No, my first post was to agree with you about hot heads on both sides of the issues, and then added but we don’t have to worry about CHP holders. At that you took off and got sarcastic about how do I know that, etc. See below.

I did not call you a lier, I asked if you had proof Cho had a CHP, because that was the first time I had heard that.

This whole thread was about CHP holders now(well not just yet) being able to carry concealed in National Parks, which is why I was surprised you thought it was gun owners in general.

citizenofmanassas said on 7 Dec 2008 at 5:48 pm: Flag comment
You mean like Jules? He reacted without knowing the facts and got his temper up with the thought of law abiding people having guns in National Parks.

Benton said on 7 Dec 2008 at 5:54 pm: Flag comment
Yup. That would be one. Doesn’t matter what your opinion is - it’s how you handle it. Stupid and reactive know no bounds.

Benton said on 7 Dec 2008 at 5:58 pm: Flag comment
PS…. Stupid and reactive know no bounds or sides. I don’t care about people’s opinions, I focus on how they got to them. That is, I know, almost impossible for some to understand. So I dismiss them. However “them” with a gun scares me.

citizenofmanassas said on 7 Dec 2008 at 6:19 pm: Flag comment
ya they are on both sides. However, people with CHPs are not the ones to worry about.

Benton said on 7 Dec 2008 at 7:59 pm: Flag comment
I disagree. Completely. They are not checked for mental status. This is a good example of protecting someone based on some generalization. Cripes….. THIS is my point. How you came to that conclusion??!!

Your first response to me:

You question is right out of the anti-gun group crowd. Talk about someone who might need to have cool down. Do you always use two question marks along with two exclamation marks?

It doesn’t matter - it seems pointless to post here unless you are part of some club of which I am not a member.

If we were talking about gun owners in general, you would have a point, but we are talking specifically about CHP holders, a process you said you understood.

Comments are welcomed, but before you make them, you should make sure they are correct, and then not try to make people out who oppose your opinion to be the very people you are opining about(hot tempered, etc.).

Yes, the process was adjusted after Cho’s rampage.

I fully support the right to carry. I said so a few days ago. Just don’t like reactionarys, short tempers and those that don’t posses some/any facts! Realize that CANT be weeded out. Just a comment. Guess I shouldn’t bother here. Comments are not allowed?

Try exercise for increased self-esteem.

Thanks, I did a google search and found that same. Oh well, another Anti-gunner is exposed for trying to spread lies.

Go cool down.

Did Cho have a CHP? Or, did he just have guns? If he had a CHP, that is the first I have heard of that, and would like to see proof if in fact he had one.

Couldn’t get more than two posts without name calling or labeling - anti gun crowd. Couldn’t be farther from the truth…. LOL LOL

One name, Seung-Hui Cho.

PS. ??!!

Do you know the process of obtaining a CHP? If you do, then you would not have asked such a question. You question is right out of the anti-gun group crowd. Talk about someone who might need to have cool down. Do you always use two question marks along with two exclamation marks?

How did I come to that conclusion? Do you know how many CHP holders there are in the Commonwealth? How many have had them revoked? Not many. The vast vast majority of CHP holders are fine upstanding Citizens.

The point is of course it is not an easy process to obtain a CHP, and given the time and cost it takes to get one, that tends to weed out people. Also, the people who have them, realize the responsibility of having a CHP.

Can you provide any proof to say otherwise about CHP holders?

Ha! I see them say so here. It’s the short tempers and those that react without facts that worry me. As much as the the criminal.

You can’t seriously believe that “Criminals will just become more armed with more and bigger guns”. Is that a studied opinion? Or just a baseless arguement against logic? You are correct that criminals do not obey the law. Why should the law abiding not be allowed to defend themselves? Do you think that criminals are better balanced psychologically and that we should just give up resisting them? Have we become such sheep and so dependent on the good will of others that we should give up our natural and inalienable right of self defense?

Wow. Go live in Canada. You’ll be safe there.

There is nothing hilarious about responsible weapons owners who understand the intent for their weapons.

There is a huge difference between “toting a gun” because you can, and toting it for the purpose it was intended.

For those who follow the statistics, more people are killed in their homes with their own weapons because they buy them, tuck them away in a drawer and never learn how to use them properly - or when they hear a noise and panic, they shoot a family member.

These people are usually upstanding and law-abiding citizens, with no criminal background.

Where I grew up, just about every household had at least 4 guns, rifles and/or shotguns. In the 20 years I lived in the area, there were two fatalities by firearms (murder/suicide when a man caught his wife with another man). Since the laws have been “loosened,” firearms injuries and fatalities are a regular in the police reports.

I have no affection for hand guns - I don’t have the wrist and arm strength to control a hand gun of any worth to achieve it’s purpose. Or perhaps I’m just more comfortable with a rifle or shotgun because that’s what I “know.”

Anyone who knows me knows that I about as far from Anti as they come. I am however a strong advocate for responsible firearms ownership - and very much opposed to letting anyone own a gun - just because they can.

The right to own a weapon comes with responsibilities. Unfortunately, way too many people who own guns don’t have a clue how to use them and that scares the day lights out of me. That and hot heads who think they have a right to brandish a firearm whenever they get a wild hair.

I would like to see laws enacted that require all fire arms owners complete a state recognized firearms training course BEFORE they can purchase a firearm.

I would like to see a requirement where all firearms owners be licensed and tested periodically - just as driving a car.

I would like to see a law requiring firearms owners be required to spend a specified amount of time at a licensed firing range to maintain their license.

And most important - I would like to see a law that requires a licensed fire arms owner know where these fire arms are - at all times. If their fire arm(s) is used to commit a crime and a theft not reported, the licensed owner be held partially accountable and charged accordingly.

Just because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms does not mean that everyone should own a fire arm.