TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

AndyC wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I do understand fellow forum members indications (above) that even in context, the point of view is unappreciated. IE even if the context was a much more limited weapons ban, they consider it to be the same thing. I consider them to be very different things...

I don't.

Someone who wants to take my rifle will be the same person who'll happily take my pistol next time around. I don't believe they'll ever be appeased, so I couldn't care less if he "only" wants to take "just" this or that.

Me either. Nobody is taking any of my firearms until I'm out of ammunition or dead.

Mine either. Is that an extreme enough in context pro gun statement for you?

The people that are anti firearms like Bloombergs, MDA, etc., will continue to be anti anything that can be used as a weapon until the only things left to defend ones self is rocks. Then they will be against rocks as a way of self defense. If you don't believe that look at the way things are progressing in Merry O'l England. They are now regulating table knives.

WildBill wrote:Maybe we should arrest all people who run for public office. Some of them are very likely to commit crimes.

I think they should all have background checks. If a person can't pass a background check to be able to purchase a firearm, they can't run for public office.

Let's go a little farther, if they can't pass the background check for a CHL, they can not hold public office.