media likes to export to make other countries think the U.S is the most dangerous country on earth.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:01:55 PM »

Well, lets see here. I have my CCW from Virginia and when I went to get it I had to do the following.

1. Provide PROOF of weapons training, either a state sponsored firearms saftey class or proof of military weapons qualification.

2. Submit to finger printing so the local police can perform a NATIONAL background criminal check and submit those prints with the application form.

3. Pay the $50 application fee regardless of whether I actualy received the permit or not. If I hadn't received it I would have been refunded $30 out of the $50, the differance being the processing fee.

Now for most people 2 and 3 are no big deal but the first one trips up many people when they apply. Also it helps to have a drivers liscence from the same state as the permit. The first time I applied I was driving on a South Dakota liscence and the court clerk told me that unless I got a Virginia liscence I probably would not be approved for a CCW since Virginia cross referances CCW's to your drivers liscence.

So yes there are hoops that you have to jump through, but if you have done so you can get a permit fairly easy provided you've never been convicted of anything.

Also as far as the media saying Virginia has the most lax gun laws in the country, I submit that those reporters have never tried to buy a gun in Virginia. Every gun I've bought since I've lived here, I have had to submit paperwork, and have a background check done. Granted it's been easy for me since the only thing on my record is a couple of minor traffic violations, but as a twist on my last purchase just last month (Bushmaster M4A3 rifle) for the first time I was asked to provide a copy of my birth certificate, or passport to prove citizenship. I had to go home and get my BC and go back to the store before they would release the rifle to me.

Now all that being said, what more should I have to do or provide to purchase a firearm or get a CCW? Should I be required to go see a therapist and have my mental state evaluated? Should I have to have a blood test performed? Should I have to submit to a piss test? Should I have to provide a list of personal referances of people to vouch for me? Should I have to wait a couple of weeks between paying for the weapon and then picking it up? Should I be required to explain WHY I want to purchase a certain weapon?

Short answer is NO. I shouldn't have to do any more than what is already required because what is required now is plenty.

Shuffler · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:25:41 PM »

oh well, I didn't watch the video as it's posted on msn.... they support terrorism and murderers. I don't support msn and hope the who outfit is destroyed.

FiLtH · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:57:21 PM »

I like the idea of people carrying. If nothing else it forces people to respect others, just in case they have a gun. The crazys would be weeded out over time, with less body count.

moot · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2007, 03:47:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
I’ve seen her before. She was in a restaurant with her parents and left her gun in her car; the law made it illegal to bring a gun into a place like a restaurant. A whacko came in and started assassinating people including her parents. She regrets obeying the law and the fact that the law exists in the first place.

Sounds like the woman in the Penn & Teller 2nd amendment Bull****! episode.

ravells · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2007, 06:49:37 AM »

So it looks like the guy in the video was wrong when he said you could only get a CCW licence in Virginia by showing proof of nationality and a clean criminal record.

And the woman may have been exaggerating a bit when she said you had to jump through hoops to get a CCW in Virginia. From what Hornet says there are 3 (possibly 4 if count the driving licence) and they're pretty straight-forward.

GToRA2: I don't know much about the subject, I was working off what they were saying in the video - assuming what has been posted here is correct, and Hornet has personal experience, both the speakers wern't exactly accurate.

Bustr: I hadn't realised that the right to carry a gun openly is lawful in most of the states which have CCW legislation. Arn't US nationals and US citizens the same thing for these purposes?

If I understand you correctly you appear to be saying that the constitution gives you the right to bare (sic) arms. And you seem to think that 'bare arms' means the right to wear arms openly. Actually word used in the costituttion is 'bear (which means carry - whether openly or not). I'm not sure if this was just a spelling mistake on your part and I've misunderstood where your coming from. If on the other hand you really do think that the constitution says you have the right to 'bare' arms and interpret that as the right to carry arms openly, then I'm afraid you've misunderstood your own constitution.

