TexasCHLforum.com

FishInTx wrote:I just hope this is the smallest of steps we can take because there will be more steps. This bill won't stop mass killings so the anti's will be back for more before long.

You're right, it won't. But the hue and cry from the public is "do something" and this is something that Americans agree is preferable to limiting or banning guns, ammo or magazines. The ultimate but unachievable goal is to stop crazy people from killing. The backup plan is to stop the gun control train.

Chas.

American gun owners are in the biggest fight to save the Second Amendment we’ve seen in the history of our country. The Sandy Hook shootings have given a political and emotional boost to the anti-gun crowd that has provided the both a bully pulpit as well as unlimited funding to advance their cause. The only thing standing between gun owners and the loss of the Second Amendment is the NRA. People bashing the NRA are allies of Schumer, McCarthy, Bloomberg and the entire anti-gun crowd, whether they admit it or not. Weakening the NRA and public support for the NRA doesn’t promote constitutional government, it increases the likelihood of sweeping anti-gun legislation.

A small percentage of Americans are truly anti-gun in the sense of Bloomberg, Schumer, McCarthy, and their ilk. The vast majority of Americans support the Second Amendment, but with varying levels of dedication. Some will accept significant gun control laws so long as total bans are not imposed. Others will accept only the least restrictions possible and only when compelling evidence supports those restrictions. The majority of Americans fall somewhere between these positions.

Unfortunately, the massacre of 20 six year old children and 6 adults has greatly increased the number of people who, during the heat of passion and grief, will support much wider and more oppressive gun control. This isn’t theory, it’s an absolute fact. While the Bloomberg types want complete bans regardless what they claim) and and no carrying of self-defense handguns. The strongest Second Amendment supporters want no new gun laws; i.e. we want no changes in response to Sandy Hook because 1) they violate the Second Amendment; and 2) they won't work. The vast majority of Americans do not agree with either camp.

Americans overwhelmingly do not want additional gun laws that restrict types of firearms, ammo, or magazines, but they most definitely want laws that are designed to keep crazy people from possessing firearms. Who can rationally oppose a law that prohibits a criminal defendant from owning firearms when he/she plead “not guilty by reason of insanity?” If you do oppose such a law, then please keep it to yourself, lest someone think you represent the majority of gun owners. Do you think the majority of American voters want to allow people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess firearms? If you do, then you have no clue of the pressure being put on elected officials in Washington.

Of this we can be certain, “do nothing” isn’t an option after Sandy Hook. To the chagrin of the Bloomberg types, securing schools, especially by putting “good guys with a gun” in schools, is resonating with Americans all over the Country. This is a response they never could have imagined, as evidenced by their first response to the NRA proposal to put armed COPS and volunteers in the schools. Some school districts are allowing their teachers and staff to carry firearms, with or without special training. The NRA message and solutions to school shootings are working and Americans recognize we are actually doing something constructive, rather than trying to politically profiteer while dancing in the blood of innocent victims.

This excellent response to the NRA proposals will reduce the likelihood of sweeping gun control laws --- this session. But there is an election coming in 2014 and the money behind the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition will keep up the pressure on our elected officials and their Coalition will find, support, and campaign for rabid anti-gun candidates to run against our friends in Washington. The media, major TV networks, and Hollywood will do their part to keep up the pressure for gun bans and other oppressive gun laws, so that 2014 could very well see many pro-Second Amendment House Members swept out of office. The only way to avoid this is 1) grow the NRA; and 2) pass legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, i.e. laws that are geared to preventing crazy people from having guns. The focus needs not to be on the gun. The American public has made it clear, “Do nothing” is not an option.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I cannot understand how folks cannot see the word ADJUDICATED in there. Not just because a doctor said so, or on some "list", but after going through COURT. I vehemently oppose simply slapping someone on a "list" or letting a doc make the call without any checks and balances.

Because they don't want to see it!

Chas.

recaffeination wrote:It should be the same background check for Internet access, including smart phones. A reasonable restriction on the Bill of Rights is reasonable for the whole Bill of Rights or none of it.

Thanks for that very constructive observation and suggestion. That will save the Second Amendment for sure.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:Thanks RINO Graham. Thanks RINO Flake. Thanks socialists Begich and Prior.

Thanks for the stab in the back, NRA.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... a-backing/

Washington (CNN) – New legislation introduced Wednesday aims to close one loophole in the process of purchasing a gun.

The bill from Sen. Lindsey Graham and three other bipartisan lawmakers expands the scope of mental health information submitted to the background check system used by gun sellers. It has the backing of the National Rifle Association, and background check-related legislation has been considered the most likely of the various gun violence proposals to survive the legislative process.

Sometimes I wonder just who is supporting who.

Can someone explain why the NRA is supporting this legislation?

I am physically ill

Anygunanywhere

I've sat down at my computer three times, typed a response, deleted it and walked away. I can't seem to craft something that doesn't violate our rules. I don't think I've ever been madder about a post in my life. This is the most absurd thing you've ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

Stop now; stop your personal attacks. Don't apologize, don't send me a PM apologizing, just stop now.

Chas.