the Constitution under assault and they will never stop

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just continually prove your stupidity.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Well, I challenged you to come up with another idiotic post and you most certainly did so.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just continue to show your stupidity.

Just par for the course with IB.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

By the way, you STILL haven't answered my very simple question:

Are the only handguns you have in your home simply antique handguns? I'm not asking whether or not the guns are "historic memorabilia". Simply asking if you have a gun in your home for self defense and whether you have a concealed handgun you carry on your person when outside your home. You keep saying you only have weapons from WWI and WWII, but have not answered my question.

More cut & paste repeats, non answers to anything, and photoshop pics (when all else fails) soon to follow.

Is there anything I missed IB?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You just continue to show your stupidity.

First, the reasons I voted for Obama for president had absolutely nothing to do with his position on gun rights. It had everything to do with the economic condition of the country at the time of the election and the fact that the Republicans, for whom I had voted for throughout my long life, had put up McCain and Palin both of whom I did not like, to put it mildly.

Second, "Open carry" and "Concealed carry" are 2 totally different rights. It's amazing how stupid you are. I have been talking TOTALLY about "concealed carry". Exactly 5 states are unrestricted, requiring no CHL. Every other of the 45 states REQUIRES a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. As shown below, a "shall issue" state has requirements in order to obtain a CHL, Texas is a "shall issue" state but an applicant must, at a minimum, attend a class, show competency in firing the weapon, and pass a written test in order to obtain a CHL. So MY stats are absolutely correct. Not to worry. The odds are that EVENTUALLY you will be right on some issue.

A Shall-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a license to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such licenses is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the licenses, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause". The laws in a Shall-Issue jurisdiction typically state that a granting authority shall issue a license if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws in which the authority may issue a license at their discretion.


Typical license requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check (or a more comprehensive manual background check), attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class, passing a practical qualification demonstrating handgun proficiency, and paying a required fee. These requirements vary widely by jurisdiction, with some having few or none of these and others having most or all.


Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal...es#Shall-Issue

By the way, you STILL haven't answered my very simple question:

Are the only handguns you have in your home simply antique handguns? I'm not asking whether or not the guns are "historic memorabilia". Simply asking if you have a gun in your home for self defense and whether you have a concealed handgun you carry on your person when outside your home. You keep saying you only have weapons from WWI and WWII, but have not answered my question.

What part of "open carry" means "no CHL required" do you not understand, Speedy? BTW, told your ignorant ass before I use the CHL to transport my weapons to and from the range and hunting, Speedy. It's not required, but with piss-in-their-pants fraidy-cats like you passing so many bureaucratic restrictions a CHL is advisable to avoid any issues that might arise while transporting into or through another state on the way to a hunting destination. FYI, Speedy, I have seven hand guns: one is an 18th century vintage pattern replica Tower pistol (from a kit), three (two replicas) are 19th century vintage pattern revolvers and the other three (two autos and one revolver) -- fully functional originals -- date from WWI and WWII, and all of them are "historical memorabilia", Speedy.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

By the way, using your fractured logic, when I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, Bob Dole in 1996, Bush in 1988 and 1992, Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Ford in 1976, and so on, and voted for all Republican candidates for U.S. Senator, U.S. House, and state governor, then I must have done so because I supported the pro-gun lobby.

Idiot.

Don't you know the old adage, Speedy, "One 'aw, shit' wipes out a thousand 'attaboys'"? You voted for Odumbo; hence you supported Holder, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc., etc., etc., idiot!

Originally Posted by JCM800

Just par for the course with IB.

Whereas par for 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout is making inane, non-substantive, off-topic, stupid-ass remarks.

Originally Posted by JCM800

More cut & paste repeats, non answers to anything, and photoshop pics (when all else fails) soon to follow.

Is there anything I missed IB?

How many times do you intend to cut & paste that stupid-ass question, 1-800-JCM-DATO: the lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM's soiled breechclout?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

By the way, using your fractured logic, when I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, Bob Dole in 1996, Bush in 1988 and 1992, Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Ford in 1976, and so on, and voted for all Republican candidates for U.S. Senator, U.S. House, and state governor, then I must have done so because I supported the pro-gun lobby.

