TexasCHLforum.com

Gordie Howe wrote:The NRA decided a long time ago that they would support rifle ownership mainly and abandon handguns and concealed carry licenses. Now with the focus on military looking or "tactial" rifles and handguns; they are offering them up as well.

Graham has only two goals, hanging onto the gravy train as long as possible, and feathering his nests.

This kind.d of absolutism is unhelpful.

^^^^^ "advent of PTSD???

Right... PTSD never happened before Iraq. Unbelievable.

A link to NBC news?
Keeping your enemies close?

LSUTiger wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

Exactly.

This bill is about putting the conversation back on point. It talks about restricting access to guns for people who should not have them. It's not perfect. But it will do our side much good politically.

I understand the desire towards absolutism on 2A, but I am inclined to support this bit of political realism.

I am not saying I don't understand the rationale behind this but I would still disagree. The 2A is not something we can compromise on. This is just another way around it. They are not going to stop here and then its all said and done, this will not quell the cry for more gun laws. They won't stop until we are all disarmed. Therefore, it's just another case of compromise (political realism) and lose a little more ground until the next fight.

We may have just slowed down the leak in the dam a little, but sooner or later it will collapse. Now they can call anybody crazy for any reason and you lose your right to own firearms, or just make stuff up, interpreting any past medical history they want to justify disarmorment. <snip>

I don't disagree with your slippery-slope worries. Not one bit.
I'll summarize here a follow up I made two posts after the one you quoted.

1. Don't give an inch politically unless you've first fought your best fight to keep every inch.
2. Make the best deal you can. Give as little as possible, get as much as possible.
3. Even after you've made the politically best deal, fight it in court if there's grounds to do so.

I've come to understand that "NONONONONONONO" is a losing proposition.
When it comes to 2A, I don't like it. But it's reality.

That said.... Folks who take the "NONONONONONONO" position are doing a great service to the cause as well, just by their standing opposed. But it's not useful (or warranted, IMO) to throw the NRA under the bus for this bill. Think about it.... Of all the horse-poop that's been proposed so far, combined with the political realities of having to constructively contribute or be marginalized, I'm hard pressed to come up with something better. It appears narrowly focused, targets a real problem (not just a perceived or "one-element" problem) and requires "adjudication" (5th/14th Amendment due process) before you lose your rights. It does provide a crack into which the anti's can attempt to put their crowbar, but it's a very small crack.

Politically, this is an incredibly well-reasoned and on-point proposal. It is nearly impossible for the anti's to refute. I would like to know if we're "getting" anything in return for this other than using it to quell the anti's fire.

And we still have the ability to appeal it through the courts on Constitutional grounds if necessary.

Slowplay wrote:The problem is this won't "head them off at the pass." They will just point out that this would not have prevented AZ, CO, or CT. They say they are for "common sense" legislation, but the anti crowd (and complicit media) are about using absolute standards. Since there is no way to absolutely stop tragic gun crimes, they won't stop until they have their absolute ban in place.

Of course you're correct... The fervent anti's will never be quelled.
However, the battle is to win the middle.

If all we do is stand with our fists balled saying "NONONONONONONONONO", then the anti's will win the middle and we will watch our rights get trampled.

Or..... we can fight the fight on two fronts.
1. Negotiate the best deal we can. Get in front of the issues. Get something in return for any ground given. How stupid does the administration look now that Uncle Joe says armed guards in schools is a good idea? The NRA was loudly ridiculed for suggesting this. Win. Similarly, the NRA has correctly pointed to the fact that nothing in the current mass of legislation proposed by the anti's will do any good at all. Here we have an example of something at actually tries to address keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Will this quell the anti's? Certainly not. Will it help us win the middle? That is the more important question. What have we given up? Argue "slippery slope" all you want... This is political reality. Deal.

and

2. Even after a bill is passed, even this Graham/NRA bill.... Nothing prevents us from arguing it to SCOTUS (except time and money) if we believe it's infringing. Just because we work to get the least onerous bill passed doesn't mean we give up the right to argue later that it's still unconstitutional.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

Exactly.

This bill is about putting the conversation back on point. It talks about restricting access to guns for people who should not have them. It's not perfect. But it will do our side much good politically.

I understand the desire towards absolutism on 2A, but I am inclined to support this bit of political realism.