TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:Betcha those BP workers wished they had been allowed to have an assault weapon.

Haven't checked into whether Algeria has banned assault weapons all together or whether assault weapons are permitted to be carried or owned by foreigners. But I betcha they were illegal for them to have. Plus even if they were allowed, probably no legal way for them to get them from the US to Algeria.

VMI77 wrote:Cite The Battle of Athens (TN).

The Daily Post-Athenian, Athens, Tenn., August 7, 1946; pages 1, 6 wrote:
McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt

New York, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something, you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.

LSUTiger wrote: But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.

Reds45ACP wrote:I agree with what has been posted. I often use the car example. The response I always get is: "Yeah, but a car wasn't designed to kill people." What response do you give to that?

ilovetabasco wrote:First of all, this being my first post, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Cotton and everyone else who contributes to this board. It has proven a very valuable resource. As a matter of introduction, I am a long time hunter and shooter, (recent) NRA lifetime member, and currently waiting on my "plastic."

I have been following closely the recent gun debate and have generally been disheartened by the pro-rights advocates' rhetoric and handling of the gun control advocates' attacks. Of course, the majority of the media aligns with the gun control advocates, meaning that we must suffer the indignation of Alex Jones as our mouthpiece, but even pro-rights commentators and columnists in the online forum seem to be inadequately prepared to deal with the gun control advocates' well rehearsed attacks. One such attack is simply asking the question "why would anyone need an assault weapon?" The best defense it seems anyone can muster, Mr. Shapiro included, is to cite the need to fight tyranny, or dodge the question all together. While I don't disagree with My. Shapiro, I believe there are better ways to appeal to the average viewer. I see my getting a CHL as paradoxical - I want to carry a gun so that I'll never have to use it. Concurrently, I believe the right to bear arms is there to prevent tyranny from happening in the first place, and not because I'm a "doomsday prepper."

Recently, that very same question started appearing among my friends on facebook. I normally shy away from political discussion (at least with people I know), but I feel our cause can use every voice that can speak, and therefore I prepared a response that discussed the benefits of the AR-15 platform, including its modularity, the abundance of aftermarket manufacturers, its ability to be customized, the ability to quickly switch out uppers to suit different uses, why it is often used for hog hunting, what makes it a good target shooting gun, etc. I concluded with the following:

Small arms have continuously evolved for the past 700 years, from matchlocks to muzzleloaders to repeaters to semiautomatics to modern selective fire assault rifles (which are generally not legal for civilian purchase). Throughout this evolution, civilians have gradually adopted each successive generation for hunting, sporting, and self defense purposes (you don’t see many people hunting with muzzleloaders anymore, unless for novelty). Modern sporting rifles (a.k.a “assault weapons”) are civilian adaptations of the latest military small arms. They are adaptations because they do not have automatic fire capability and their barrels are longer to comply with current laws, but they retain the modularity and other cosmetic features which make them look sinister. But once upon a time, your grandfather’s hunting rifle would have been the sinister weapon on the battlefield.

It was asked why an individual should be allowed to possess an AR-15, and I hope I’ve provided a few acceptable reasons. But when taking away someone’s rights or liberties, the burden of proof should be on those arguing to remove them. In 1994, some speculated that these modern rifles should not be owned by civilians, but a decade later there was no proof that the prohibition had helped, and so the assault weapons ban expired as was not renewed. So I pose a question back: what evidence leads us to believe that the benefits of a ban will outweigh the costs?"

The readership of my post was undoubtedly a skewed demographic, given how many of them are close friends and acquaintances. However, the response from those that were previously pro gun control has been overwhelmingly positive, with some seeming to alter their positions. This has made me question whether we, as the pro-rights group, have been failing to adequately defend our position in a way that resonates with everyone from the anti-gunners to the "common sense" populations. After all, the facts are on our side, so this shouldn't be such an uphill battle.

The gun control faction has their own education and propaganda machine - the media. All we have are ourselves and an array of organizations such as the NRA; this is a grassroots cause. So finally, I come to the question this entire post was about: are there any resources for persons such as myself to get properly researched, tested, and vetted defenses for gun control's attacks, as well as proven strategies that we can bring to a debate?