Idiot.

Why? Why? Why? ... did you convert?




.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What part of "open carry" means "no CHL required" do you not understand, Speedy? BTW, told your ignorant ass before I use the CHL to transport my weapons to and from the range and hunting, Speedy. It's not required, but with piss-in-their-pants fraidy-cats like you passing so many bureaucratic restrictions a CHL is advisable to avoid any issues that might arise while transporting into or through another state on the way to a hunting destination. FYI, Speedy, I have seven hand guns: one is an 18th century vintage pattern replica Tower pistol (from a kit), three (two replicas) are 19th century vintage pattern revolvers and the other three (two autos and one revolver) -- fully functional originals -- date from WWI and WWII, and all of them are "historical memorabilia", Speedy.


Don't you know the old adage, Speedy, "One 'aw, shit' wipes out a thousand 'attaboys'"? You voted for Odumbo; hence you supported Holder, Pelosi, Feinstein, etc., etc., etc., idiot!

In the state of Texas, people can "open carry" long rifles without a CHL. So at the current time, there is absolutely no correlation between "open carry" and the requirement to obtain a CHL to carry a concealed handgun in this state.

You still haven't answered my question idiot. Simple question. Yes you have stated that you use your CHL to transport your weapons. Question still is do you own a handgun for your protection and do you carry one as a concealed handgun? Answer is either "Yes" or "No".

Your second comment, highlighted in blue, shows off your total stupidity. Probably the most idiotic statement made on this forum. I believe in "A" therefore I believe in "B". Your logic is absolutely ridiculous.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Why? Why? Why? ... did you convert?

.

In 2008 I could not bear the thought of McCain as President and, even worse, Sarah Palin being a heartbeat from the presidency. Can ANYONE here imagine Sarah Palin as President of the U.S.?

In 2012, with my 401k recovered nicely from the last Bush year in office (Yes, I know many believe the financial condition of the country is not dependent on the President) I gave Obama a second chance. We'll see what happens in 2016. I have never been a fan of Hillary at all but will the Republicans put up candidates that are palatable to most Americans?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

In the state of Texas, people can "open carry" long rifles without a CHL. So at the current time, there is absolutely no correlation between "open carry" and the requirement to obtain a CHL to carry a concealed handgun in this state.

You still haven't answered my question idiot. Simple question. Yes you have stated that you use your CHL to transport your weapons. Question still is do you own a handgun for your protection and do you carry one as a concealed handgun? Answer is either "Yes" or "No".

Your second comment, highlighted in blue, shows off your total stupidity. Probably the most idiotic statement made on this forum. I believe in "A" therefore I believe in "B". Your logic is absolutely ridiculous.

You're a moron, Speedy. First off, Texas is Texas, and what holds true in Texas doesn't necessarily hold true for any every other state in the union, moron. Plus, already explained that every weapon I own was "collected" because each is in some sense a piece of "historical memorabilia": not personal protection. The quote in blue suits you perfectly, Speedy, and you're embarrassed because you know it's true.

You are moronically prejudiced against weapons and their owners, Speedy,and you've admitted that your so-called "solutions" will not contribute to actual civic good because criminals do not and will not abide by the laws you and regulations you want to clutter the law books with; yet, you persist with your idiotic agenda to disarm responsible citizens who obey laws.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are moronically prejudiced against weapons and their owners, Speedy,and you've admitted that your so-called "solutions" will not contribute to actual civic good because criminals do not and will not abide by the laws you and regulations you want to clutter the law books with; yet, you persist with your idiotic agenda to disarm responsible citizens who obey laws.

First, I'll eliminate the first 2 of your paragraphs because you are obviously too ignorant to answer questions asked and continue to rant on and on with irrelevant statements.

But the paragraph above just continues to show how stupid you are and continue to ignore statements made by others and then go on to push your own agenda. You are simply an IDIOT. Once again, as you did with my voting for Obama, you are making a huge jump and concluding because I believe in one specific handgun control which I believe protects people from idiots like you who might be carrying a concealed handgun, that I support all gun control measures.

