TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:I don't attribute what the super conservative Republicans say to the Republican party. Nor do I attribute what radically liberal/socialist/etc Democrats say to the Democratic party. I don't think that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks we should take everyone's guns. I think there is moderate portion of the public that supports (per polls I've seen) some additional restrictions on gun control. That doesn't make them "gun grabbers". I think that *most* of the population is caught in the middle and is fed information via the media that they tend to believe on face value. Sure, there are people that might take them all. There are people that would hand full-auto weapons out to the general population.

I don't attribute the most ideological of either party to represent the majority of the rank and file in all matters. However, when it comes to guns, the party leadership lines up perfectly in the Democratic party from the top down. Obama, Holder, and Pelosi (among others) have all said they want to ban all civilian gun ownership. Another large portion of the party leadership is on-board for various bans from handguns to semi-autos to the fraudulently represented "high capacity" magazines. But you're right that what the leadership wants isn't supported by the larger population. That's why we still have guns. If I remember correctly, when they banned handguns in the UK only about 35,000 people owned one. This is why they must first demonize gun ownership and reduce the percentage of the population owning guns....which hasn't been working so well for them so far, at least in flyover country.

cb1000rider wrote:A less eroded 2nd amendment to me is likely firming up national gun laws and taking restrictions out of the hands of the states. There is too much variation in the states and I'd like to see federal courts rule to de-infringe the 2nd amendment. I want the right to carry a firearm in the 50 states. I want enough specific legal support to disallow arrests under conditions of legal carry and I want substantial penalties if enforcement branches get it wrong. I can live with or without OC, but I don't want to have to spend 30 minutes reviewing the rule book every time I cross state lines. And I'd rather not worry about the internal policy of Round Rock PD on CHL. Yea, I'd trade stricter purchase requirements - even on private purchases for that... That would be a compromise I could live with.

The problem with that proposed compromise is that it will never happen. Or maybe I should say, it can't happen. I'd also be concerned about conceding that kind of power from State hands to the Feds.

cb1000rider wrote:I don't think I believe in good intentions of "gun grabbers" - but I believe that there is a legitimate middle ground that can be found between NRA and gun grabber policies. Maybe one that advances the agendas of both. I don't believe that either party has enough credibility in the compromise department to get it done and it seems (from the outside) that neither side is willing to discuss it. I mean, what would happen if someone in NRA leadership actually publicly discussed a compromise that involved allowing more stringent background checks? I think that head would be on a stick in a very short amount of time.

I don't know what a more stringent background check would entail but it sounds like a weapon for the grabbers to use against us. They're already pushing out the psychological boundaries to label more and more people as too dangerous to own a gun. Since we can't trust them to even follow their own laws I am confident they will abuse such a system to expand the denial of gun ownership.

cb1000rider wrote:That's an interesting point. It may be true, but it's also symbolic of the type of paralysis in congress and on the gun rights / gun control front. Everyone says that the other side won't compromise. I've been thinking about it a lot on the 2nd amendment side. Would I trade a stricter background check program for a less eroded 2nd amendment? I think I would. Is the NRA capable of having that discussion that includes compromise? Probably not. Is the gun control faction capable of having that discussion? Probably not. The reality is that the gun control faction doesn't believe a word that the NRA says and vice versa... So we've got an effective stalemate, maybe advantage NRA (due to funding and pretty solid conservative backing). Neither side should get to discuss it because they're both largely incapable of compromise.

I think you're underestimating our opposition. It's not that they don't believe what the NRA says, they don't care what it says, because their goal isn't gun "control," it's getting guns out of the hands of the populace. Just read what they say to each other on the subject. The gun grabbers have never compromised on anything....if you think they have I challenge you to cite an example? We have fewer gun rights now than we had 100 years ago.

You'd have to describe what a less eroded 2nd amendment is, and what you mean by stricter background checks to really understand the trade-offs --maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either....in theory. The problem is that our opponents will never allow a system of stricter background checks that doesn't deny guns to more law abiding citizens --especially if they have to give something up for it. They will only agree to it if it advances them towards their ultimate goal.

I think we differ on this because you're attributing the same good intentions you have to your opposition. It's this kind of good faith on our side that has enabled them to advance their agenda so far. There may be some in the opposition who genuinely believe their rhetoric, but they don't have any power --the ones in power aren't acting in good faith.

chasfm11 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Decent rant. I hope letting that out made you feel a little less tense?

Pretty messed up... I agree.

Solution? Anyone taking money/support from the government is ineligible to vote during and for 5 years after taking their last government payment. NOT talking about SS or Medicare recipients, or pensioners or other folks (me eventually) that have paid in to receive those benefits.

Only a little. Tension for me comes with the fact that just about everything that I believe in seems to be turned upside down. Religion is given no freedom while those who don't believe in religion run rampant. The full force of law is unleashed against otherwise law abiding citizens, often in circumstances that don't warrant it and creeps who flaunt the legal system are given a free pass. I really need to stop reading the news at all.

Those on the public dole who are not SS or Medicare are there because they support politicians so there is no way those people will be stripped of the their "rights." The most forceful group in any political setup is the tax collection, followed by the sycophants.. Politicians make sure that tribute is paid and loyal are serviced - the rest of the stuff is handled as they get around to it or it serves their purpose.

It's way way worse than what you've written. These prosecutions and the laws behind them are a deliberate and intentional attack on lawful gun ownership. So it doesn't get lost in this post, I'm going to post a list of crimes in New York that are punished less severely than having a standard capacity magazine.