Alternate views of unlicensed carry not appreciated here - but here is one

[candcallen]

What article?

 

[HKaltwasser]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

A h yes the Ol' "Well Regulated" angle. You do realize that "Well Regulated" is not what the modern meaning is correct? The 18th century definition is well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined .
Anti- 2nd Amendment people will use this argument and when it's picked apart, they move to the next angle, by the end of the conversation, the real truth about how the feel about the 2nd Amendment is revealed.

While you may have prejudged the whole group about differing opinions on the 2nd, your preface is flawed from the very beginning, so it's not that it's a differing opinion, it's just that you're flat out wrong. You're using a neo liberal anti-2nd talking point that is rooted the destruction of the 2nd. I will gladly listen to your point of view if you can provide any historical writings from our founders that state that the personal ownership was discouraged. If this were true, they would have enforced it this way, in fact it was quite the opposite and wide ownership of large arms and weapons was favorable to the free man and free state. They truly didn't like the idea of a regular standing army. Furthermore, every man from the ages of 17-45 is considered part of the non regular militia.

It's well documented in other states, that there is no noticeable change in gun offenses that have Constitutional carry. This angle usually comes from an emotional stance and not well founded. It's pretty funny that people think a CHL or LTC gives you training. The absolute only thing I learned in that class was law. It is NOT firearms training.



So let me get this straight, you're challenging the idea of personal ownership, but yet you subscribe to your way modern regulation to own and carry? The dance of contradictions?

 

[Geezer]

When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but

Right here is where you lost me.

 

[MTA]

Interesting article. Given the responses so far have failed to address one of the central points I'm thinking few here actually read it. That's not surprising.

You can go back to wherever the hell you came from too pal

 

[Coyote9]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

A good thought provoking post and article. I do support unlicensed open carry of firearms by adult residents of Texas (with logical carve outs for schools and some government buildings), I oppose the unlicensed CONCEALED carry of firearms by anyone in Texas. My opinion is derived from my personal life experiences and I am entitled to my own opinion just as all others are entitled to theirs. Thanks for posting and thanks to all TGT members who take the time to think before hip shooting a response. (yes . I know that some folks hip shots are as accurate as my aimed fire

 

[TexasRedneck]

A good thought provoking post and article. I do support unlicensed open carry of firearms by adult residents of Texas (with logical carve outs for schools and some government buildings), I oppose the unlicensed CONCEALED carry of firearms by anyone in Texas. My opinion is derived from my personal life experiences and I am entitled to my own opinion just as all others are entitled to theirs. Thanks for posting and thanks to all TGT members who take the time to think before hip shooting a response. (yes . I know that some folks hip shots are as accurate as my aimed fire

Tell me something...what's any different from you law-abiding neighbor carrying concealed w/o a license and the criminal that just held up the corner store with his unlicensed and concealed gun?

Real simple - your neighbor will have the opportunity to defend himself and/or family from the criminal. The take-away from all this is that a criminal doesn't give two s***s about "the law", and will take advantage of others that DO obey it. Let's narrow his options....

 

[Darkpriest667]

well that was an interesting read. Many of the rebuttals did meet my expectations of name calling and the like. Of course some showed a reasonable degree of civility.
I am a native Texan. Did not realize I had been a member of this forum for 10 years.
I am more than aware of the original intent of 2A in providing the armed adult citizens to defend against tyranny by elected leaders. We all agree on right to defending ourselves, family and property.
However, 2A was also regarded as a way to avoid creating and supporting a standing army. The leaders of the era, in my readings, regarded standing armies with dread. They were used to by British and French leaders to do more than defend their borders or conduct great wars, but also to control the general populace. By resting civil defense in the arms of citizen soldiers as opposed to professional soldiers the leaders perceived the prospects of a peaceful democracy surviving would be better. That is my perception anyway.
Of course we still ended up with professional soldiers to handle the general defense of our country. No real option to that in a nuclear era.
The closest thing approximating citizen soldiers in my mind would be state/national guards. Even they are mostly former "professional" soldiers.
The guard units are frequently referenced as fulfilling the role of the militias referenced in 2A. I disagree with that assessment, but I can also see validity in that argument. I still see the citizens as having the right to being armed to protect against tyranny.
My issue with guards fulfilling the role of citizen militias focus on the fact they are organized under the same government that may be the tyranny. That is why I oppose firearms licensing...the government telling the subjects if they can have arms..
The original basis of my thread was focused on unlicensed carry. The right of the state to control where firearms can be carried and how is still viewed as constitutional. Being we are in a shall issue state, I am fine with licensed carry. That is my view. The state has to show reason for denying the permit...felony conviction for instance. The may issue states are scarey to me.
Of course the upcoming NY vs NY rifle association battle at the Supreme Court could really open some things up.



Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Interesting comment. Let me ask you. You do seem to understand the 2A is totally for civilians to prevent government tyranny, what is your assessment on the NFA and the Tax Stamps that prevent citizens through economic barriers to entry from owning military equipment? I'm not just talking machine guns. I mean tanks and rocket launchers and the such.

I'm curious because a lot of the weapons used by the "militia" in the Revolutionary War were personal property of some of the owners. Cannons, privateers, etc. The equivalent of some pretty heavy equipment these days and in those days was considered pretty heavy equipment.

 

[Wiliamr]

OK just from a grammer and structure level the Second Amendment:

 

[Brains]

I do support unlicensed open carry of firearms by adult residents of Texas (with logical carve outs for schools and some government buildings)

I honestly don't understand why some believe limiting where you can carry is "logical" or as some call it, 'common sense.' If you're willing, I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts on these points. My core feelings seem to be validated by the fact these carve-outs are in fact some of the most frequently chosen targets by evildoers. The gun-free zone signs are like magnets to people wanting to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible.

I oppose the unlicensed CONCEALED carry of firearms by anyone in Texas.

Again, I would love to truly understand your thoughts here. Maybe I take a more realistic view of how law actually works, but words on paper only work for people who have read them, understand them, and care to follow them. Those people are the exact opposite of the ones the law is allegedly restricting. Laws can't stop crimes, they can only provide repercussions for violating them.

To be more clear, if I happen to carry beyond a gun-free zone sign for whatever reason, I have zero intent or desire to harm anyone or anything. But, the net result is I'm still technically a potential criminal only because someone's feelings might be hurt if they knew. I mean I violated a law that intends to "keep people safe" so I'm obviously a bad person. Yet if a murdering psychopath walks past a gun-free zone sign with a hammer on his tool belt, he has committed NO crime at all until he starts bludgeoning people with it. So while he's a good guy until deemed otherwise by his actions, I'm an assumed bad actor only because I am carrying a scary thing.

 

[MTA]

I oppose the unlicensed CONCEALED carry of firearms by anyone in Texas.

.... didnt you just move here from somewhere else?

 

[majormadmax]

Wow, the OP is a master baiter! He's hooked so many people on this forum that I am beginning to think he looks like this...

I don't know why everyone gets their panties in a wad because someone posts a differing opinion (even if it is wrong). Whether he's doing so to incite the folks on here, or he truly believes his spew; it's his right just as much as self-defense is ours.

But when you break the issue down to its bare facts, the Second Amendment is intended to prevent the government from infringing on our inalienable rights, just like the First. There are far too many restrictions that are unconstitutional, and while we can debate them until the cows come home, the bottom line is the Founding Fathers intended to put the people above the government and the Constitution was written with that objective in mind.

To be honest, I have a few qualms about Constitutional Carry as well; but I recognize it is pushing this state's laws closer to the world our Founding Fathers envisioned. Yes, there is some risk involved; but Texas is not the first state to go down this road and the 20 that have already done so have proven the concerns the OP discussed are unfounded. The same arguments came up for Open Carry and again, the issues of those who opposed it never materialized. Such precedence shows the opposition have no legitimate facts to support their stance, but that doesn't stop them from spouting off ridiculous claims in hopes of defeating a restriction that should have never existed in the first place!

