TexasCHLforum.com

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Where did you get that impression?

From the thread on Academy...
"What is the objection to producing ID?

You have to show ID to vote, after all."

Was there sarcasm that I missed?

No, noting a buyer's name, address etc didn't strike me as a "list." I suppose the info could be added to a list with other buyers. Or maybe a database!

lfinsr wrote:

JALLEN wrote:The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need.

But you're okay with a list to buy ammo?

Where did you get that impression?

The government has a rich history of requiring lists which soon are inaccurate, meaningless, and serve only to give a false sense of something being done, and worse, can become a political weapon for whatever administration happens to feel the need. Anybody need an enemies list? Anyone ever sign off on not being a member of any organization on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations I always wanted to say "why no, I'm a Republican," but that would have been considered eccentric.

There are hundreds of laws which require the President to certify a certain state of affairs, usually regarding some foreign country of area of the world, compliance with some standard or another, assurance that some fact is true, some condition actually exists. How many of these are glossed over under the weight of politics of the moment? North Korea isn't a sponsor of state terror, because Boeing needs to sell a bunch of airplanes to meet their numbers this quarter, etc.

Anyone who gives a lick of credence to these bureaucratic antics is a fool, and anyone who suggests these as a solution or contribution to our security certainly is.

MeMelYup wrote:

vjallen75 wrote:

flowrie wrote:Comment on last sentence:
I think they do "get it". They do not fear guns, they surround themselves with body guards with guns, they have large beuracracies that are armed, they fear people, free people, you and me. It's not about safety or saving lives, it's about control and tyranny.

The democratic leaders do get it and your right it is about control and tyranny. The people who elect such officials do not understand that, I know that for a fact.

Look at the state of California. The legislature just passed all sorts of gun control laws, but they by law are exempt from then and may all carry concealed firearms.

Do you have a citation to that exemption?

So far, the more the Dem's thump the gun control tub, the fewer there are of them holding office.

AWB was snuck passed us once, in the Clinton Administration, by coincidence.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."