TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote: Ive considered your position, but seeing that the antis want to totally eliminate gun ownership, I feel that even a little appeasement is letting the camel's nose get under the tent.

There absolutely are some "antis" that want to totally eliminate gun ownership, but they're a small minority. And they don't stand a chance. This is America. I've decided that Chicago and New York are not part of America.

There are also some "pros" that believe that the constitution allows firearm ownership to all regardless of weapon type (full auto) and they we should be allowed to carry 4 of them to the mall. They're also a small minority.

The people that you should worry about are the majority in the middle... Which is why scaring people at Starbucks isn't a good idea.

I understand the view of getting the camels nose under the tent and the slippery slope theory. That camel is likely getting his nose in anyway - at least that sure seems to be where we're headed. Maybe ignoring it will work and nothing will change... I guess I could be wrong.

Tha problem to me is that the camel's nose slipped under the tent in 1934, 1937, and 1968 as well as other times. Why should we, WE compromise MORE when what has been tried has been shown not to work. Even the late 10 year "Assault Weapons Ban" didn't work and it was allowed to expire, but we are attacked as the ones who made it expire, that we didn't give it a long enough chance, and it needs to be tried again despite not working the first time because people just waited for the ban to end (all comments/arguments I have seen & heard) and that one was a camel on a leash.

I am tired of just one more little compromise, it's time to go the other way, repeal GCA '68, Repeal NFA, and even get rid of the Sullivan Act.

And FWIW, I feel that there is a greater percentage of antis that want to outlaw ALL guns, even if they don't let it be known.

cb1000rider wrote:Develop the long game in the face of current realities, shifting demographics, and a shifting society.

Unwillingness to compromise on issues around mental illness and background checks is one issue that I'd (personally) be willing to discuss versus having it implemented in a way that allows far greater consequences. It's a matter of time before all medical information is digital and very available for matters of "national security". (The quotes are intentional)

My point is largely that refusing to even have a discussion about it and calling the other side "wrong" and your side "right" is probably not the best long term game plan.

I'll give a nod towards the idea that discussing it will allow it to change... And discussing it may result in a more restrictive situation than we have today. That's going to be unacceptable to a lot of people. I'm just thinking that "more restrictive" may be preferable to "a lot more restrictive" - which seems to be the way we're almost certainly heading.

I realize my opinion may be very unpopular. I'd just ask that you target personal comments at me directly, not in the forum.