So to the OP, if your intent was to troll this forum, well done! You certainly got a lot of people to take your bait. If you seriously felt you were making a valid argument against Constitutional Carry, you failed miserably to provide evidence to support your position. mainly due to a lack of valid and comprehensive research on your part. I suggest you spend more time educating yourself on this nation's as well as this state's constitutions, and also how Constitutional Carry has faired in the twenty states that allow it before making unsubstantiated claims that it endangers society. Nothing could be further from the truth!

 

[TX oddball]

And one other thing, if the OP is a native Texan, I am just absolutely ashamed. There are people who have come to this state and make for 100% better Texans than your ilk and they get a bad wrap.

I'm one of those that immigrated here from a communist country (CA) years ago, and yes, it is interesting that out of the few commies I know here in Texas, most of them are born & bred Texans. I know a couple of them that pine for the days of Ann Richards

 

[Fishkiller]

Well if and when this is finally law I say great. However it pains me that we have to pass a law to let us do what is considered to be a right in the Constitution. Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one, and everyone is entitled to one. But your opinion should not infringe on me.

 

[MTA]

I'm one of those that immigrated here from a communist country (CA) years ago, and yes, it is interesting that out of the few commies I know here in Texas, most of them are born & bred Texans. I know a couple of them that pine for the days of Ann Richards

Californians catch alot of shit (rightfully so for most of them) but I have met some great people on here from there

 

[Sasquatch]

A good thought provoking post and article. I do support unlicensed open carry of firearms by adult residents of Texas (with logical carve outs for schools and some government buildings), I oppose the unlicensed CONCEALED carry of firearms by anyone in Texas. My opinion is derived from my personal life experiences and I am entitled to my own opinion just as all others are entitled to theirs. Thanks for posting and thanks to all TGT members who take the time to think before hip shooting a response. (yes . I know that some folks hip shots are as accurate as my aimed fire

What is logical about prohibiting an individual from carrying a firearm in a school or government building? What makes these places special to the point of banning someone from being able to defend themselves there?

If you're going to say "because its where children gather" - don't they gather in shopping malls, parks, sporting venues, churches, and other places? If the media and politicians are to be believed, schools are dangerous because of the chance of a "mass shooting" taking place - so being able to be armed as a law abiding individual, you have a better chance at defending yourself and those children from a murderous maniac.

If you're going to say "because it increases the chances of an accidental shooting" - yes it does, simply because there's a gun present. The applies to literally everywhere there are firearms and ammunition in close proximity. But other states allow for carrying into schools, even bright blue liberal lefty Oregon, and this was a non-issue. I carried every time I picked my kid up, had a meeting with the teachers, or attended school functions, 100% legal. Other people I knew likewise carried. There were no issues. In the 19 years I've been carrying a firearm, I've never heard of an accidental shooting in a school there.

Moving beyond schools to government buildings - again, what makes them special? People need to go in and out of government offices for all matter of business - tax offices, DMV's, paying their water/light/gas bills, etc. Are these places, most of which have no security, any less likely to be targets for violent maniacs? I'd say they'd be a more likely target, because people can be pushed over the edge into violent action because of perceived mistreatment by the government. As an innocent party, I'd prefer the right and ability to defend myself in these places, rather than being disarmed and left to be another statistic. Government employees are no more special than any one else. The ONLY government owned/operated places I'm OK with being disarmed are secure areas of jails, because not even the corrections officers inside the jails are armed, and they have layers of security to get through before someone is likely to go on a killing spree.

