TexasCHLforum.com

That didn't take long, and was very predictable.

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."

I just up graded my NRA membership from Endowment to Patron

So I listened to the video. He suggested 3 things:
1) Provide resources to law enforcement to actually enforce existing gun laws.
2) Don't allow people on the "no fly" list to buy firearms
3) Reinstate the assault weapons ban.

It strikes me as odd that that we rail against #3, which I believe that most people on the forum agree with and would support #1-#2. It might take a lot of heat off the whole thing if #1-#2 actually got done. The first two make sense to me. Even if I don't like the messenger, I agree with 2/3 of the message.

I personally don't have any use for a TEC-9, but I do own an AR and I see it simply as a modern rifle. I don't distinguish it from any other rifle of similar caliber that is semi automatic and takes a magazine. I'm not sure that the "assault weapon" ban would do much, other than make our collections a lot more valuable... It'd take decades for the ban to decrease the availability of these weapons in the US.

I would go for #1.
#2 could be prone to administrative abuse.
#3 is not going to stop any problems. ar-15s are not military weapons, regardless of how often those who would repeal our natural rights repeat their mantra.

cb1000rider wrote: It strikes me as odd that that we rail against #3, which I believe that most people on the forum agree with and would support #1-#2. It might take a lot of heat off the whole thing if #1-#2 actually got done. The first two make sense to me. Even if I don't like the messenger, I agree with 2/3 of the message.

Personally, I can't get on board for anything except #1.

The "No Fly List" has no, zero, nada, nothing in the way of due process associated with it. Once you're on it, it's up to you to figure out how to get off of it, there's no way to force your removal, and there's no need for a conviction or proof of activity or wrongdoing to be placed on the list.

It would take next to nothing for it to switch from a blacklist method to a whitelist method.

I will not willingly submit to a single solitary extra restriction whatsoever. It's the whole "Camel's nose under the tent" thing.

So let's just enforce the laws we already have.

cb1000rider wrote:So I listened to the video. He suggested 3 things:
1) Provide resources to law enforcement to actually enforce existing gun laws.
2) Don't allow people on the "no fly" list to buy firearms
3) Reinstate the assault weapons ban.

It strikes me as odd that that we rail against #3, which I believe that most people on the forum agree with and would support #1-#2. It might take a lot of heat off the whole thing if #1-#2 actually got done. The first two make sense to me. Even if I don't like the messenger, I agree with 2/3 of the message.

Not me. I am against #2 & #3, and since I think about 99% of all gun laws should be repealed, I am not a big fan of #1 either.

Not sure why anyone would be in favor of #2. Anyone too dangerous to own a gun is too dangerous to be allowed to buy box cutters, fertilizer, pressure cookers, see what I did there?

Does anyone doubt that any such ban would be comparable to ACA's 2000 plus pages? I think we've compromised enough. The left is "never" satisfied with anything they favor and get passed. To them its "always a good start". It's like feeding a stray dog in the hope it goes goes away. If the AWB is passed you'll be lucky to allowed to apply for a license to own an air rifle. No thank you. JMHO

So does he not realize how many jobs will go away if this happens , I guess he doesn't care about any of that the way the economy is now . Even if there was a ban on them there would still be a market for them and anyone could still get there hands on them so to me this is stupid to even think about.

cbunt1 wrote:The "No Fly List" has no, zero, nada, nothing in the way of due process associated with it. Once you're on it, it's up to you to figure out how to get off of it, there's no way to force your removal, and there's no need for a conviction or proof of activity or wrongdoing to be placed on the list.

I'm in agreement. I listened to Senator Dianne Feinstein on the news Sunday saying basically, if you get on the no-fly list you can appeal, and go before a judge to prove your innocence.

Call me old-fashioned, but I still think it's the responsibility of the government to prove someone guilty, not the other way around.

Well... "AJ calls for the mongrel president to resign effective immediately, and to take Biden with him so that Paul Ryan becomes president."

Has about as much of a chance of happening.

It w seem our President is pro-terrorist.
If you ban them then the terrorist won't have to worry about people shooting back as much.

cbunt1 wrote: The "No Fly List" has no, zero, nada, nothing in the way of due process associated with it. Once you're on it, it's up to you to figure out how to get off of it, there's no way to force your removal, and there's no need for a conviction or proof of activity or wrongdoing to be placed on the list.

I think that's a legit "legal" concern. You can be granted rights by the constitution to only have then taken away by a secret un-adjudicated process. Still, it strikes many people as funny (including myself) that we're willing to ban them from commercial airlines, but they can still buy weapons.

There has to be a better way...