Once again, since you obviously have been too dense up to this point to comprehend pretty much anything:

THE ONLY LAW I HAVE SUPPORTED IN THIS THREAD IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CHL. 45 OF THE 50 STATES CURRENTLY AGREE WITH MY POSITION BY REQUIRING A CHL IN ORDER TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN, ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CHL VARY FROM STATE-TO-STATE. THE LAW IS THE LAW. AND THE LAWS WERE NOT MADE BY ME. YOU SIMPLY IGNORE THIS FACT. IN THESE 45 STATES I DON'T NEED AN AGENDA TO DISARM ANYONE. THE LAWS IN AFFECT HAVE DONE SO. FIGHT WITH THEM YOU IDIOT.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, I'll eliminate the first 2 of your paragraphs because you are obviously too ignorant to answer questions asked and continue to rant on and on with irrelevant statements.

But the paragraph above just continues to show how stupid you are and continue to ignore statements made by others and then go on to push your own agenda. You are simply an IDIOT. Once again, as you did with my voting for Obama, you are making a huge jump and concluding because I believe in one specific handgun control which I believe protects people from idiots like you who might be carrying a concealed handgun, that I support all gun control measures.

Once again, since you obviously have been too dense up to this point to comprehend pretty much anything:

THE ONLY LAW I HAVE SUPPORTED IN THIS THREAD IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CHL. 45 OF THE 50 STATES CURRENTLY AGREE WITH MY POSITION BY REQUIRING A CHL IN ORDER TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN, ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A CHL VARY FROM STATE-TO-STATE. THE LAW IS THE LAW. AND THE LAWS WERE NOT MADE BY ME. YOU SIMPLY IGNORE THIS FACT. IN THESE 45 STATES I DON'T NEED AN AGENDA TO DISARM ANYONE. THE LAWS IN AFFECT HAVE DONE SO. FIGHT WITH THEM YOU IDIOT.

Your question was answered, Speedy, you're just too ignorant to understand the answer; hence, you remain a moron. The criminals will not abide by the laws you want, Speedy, and yet you pretend your laws will change criminal behavior.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

First, I'll eliminate the first 2 of your paragraphs because you are obviously too ignorant to answer questions asked and continue to rant on and on with irrelevant statements.[/COLOR]

And you find this noteworthy why? That is who IB is. That us what he has been babbling for 11,000+ posts. Then magically he turns and says "I answered the question but the rest of the universe is too stupid to understand! "

Now in typical fashion he will spew some nonsensical phlegm about me because I pointed out his pattern--even though it has been obvious to all sentient posters for a long time.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your question was answered, Speedy, you're just too ignorant to understand the answer; hence, you remain a moron. The criminals will not abide by the laws you want, Speedy, and yet you pretend your laws will change criminal behavior.

Once again you are putting words in my mouth that were never stated or even implied.

You will not find even ONE place in this thread, or any other thread, where I've said that a law requiring a CHL will change criminal behavior. Never said it would. Fact is, I don't believe I've EVER stated in ANY thread that ANY law will change criminal behavior. I challenge you once again to back up your lies. Criminals will carry concealed handguns whether or not there is a law in a state requiring. What a CHL requirement will do is help applicants understand how to use their handgun and when it should be used. SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU!!

You at times have accused me of being scared of untrained people with handguns. You bet your ass I am. Over 10,000 people are killed each year in the U.S. by firearms, mostly by handguns. Usually over 400,000 non-fatal firearm incidents. Certainly only a handful of these crimes are committed by people with a CHL. I want people legally carrying to have a minimum of training with their handgun and understand when and when not it is right to use it. Again, SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Old-T

And you find this noteworthy why? That is who IB is. That us what he has been babbling for 11,000+ posts. Then magically he turns and says "I answered the question but the rest of the universe is too stupid to understand! "

Now in typical fashion he will spew some nonsensical phlegm about me because I pointed out his pattern--even though it has been obvious to all sentient posters for a long time.

