TexasCHLforum.com

BBYC wrote:What are you all worried about? American cops will never enforce unconstitutional gun laws. Right?

We have cops (the FBI) willingly being used to investigate political opponents. And there are a lot of sheriffs who are not too fond of mere civilians having guns in the first place. I don't foresee much trouble in finding willing storm troopers to carry out confiscations, unfortunately. Not all cops will go along with it, but enough will.

Ruark wrote:

Trump after Sen. Toomey says gun control bill didn't include changing age restrictions: "You know why, because you're afraid of the NRA."

So now he's ridiculing Republican senators for being "afraid of the NRA"? Unbelievable. Whatever happened to "my first day in office, those gun-free zones will disappear"?

Maybe he's not even PLANNING to run for re-election. Maybe he doesn't want to. It's often said he never wanted to be president in the first place.

This guy comes across like a "car salesman." He just smiles and nods and shakes hands and agrees with everybody he meets, saying whatever will make them like him.

Trump is counting on his base not deserting him regardless of what he does. He believes that he has 1/3 of the voters locked up, while 1/3 of the voters will never vote for him regardless. He is trying to get more of the middle 1/3 to get over 50% in total. But he has miscalculated, IMHO. His base will not stand with him after this crap he is pulling now. I for one, am done. And I mean done. I can tolerate insults and stupid comments. Those are just words. But actions have consequences and he is screwing around with the rights that form the foundation of our very system of government.

Here is my take.

This country was founded on the notion that rights are endowed by our creator, and that men only permit governments to exist to the extent that those governments protect our god given rights. Whenever any government becomes destructive of those rights, and by extension it's very reason for existing in the first place, it is the right and the obligation, of the people to overthrow that government and replace it with a new one that will actually protect our god given rights. The second amendment, along with the rest of the bill of rights, and the constitution in general is in place to guard against our government becoming destructive of our rights by preventing it from happening, and if that fails, by providing us the means to ensure that we can replace the offending government with a free state that will actually preserve our rights.

The second amendment is not just about protecting our right to have fun at the range, to hunt, or even to defend ourselves against criminals, anymore than the first amendment is just about our right to watch adult movies or listen to rap music. These amendments are there for much more important reasons.

The question of whether we "need" bump stocks, or anything else, needs to be placed in the proper context.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Let me think about this for a moment. Is there any gun-related issue to hand our hat on that is worse than bump-stocks? That didn't take long . . . no, there nothing worse. Before getting to upset or casting too large a stone, take a few minutes to learn what is going on in Washington.

Chas.

If I thought for one second that giving up our right to own bump stocks would derail or even slow down the antis, then I might be willing to support a limited restriction. But I fear that a victory for the gun grabbers on this front will only encourage them to press harder toward the fulfillment of their ultimate goal.

I am also weary of "scope creep" on any bump stock legislation. The ban on sale / manufacture of bump stocks is one thing. Making it retroactive (i.e. confiscation) and expanding the definition to "any device that increases the rate of fire" is something else entirely. What happens when people realize that common everyday items can be used to facilitate bump firing, and the only way to stop the practice is to ban semi-auto firearms entirely?

It's not a slippery slope issue. It's not a mission-creep issue. Tell me how to convince Americans who don't own a gun why we "need" bump-stocks or crank-type triggers that simulate machine guns. Don't bother with telling me that "need" isn't an issue with constitutional rights. I know that, but a big segment of the general public doesn't and those that do don't care. I've talked to a lot of gun owners who are furious at the manufacturers of bump-stocks and trigger device manufacturers for giving anti-gunners an issue to fly like a battle flag.

There's a lot bigger war going on now and bump-stocks aren't even on the radar. Attacking Trump, Republicans and NRA helps the enemy.

Chas.

I understand that this is all part of a bigger strategic battle. But what I do not understand is how giving up one aspect of gun rights, no matter how small, will move our cause forward. My fear is that a small victory will only embolden the antis in their efforts. You have far more expertise on the underlying politics than I ever will, so I will defer to you on this. I just wish that I could better see the connection between this concession and the advancement of gun rights in general.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Let me think about this for a moment. Is there any gun-related issue to hand our hat on that is worse than bump-stocks? That didn't take long . . . no, there nothing worse. Before getting to upset or casting too large a stone, take a few minutes to learn what is going on in Washington.

Chas.

If I thought for one second that giving up our right to own bump stocks would derail or even slow down the antis, then I might be willing to support a limited restriction. But I fear that a victory for the gun grabbers on this front will only encourage them to press harder toward the fulfillment of their ultimate goal.

I am also weary of "scope creep" on any bump stock legislation. The ban on sale / manufacture of bump stocks is one thing. Making it retroactive (i.e. confiscation) and expanding the definition to "any device that increases the rate of fire" is something else entirely. What happens when people realize that common everyday items can be used to facilitate bump firing, and the only way to stop the practice is to ban semi-auto firearms entirely?