My only issue with this bill is that it further enhances the penalties for being caught carrying in a place with a no-guns sign (and I take offense to it being criminalized in the first place) - making it a strong felony. Places with 30.06/07 and soon to be .05 signs should be made civilly liable for injury or death occurred by violence in these places, and be required to provide secure, safe storage for firearms in order for the criminal penalty to be enforced. I'm fine with there being a trespass charge associated IF you are found to have a firearm, asked to leave, and you don't. But simply making it a felony to carry into a business that posts the sign? That's bogus. Hopefully a bill to reverse such penalties or drop them to misdemeanors is in the works.

 

[Coyote9]

.... didnt you just move here from somewhere else?

Yes, I moved from Colorado where I retired after 21 years in the armed forces. I am a native Texan and graduated from that liberal University of Texas in Austin, where I was harassed often due to my military haircut (USMC paid for the last 2 years) LOL! I had a pickup when 14 (ranch license) and went to hi school with a Winchester 30-30 and a single shot 20ga H&R in the rack, like most of the other kids. Western Days at Borger High School real pistols were common in holsters (unloaded for safety of course).
I have lived in 7 states and found all populated by mostly great people with a scattering of idiots and evil doers in all. IT IS the idiots who concern me, yes the evil doers will not be restricted by ANY written law. It would be nice if Jeff Foxworthy would give a "sign" to the road ragers, the hot tempered and other assorted idiots so that other citizens could watch them just a little closer and be aware of possible danger. That won't happen, however if society required that those persons either pass a background check and get a minimum of training before concealing their weapon, then those who encounter them can see that the "idiot" is armed and maybe just maybe get the edge he/she needs if the situation goes hot.
I have owned Texas property and paid our sky high land taxes all of my life- voted here until retired and carried a Texas drivers license from 1964 until 1996- then from 2013 until now, I consider myself a Texan.

 

[MTA]

Yes, I moved from Colorado where I retired after 21 years in the armed forces. I am a native Texan and graduated from that liberal University of Texas in Austin, where I was harassed often due to my military haircut (USMC paid for the last 2 years) LOL! I had a pickup when 14 (ranch license) and went to hi school with a Winchester 30-30 and a single shot 20ga H&R in the rack, like most of the other kids. Western Days at Borger High School real pistols were common in holsters (unloaded for safety of course).
I have lived in 7 states and found all populated by mostly great people with a scattering of idiots and evil doers in all. IT IS the idiots who concern me, yes the evil doers will not be restricted by ANY written law. It would be nice if Jeff Foxworthy would give a "sign" to the road ragers, the hot tempered and other assorted idiots so that other citizens could watch them just a little closer and be aware of possible danger. That won't happen, however if society required that those persons either pass a background check and get a minimum of training before concealing their weapon, then those who encounter them can see that the "idiot" is armed and maybe just maybe get the edge he/she needs if the situation goes hot.
I have owned Texas property and paid our sky high land taxes all of my life- voted here until retired and carried a Texas drivers license from 1964 until 1996- I consider myself a Texan.

Background check to exercise a right? Did you smoke some of the devil's lettuce when you were in CO?

 

[Coyote9]

What is logical about prohibiting an individual from carrying a firearm in a school or government building? What makes these places special to the point of banning someone from being able to defend themselves there?

If you're going to say "because its where children gather" - don't they gather in shopping malls, parks, sporting venues, churches, and other places? If the media and politicians are to be believed, schools are dangerous because of the chance of a "mass shooting" taking place - so being able to be armed as a law abiding individual, you have a better chance at defending yourself and those children from a murderous maniac.

If you're going to say "because it increases the chances of an accidental shooting" - yes it does, simply because there's a gun present. The applies to literally everywhere there are firearms and ammunition in close proximity. But other states allow for carrying into schools, even bright blue liberal lefty Oregon, and this was a non-issue. I carried every time I picked my kid up, had a meeting with the teachers, or attended school functions, 100% legal. Other people I knew likewise carried. There were no issues. In the 19 years I've been carrying a firearm, I've never heard of an accidental shooting in a school there.

