TexasCHLforum.com

There won't be a real 'discussion' on guns in the US until we can have an intellectually honest discussion. And we haven't been able to have one on this subject in decades (at least), it not the last century. It needs to start with the fact that the 2A is in the Constitution NOT to guarantee us a 'right' to shoot squirrels, but as a bulwark against tyrrany. The entire framing of the Constitition was toward that end. If resistance against a tyrranical government by speaking truth (1A) didn't work, they tyrant wouldn't push too far due to the very real check of armed resistance. But we as a nation have forgotten that. And NO, I'm not calling for some sort of insurrection, just pointing out the origins and purpose of 2A. It is rooted in the events in Concord. There is no reference to 'legitimate sporting purpose' in 2A. Heck, back in the Colonial era a lot of towns had a canon. The 'government' didn't own them. They were frequently bought by the townspeople who chipped in to get one in order to deter attacks on the town.

And I doubt anyone here believes that if the antis get some of their so-called 'reasonable restrictions' on guns that they'll be happy and go away. Ain't gonna happen. If you give them EVERYTHING they want, then when the next incident happens (and it will) they'll say they didn't go far enough and want more, until they achieve their goal of a complete ban.

And I also have trouble now saying this should be in the hands of 'mental health care' people. Now that government, via OZeroCare, has essentially taken some level of control over the national health care system, it wouldn't be too hard to add people to 'the list' of people who are probibited from owning firearms.

But the problem with freedom is that sometimes it creates a mess when people make bad choices or do stupid things.