TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:

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.

You can't carry in a refinery here in Texas. You can't even have a gun in your car at work if you work for a refinery.

Not true. If you work (direct employee) for a refinery, have a CHL, and the parking lot is outside the secure area of the plant, you can have a firearm locked in your vehicle.

punkndisorderly wrote:I tend to boil it down to this. Evil people do evil things. Crazy people do crazy things. Anything not aimed at locking up the evil or treating the mentally ill does nothing.

If your goal is to make everyone safer, it has to address that. Anything else simply puts restrictions on those who were no threat to you to begin with. If that is your real goal, to make things more difficult for law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners, we have nothing to talk about.

This was one of the questions that Romney blew it on in the second debate. The lady asked him "How would you plan to keep dangerous weapons such as AK47's out of the hands of criminals?"

He blathered on for a while when he could have just said "It's simple, put the criminals in prison. It's almost impossible for an inmate to get his hands on an AK47"

I am waiting for someone to go onto Piers Morgan's show and when he asks his favorite question; "Why do you need an AR-15 assault rifle?" answer it with:

"Piers, I'm glad you asked that, the answer is that I have never needed my AR-15 and I hope that I never do need it just as I have never needed the fire extinguisher that I keep in the kitchen and I hope that I never do. But what I can not allow to happen is for the need for either of those items to arise and I don't have access to the one that I need."

ETA: we have been trying to win an arguement with facts while the left has successfully framed the issue into an emotional arguement. We will not win with facts, they won't argue facts because they do not have the facts on their side. Since the left owns the media, we must win the argument in the format that they are putting out. For this reason, we need to also be carefull who we are sending out to give the message. The guy from WVCDL did a marvelous job making a fool of Piers, but the uninformed viewer is seeing a guy in relatively good shape and is wondering if he really needs a gun to protect himself. Putting someone like Michelle Maliken (SP?) out there saying she carries or owns an AR because she is afraid of a rapist or mugger would make viewers sympathetic. They can easily imagine her being overpowered and victimized by a bad guy with a kife. When you disarm her, she becomes a defensless damsel in distress. If they want to use children as pawns to sell their agenda, we must respond with equally compelling potential victims. What I'm saying here is not politically correct, but I don't care. This fight is too important to lose in the interest of fighting fair.