Moving beyond schools to government buildings - again, what makes them special? People need to go in and out of government offices for all matter of business - tax offices, DMV's, paying their water/light/gas bills, etc. Are these places, most of which have no security, any less likely to be targets for violent maniacs? I'd say they'd be a more likely target, because people can be pushed over the edge into violent action because of perceived mistreatment by the government. As an innocent party, I'd prefer the right and ability to defend myself in these places, rather than being disarmed and left to be another statistic. Government employees are no more special than any one else. The ONLY government owned/operated places I'm OK with being disarmed are secure areas of jails, because not even the corrections officers inside the jails are armed, and they have layers of security to get through before someone is likely to go on a killing spree.

My only issue with this bill is that it further enhances the penalties for being caught carrying in a place with a no-guns sign (and I take offense to it being criminalized in the first place) - making it a strong felony. Places with 30.06/07 and soon to be .05 signs should be made civilly liable for injury or death occurred by violence in these places, and be required to provide secure, safe storage for firearms in order for the criminal penalty to be enforced. I'm fine with there being a trespass charge associated IF you are found to have a firearm, asked to leave, and you don't. But simply making it a felony to carry into a business that posts the sign? That's bogus. Hopefully a bill to reverse such penalties or drop them to misdemeanors is in the works.

I agree with a lot of your points, certainly the felony charge for carrying a firearm into a "signed" building is way bogus! AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID!!! No laws will prevent criminals from behaving like criminals (only harsh punishments do that) . Restricting concealed carry to those individuals who have passed a background check and have had some training will reduce (not eliminate) the risk of "going to guns" by people who act without thinking and surprising the victims. When a person who I recognize as being armed comes in range, I watch him- I track him and I think about how I'll kill him- if he should become a threat. That is easier with open carry
Schools: I am okay with WELL trained teachers and security carrying arms (preferably concealed).
I am MOST CERTAINLY opposed to angry parents walking the halls to confront some teacher for some perceived injustice being armed!
These are hard choices, and we could exchange scenarios both experienced and imagined with equal accuracy all day... Texas has had a gradual reduction in firearm assaults thoughout my lifetime (gang violence excluded), and I am confident that it will continue to decline whether this law passes or not. I have "gone to guns" as a civilian in Texas once and drawn in defense twice when just the presentation stopped the confrontation. I am a huge proponent of the responsible carrying of firearms- also a huge proponent of practice, training and situation awareness.
NOTE: I just bought a Kimber Micro 9 for my !8 yr old grand daughter who has been shooting since 8. She refused the pistol because her 20 year old boyfriend is fascinated by guns and she sees him as too irresponsible to be around firearms! If a teenager can realize that some folks should be restricted from lethal weapons why do some adults think that is not reasonable?

 

[Coyote9]

Background check to exercise a right? Did you smoke some of the devil's lettuce when you were in CO?

The right to carry CONCEALED? Never saw that in either the State or the US Constitution! I am only suggesting the background check and training for CONCEALED carry NOT required for open carry.
As for smoking? don't ask don't tell

 

[Sasquatch]

I agree with a lot of your points, certainly the felony charge for carrying a firearm into a "signed" building is way bogus! AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID!!! No laws will prevent criminals from behaving like criminals (only harsh punishments do that) . Restricting concealed carry to those individuals who have passed a background check and have had some training will reduce (not eliminate) the risk of "going to guns" by people who act without thinking and surprising the victims. When a person who I recognize as being armed comes in range, I watch him- I track him and I think about how I'll kill him- if he should become a threat. That is easier with open carry


Schools: I am okay with WELL trained teachers and security carrying arms (preferably concealed).
I am MOST CERTAINLY opposed to angry parents walking the halls to confront some teacher for some perceived injustice being armed!

These are hard choices, and we could exchange scenarios both experienced and imagined with equal accuracy all day... Texas has had a gradual reduction in firearm assaults thoughout my lifetime (gang violence excluded), and I am confident that it will continue to decline whether this law passes or not. I have "gone to guns" as a civilian in Texas once and drawn in defense twice when just the presentation stopped the confrontation. I am a huge proponent of the responsible carrying of firearms- also a huge proponent of practice, training and situation awareness.

