Radio Show Stance On Open Carry.

[TundraWookiee]

We never said you were "required to call in", so how am I required to come to this forum to give timely responses? I check in when I can. I have a full time job I just walked in the door from (12 hours on shift today) and family to attend to. If you want an instant answer, calling the show is the simplest way. If not, you just have to wait until I get to a computer. I can check the facebook app from my phone, so that is another quicker way to get to us.

I do the radio show for free, just like Gary and Jeff. We do this show because we love to shoot and we believe in the Second Amendment. Yet some of you seem to think we are out to restrict your rights. Do Gary and I get to have an opinion? If it is different form yours are we heretics? I know you guy want 100% unrestricted access to guns as your God given right, I get that. I guess no matter how we answer, you will not agree. That is your right.

Nobody said you were "required" to...expected to since you have an entire section devoted to your show, perhaps. You would think that you would be willing to make whatever effort is necessary (within reason) to increase your listener base. You guys are the ones who CHOSE to start a radio show so the expectations are on yall, not us. I also know that this thread went on for days before a response was made and some of you were even PM'd or emailed about it. I work 12-14 hours a day at my primary job and work another job on some weekends in addition to all of the daily things I need to attend to but can still respond in a matter of days. And I'm not getting a damn thing out of responding to anything online, no pay, no listener base...just taking part in something I decided to do (i.e. be an active member of this community).

For the record, I don't have the biggest issue with your opinions. Even though I don't agree with them, you're entitled to them. The manner in which you presented them and defended them in this thread are the reason I have chosen not to support you.

Its obvious that any further discussion here by me is moot so in the interests of all I am going to withdraw from this conversation as the attitudes presented here have me near a boiling point.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

......... I am going to withdraw from this......

That is the third time you've said that, lol....

 

[gcmj45acp]

How to go about it, license vs none. That's a tough call, IMHO. In essence, currently, if you are legal to purchase a firearm, you are able to get your concealed license. If it would help the measure get passed, I would be amenable to requiring licensing for OC or CC, one course of instruction.
However, generally I am not in favor of licensing either which way. As for knowing use of force laws, in my opinion, it is incumbent on the individual to keep abreast of the law and changes (personal responsibility), just like with driving. As for purchasing, the NICS is meant to weed out those who are ineligible already. People are already carrying concealed without licenses, I can assure you of that. You can't completely prevent people from breaking the laws, just deal with them when they do.

With 300,000,000 guns already in circulation, private transfers allow most of use to get around the NICS checks when we please. It is the personal responsibility of each driver to keep abreast of the laws but, they are still required to prove they know and understand those laws and can safely operate a vehicle before the first license is issued. Following the logic you've suggested, would you be willing to let thirty year old transplant from New York City start driving on the roads in Texas tomorrow if he's NEVER been behind the wheel of a car?

I don't know about you but, my first driving lesson didn't show me to be the next A.J. Foyt. My wife's first driving lesson ended with my car up a fence pole. I'm all for personal responsibility but, no one is born with the knowledge or skills we use as gunmen. Conversely, if as Muzzlebreak suggested, we started familiarizing people with guns and the "rules of the road" as part of their regular education, then I'd see little need for licenses because basic shooting skills and the core issues with regards to use of force might become common knowledge.

And to be fair, Muzzlebreak is loathe to have licensing for anything. He would prefer we be as close to anarchy as we can be while still having some degree of social order. He sees all licensing and most police work as a money grab or power trip by bullies in uniform. I do believe that left up to him, there would be no license plates (front or rear), no drivers licenses, no medical licenses for doctors, and no pilots licenses. I'm not picking on ya bud but, we've had these conversations for years and I know there's probably going to be a tear in your eye when I finally end up with a badge because being friends with a cop is just doing to be weird for you.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

.....okay, maybe second......

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

One of the things that led to the "permanent" loss of the right to keep/bear arms for felons was the high recidivism or likelihood that they would re-offend with yet another felony. There is a process by which one can have his rights restored but, you basically have to be awarded a pardon by the governor and then have your records expunged, no small task. There's long been a debate about automatically restoring the rights of those who have served their full sentences. The high recidivism is what keeps coming up and for every case of a guy who really does turn his life around, there are at least 100 more who go right back to being turds because they can't or won't abide by the laws the rest of us typically choose to obey. I could probably get behind the concept of the restoration of rights for those who weren't convicted of a violent felony but, I don't know that you'll ever get support for restoring the firearm rights of a guy who served his time for offenses such as murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, or armed robbery.

I'd make the path to executing some of those (and child molesters) easier so it would be less of a problem.

 

[itchin]

You can also count me out as a supporter of the show. They sound like big government leftys calling for licenses, and arguing the need for gun laws. They are entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I will vote with my wallet, and not support a group who i disagree with.

 

[Texan2]

You can also count me out as a supporter of the show. They sound like big government leftys calling for licenses, and arguing the need for gun laws. They are entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I will vote with my wallet, and not support a group who i disagree with.

Big government leftys??? I re-read the whole thread and can't see anything that indicates anything that could be considered liberal or big government.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[itchin]

Ok, maybe that was worded wrong. More like cops, who think they know more about guns than any citizen possibly could, and there for should only be the ones allowed to own certain weapons, or require the citizen to jump through hoops to own and carry.

 

[itchin]

When they start using the brady bunch argument "so people should be allowed to own nukes or rocket launchers?" that's when i gtfo

 

[Texan2]

Why...because you don't have a good response to rebut? All the cops I know are pro gun and pro 2A and encourage civilian ownership and carry.

While many if not most gun laws are absurd, the idea that absolutely any gun law violates the 2a is pretty ignorant from a constitutional law stand point.

Almost everyone underdstands the need for laws...its the term "reasonable" that we debate.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[JBerry]

More like cops, who think they know more about guns than any citizen possibly could, and there for should only be the ones allowed to own certain weapons, or require the citizen to jump through hoops to own and carry.

Were did we say you should not be allowed to own certain weapons? I might sound like a cop, because I am a cop. I do not know more about guns than anyone. I simply get to see a TON of different guns due to my line of work. I get paid to go to armorer school and upkeep several hundred weapons. Folks can take or leave anything I have to say on the subject.

I encourage everyone one I know to get a CHL and to carry. I do not want folks to have to jump through hoops, but that is the system we are currently in, so I am not going to go on air and encourage folks to break the law...

I am off to meet with friends.

Texan2, Thanks for your support!

 

[gcmj45acp]

I'd make the path to executing some of those (and child molesters) easier so it would be less of a problem.

I'm with you on executions for murderers, child molesters and such but, the question still becomes, where do we draw the line? I'm willing to support execution for petty theft and intoxication manslaughter but, I know that not everyone will go for that.

 

[gcmj45acp]

+1 and agreed on all points. What kills me is that among our own, to say "reasonable" means you're a lefty liberal. You see a lot of this in the black community...Telling someone they aren't black enough because they can speak in complete sentences and don't sound like they fell off a rap album. If we as gunmen can't have an honest discussion about this stuff we are hosed.

GM

Why...because you don't have a good response to rebut? All the cops I know are pro gun and pro 2A and encourage civilian ownership and carry.

While many if not most gun laws are absurd, the idea that absolutely any gun law violates the 2a is pretty ignorant from a constitutional law stand point.

Almost everyone underdstands the need for laws...its the term "reasonable" that we debate.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2