CCW licencing is clever: It can't be said to be unconstitutional because it only determines whether or not you can bear arms openly (as opposed to at all) but that seems a bit weasely to me. It's a bit like saying, oh you've got the right to bear arms, but we're going to restrict your right to bear ammunition.

So the reality (to me as an outside observer anyway) is that CCW permits were introduced as a practical measure to deal with the reality that gun ownership for all meant lots of people getting shot, so the CCW system allows law abiding citizens to hopefully get the drop on the gun criminals by being able to hide their weapons under their clothes.

Makes sense to me, but that is still gun control.

Ravs

john9001 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2007, 08:10:41 AM »

a concealed carry permit means that the weapon MUST be carried in such a way that the avg person would not know you were carrying a weapon.

How hard it is to get the permit is up to the individual state, however if your state makes it too easy it may not enjoy reciprocity with other states.

open carry is again up to the state, some allow it and one state requires that a weapon be carried open and not concealed.

i only know about getting a CCW in florida, it's not easy, quick or cheap.

lazs2 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2007, 08:38:37 AM »

rav.. I don't understand most of your point or if I do understand it then the facts destroy most of it. Those with concealed carry permits do not kill innocents.. they are, as a group. the most law abiding of any group.

I do understand the other part. And yes.... I do believe that all citizens should be allowed to bear arms so long as they are not crazy but...

I am also pragmatic. I see that we have strayed a long way from that and realize that to get back rights that should be ours anyway... we have to take what we can get.

concealed carry is a huge step forward in getting back our rights. anyone who values their second amendment rights will support more easily obtained concealed carry permits.

If you can eliminate all the "hoops" save safety training and sanity.. you have gone back to the basic right. concealed carry is the gateway to getting back our rights.

as for concealed or open carry... that is another subject.

ravells · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:12:55 AM »

The point I was making is that as it currently stands the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter. The 2nd Amendment provides no restrictions to the right to bear arms. Under the 2nd Amendment, if you read it plain, you have the right to bear arms whether you are 10 years' old, as mad as a cut snake or have a string of convictions for murder or have had no safety training whatsoever.

It seems to me that most people, even if they are pro gun ownership, do recognise that there need to be *some* restrictions to the second amendment. The entire argument about gun ownership (to my mind) has nothing to do with upholding the second amendment but in deciding the *extent* to which the 2nd Amendment should be curtailed. Pro guns - less so (but still some), Anti guns - more so (or in the extreme abandoned entirely).

It appears to me that CCW is supported by the Pro gun lobby, but by definition CCW lays down even more conditions about the manner in which one can carry a gun - so CCW curtails the 2nd Amendment yet further. Which is counter-intuitive to what the pro gun lobby stand for (as far as I can see).

Shouldn't the pro gun lobby (or pro second amendment lobby) be anti CCW and campaiging instead for everyone to have the right to buy whatever gun (well it says 'arms' which could mean any weapon up to a nuclear device I suppose) he chooses, wear it how he likes (concealed or not), regardless of his age or history (criminal, mental or otherwise) ?

If the pro gun lobby were to take that stand they would lose too much credibility. So instead the concept of CCW is arrived at which is nothing more than a filter to channel gun ownership into the hands of the people who meet certain criteria - and that is gun control which is being championed by the pro gun lobby.

That's all I'm saying.

Ravs

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2007, 09:25:02 AM »

Ravells, there is also Open Carry and there are various state imposed limitations on that. Further, localities (cities, counties, etc.) can add further restrictions. Generally, every lower layer of government can add more restrictions but can never be less restrictive than a higher level of government.

That said, there are Open Carry states that are preemptive; the state allows Open Carry and lower levels of government are preempted from being able to make their law more restrictive than the state.

Some states have absolutely no restrictions on Open Carry. So, there's more to it than just Concealed Carry and the whole right to bear arms situation is somewhat complicated.