NOTE: I just bought a Kimber Micro 9 for my !8 yr old grand daughter who has been shooting since 8. She refused the pistol because her 20 year old boyfriend is fascinated by guns and she sees him as too irresponsible to be around firearms! If a teenager can realize that some folks should be restricted from lethal weapons why do some adults think that is not reasonable?

RE schools again - an angry parent who decides to kill a teacher or threaten them with a firearm has already made the choice to ignore the laws pertaining to assault, murder, or attempted murder. Ignoring the prohibition on carrying into a school means nothing. This simply serves as another way to disarm the law abiding. The example you gave simply does not happen. This is the same argument the antis use about carry laws in general - its the "blood in the streets" argument, which just doesn't pan out in reality.

The example of your grand daughter - that's a great example of individual choices - it's a terrible example of why the government should be deciding who should and should not be able to exercise a "right".

If I were playing devil's advocate with you on this and seeking a compromise (not that I'm much in favor of compromising on 2A issues, but lets have an exercise anyway) - passing a law allowing permitless OPEN carry, with the identical restrictions placed on concealed carrying individuals, and requiring special permissions to conceal carry could be a compromise. You get your perceived fears alleviated - you know the open carrier is armed and you can take whatever actions you need to for your own personal safety. You can just assume that if you don't see a gun openly displayed that those people must all be armed anyway, and they must have been licensed and passed whatever background checks or classes are thrown in the way of obtaining the license. Of course we both agree criminals will carry anyway, without licenses or training. So those people without an openly displayed firearm fall into three categories - criminals, licensed armed individuals, and unarmed individuals. You don't know which category any of them fall into until they make their intentions known, if they ever do.

The right to carry is established by SCOTUS - they ruled that states must have a system in place for any law abiding person to be able to carry. Their ruling was not as clear as it should be, but if we agree that the RIGHT to carry is actually a RIGHT, then permit-less carry of some sort MUST be available to the citizens, be it open or concealed. If we agree to OPEN carry as a right, available to all who are not otherwise prohibited persons, we could maybe compromise on *concealed* carry being a privilege (again, playing devil's advocate, as this is not the view I personally hold) subject to licensing and training and back grounds and taxation.

To me it all still boils down to something simple - either you are a law abiding citizen, or you're a prohibited person / criminal. The law abiding person isn't the problem. They're not the worry. They're not going to be violently assaulting anyone. They're not going to be waving a gun in anyone's face for no reason. The others? The criminally inclined? They don't give a shit, and they'll do as they please regardless of the law, local rules, etc. So to prohibit the law abiding from defending themselves or to put barriers in place such as fees, training requirements, licenses etc just serves to chill the ability of the law abiding to exercise their rights - and SCOTUS has ruled previously in regards to other rights that such actions are illegal, but somehow refused to apply those to gun rights. Poll taxes were deemed illegal and unconstitutional, because it was charging people to exercise their *right* to vote. Same with literacy requirements. How then, is it acceptable to charge fees and put in place training requirements to keep & bear arms, if we extend the same logic as used for voting?

Liberty is dangerous, and personal responsibility is important. We can encourage people to get training, we can encourage them to be safe in their handling and storage of their arms - just as with anything else from power saws to electronics to sex toys. I don't want the government saying that I have to have a permit or special training or pay a special fee in order to buy and use a circular saw. We don't require special training or permitting to buy a computer or phone and start posting on the Internet for everyone to read. More harm can certainly be done by people's rhetoric than with any weapon short of a nuclear bomb. How many cities have burned, how many people were hurt and killed, how many lives ruined by political rhetoric in the last year alone? None of the politicians or "community organizers" needed a permit to spew their nonsense and whip people into a frenzy. My gun is less dangerous than the spokesperson for Black Lives Matter or the likes of Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson, or Nancy Pelosi.