Sometimes you just have to throw in the towel. When you've explained things 3, 4 or 5 times and the person STILL can't understand a simple question, it is best to give up and let people like yourself reach the same conclusion that you and I have -- IB is an idiot.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Once again you are putting words in my mouth that were never stated or even implied.

You will not find even ONE place in this thread, or any other thread, where I've said that a law requiring a CHL will change criminal behavior. Never said it would. Fact is, I don't believe I've EVER stated in ANY thread that ANY law will change criminal behavior. I challenge you once again to back up your lies. Criminals will carry concealed handguns whether or not there is a law in a state requiring. What a CHL requirement will do is help applicants understand how to use their handgun and when it should be used. SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU!!

You at times have accused me of being scared of untrained people with handguns. You bet your ass I am. Over 10,000 people are killed each year in the U.S. by firearms, mostly by handguns. Usually over 400,000 non-fatal firearm incidents. Certainly only a handful of these crimes are committed by people with a CHL. I want people legally carrying to have a minimum of training with their handgun and understand when and when not it is right to use it. Again, SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Guns are banned in Chicago, Speedy. CHLs are almost impossible to get in Chicago, Speedy. Nevertheless, at least 11 were injured in Chicago shootings this past Saturday night, Speedy. Criminals never have and never will obey your laws, Speedy.

Originally Posted by Old-T

And you find this noteworthy why? That is who IB is. That us what he has been babbling for 11,000+ posts. Then magically he turns and says "I answered the question but the rest of the universe is too stupid to understand! "

Now in typical fashion he will spew some nonsensical phlegm about me because I pointed out his pattern--even though it has been obvious to all sentient posters for a long time.

What's noteworthy, Old-Twerp, is how your ignorant-ass chooses to ignore the number of posts made by your lib-retarded consorts while ignorantly trying to make a straw man issue out of the number of posts.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sometimes you just have to throw in the towel. When you've explained things 3, 4 or 5 times and the person STILL can't understand a simple question, it is best to give up and let people like yourself reach the same conclusion that you and I have -- IB is an idiot.

Whereas you, Speedy, ignorantly fail to understand answers. You ignorantly demand more laws and restrictions, Speedy, while you conceded that criminals don't obey laws and restrictions. So you're the idiot, Speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Guns are banned in Chicago, Speedy. CHLs are almost impossible to get in Chicago, Speedy. Nevertheless, at least 11 were injured in Chicago shootings this past Saturday night, Speedy. Criminals never have and never will obey your laws, Speedy.


Whereas you, Speedy, ignorantly fail to understand answers. You ignorantly demand more laws and restrictions, Speedy, while you conceded that criminals don't obey laws and restrictions. So you're the idiot, Speedy.

So you CAN"T find any statement I've made, past or present, which supports your statement that I said any gun control law will change criminal behavior. LIAR. You just continue to throw out irrelevant statements, now about Chicago. What does that have to do with a discussion on CHLs? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

And once again in your second paragraph, you are a LIAR. I'll ask again -- what additional laws and restrictions on handguns or other firearms have I demanded. YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTHS TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS.

But you have restored faith in me. I have thought that achieving perfection in just about anything meaningful was virtually impossible. But congratulations -- you have shown yourself to be a PERFECT IDIOT.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So you CAN"T find any statement I've made, past or present, which supports your statement that I said any gun control law will change criminal behavior. LIAR. You just continue to throw out irrelevant statements, now about Chicago. What does that have to do with a discussion on CHLs? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

And once again in your second paragraph, you are a LIAR. I'll ask again -- what additional laws and restrictions on handguns or other firearms have I demanded. YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S MOUTHS TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS.

But you have restored faith in me. I have thought that achieving perfection in just about anything meaningful was virtually impossible. But congratulations -- you have shown yourself to be a PERFECT IDIOT.

You're a liar, Speedy! You've already endorsed the very restrictive gun control measures in New York and New Jersey, and you're on record for allowing more restrictive laws where the existing laws don't meet with your ignorant approval, Speedy:

Meanwhile Speedy, you leave it up in the air as to "who" determines "what" basic understanding "means", and you are on the record as insisting such laws be put in place where they do not exist.