TexasCHLforum.com

Ladies and Gentlemen of this forum, I'm sure you have already noticed. The media and the anti's are making political advantage of the Virginia Tech massacre. I believe that this incident has enbolded them to start a push for as much gun control as they can get. They are putting out all kinds of wild information to support their views.

For example, yesterday I heard some anti-gun activist tell an interviewer on the radio that 30,000 people were killed in the US last year "due to gun violence". 30,000?! Thats a little over 82 people a day - an extremely exaggerated figure designed to scare. They would like to ban all guns on the theory that it would stop crime. A gun ban/confiscation in Great Britan only served to ensure that only the criminal element is armed.

The New York Times blames lax Virginia gun laws for this shooting and goes on to blame the same Viriginia gun laws for the high crime rate in New York City. Now as I understand it, New York has some of the toughest, and most restrictive guns laws in the country as compared to Virginia gun laws. Then it would seem to stand to reason that Virginia's crime rate would be higher than New York's. Right? Wrong - its less. How can that be? More gun laws should = less crime. But look around the world most places with restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates.

Another Anti interviewed on the radio talked about the fact that the ban against "High capacity" magazines needed to be reinstated. She went on to say that "we" need to find out if the killer used high capacity magazines. "Only the Police need high capacity magazines" Okay, then we limit the criminals's to 10 round magazines - they'll just carry more mags.

To my knowledge there is only one organization that works to protect our gun rights - the NRA. Guys, the NRA needs our support now more than ever. If you're not a member, please join - its only $25.

If there is a bright side to the anti's going on the war path, its that this incident is causing them to come out of the closet early - Before the 2008 elections. So we do have the advantage of knowing how they stand before the elections and not after.

H.R. 1022, could very well happen again....

NRA is the leading fighter for our 2A righst for sure. there are others.
2nd Amendment foundation
Right to Keep & bear arms = RKBA
Gun Owners Of America + GOA
Texas State Rifle Assoc. = TSRA
Others can add more.

It's not as one sided as you might think. Go to:

http://www.johnrlott.com

for links to some anti gun free zone editorials.

My favorite is at:

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestc ... 70418.html

which ends with:

"No one wants to be faced by a murderous lunatic with a gun. But gun control laws can not prevent lunacy, and yet more gun control laws can not dis-arm law-breakers. We the law-abiding, we the peace-loving, we the tax-paying, we the voting, we the people all want 'effective' gun control, but the only way that can happen is when We the People are in control of our own guns."

And the pirate said "arrrrrmen"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall vaguely about an issue wayyyyyy back in the beginning...

If you go back and think about the political philosophies of some of the “founding fathers�; the ones who were directly involved with the writing and framing of the U.S. Constitution…

Do you recall the group of those men who were vehemently content with “just� the Constitution, and another group who supported the concepts in the Constitution, yet fought just as vehemently for a “Bill of Rights� in addition to compliment the Constitution, and specify certain “inalienable� rights???

Remember it got really heated between those two ideologies…

If you took just those two “defined� groups and applied them today to the political divisions in today’s political parties and ideologies…Where would you classify them???

Keep it between a liberal and conservative ideology…

I have a theory, and believe it is interesting to note that one of these groups would consider the Bill of Rights only as a convenience, or to be tolerated until they can be diluted, amended or eliminated when there is no means to resist that effort…

I’ve sensed that here are a lot of people (in recent bloggings and other discussions) that have been teetering on the verge of civil disobedience, (for a variety of reasons and causes), that I believe it is ok to consider that idea, but only if you still have the means to do so…

The risk of losing your right to keep and bear arms is always an interesting subject…And is not one that should “only� be fought for when the weather gets rough…

I’m feeling rather philisophical today for some reason...I don’t know why...

I was also going to post this in a thread all on its own, but I feel relieved that I was right, and that the timing of the originator of this thread is right on the money with all the discussion amoungst the mindless droves of psuedo intellectuals in the media who are dancing on the edge of this very subject, pimping this very issue in the usual emotional premise...

This is also something to keep in mind for the next election in '08...

The Senate majority leader has stated that now is not the time to be discussing this particular solution to the problem...

Oh how true...But that is only because they don't have the White House...

Yet...

And the top three candidates I know of don't give me a warm and fuzzy on my side of the aisle...

But thats just my opinion...

Stevie is correct. Last night ABC had a special on @ 9:00. 15 minutes of it was directed at gun control. Of that 15 minute segment, about 45 seconds was on pro 2A. So they used the 1A to try to trash the 2A. Talk about hipocracy.

Reading the editorials in the paper at lunch, with both pro- and anti-gun letters, I couldn't help but think of a corollary:

Suppose, instead of a crazed shooter, it had been an irresponsible newspaper editor that wrote a highly inflammatory article. The citizenry takes to the streets in response and dozens are killed in riots.

Is that writer held responsible? Probably, to some extent.

But do you think there would be talk of limiting 1st Amendment rights?
Would people step up to say that the framers of the Bill of Rights meant for that freedom of expression thing to be a group right, and that the government should control the printing presses (or webpages, or television, radio etc).
Probably not.

The best thing you can do, and the easiest and most fun:

Take a newbie shooting.
Take someone who has no experience with guns, and give them a positive experience. The more often you do this, the better off we all are.

I commonly sign up to do this through other web communities i'm on, and the group of us usually get great responses to it.

I think we ALL should start getting organized at the local level to do this. Keeping it personal (i.e. making it an event sponsered by Mr. Longtooth or Mr. TexasInvestigator, vs, one sponsored by the TSRA) makes it more of a personal event. Maybe posting a flyer at your church, or just talking to people you might know to be either gun-ambivilant, or anti gun, and offer to take them out, with no judgements and no "witnessing about how good guns are" and offer to teach them gun safety, and basic shooting, so they can learn "what it's all about"

If we each comitted to take at least one newbie out shooting every 3-6 months imagine how many new people we could introduce to the wonders of shooting?

Imagine if everyone we introduced to shooting started introducing OTHERS to shooting...?

Last fall I was invited by a fellow employee to go skeet shooting after work. Having owned a shotgun for years and never used it, I accepted. It ended up with 5 of us that work in the office that evening, 2 being the owners niece and daughter. We had fun, and subsequently several other coworkers have asked to be included in the next one. We're going to do that in the next few weeks.
I intend to expand that into handgun and rifle range if possible. I expect we will wind up with two groups, skeeters and target shooters.

Its sad that because of one single crazy murderer that law abiding citizens who can legal own/carry guns may have to be punished. Yea thats just great.

Imposing more gun restrictions is not going to help. If someone wants to go on a killing spree then there isnt much that can be done if one is THAT determined. Maybe better security.

I think first instead of immediatley saying new gun restrictions need to occur, the anti's/media need to consider that maybe better security should be in place on a campus or something...there are many things to consider. But no, its automatically: GUNS ARE BAD. LETS GET RID OF THEM.

Where is the logic in this? So taking away firearms of responsible, law abiding citizens is the answer? Remove our ability to protect ourselves? Yea, right. It is just ridiculous. There need to be more gun education, not restrictions.

So what is there going to push a prohibition on CHLs now? Restrict gun
sales, certain guns, magazines, etc? I think if we can stick together we can prevail over attempts to pass legislation regarding another firearm ban.


HR 1022 Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348

All the laws that restrict the freedom of everyone because someONE MIGHT abuse it remind me of elementary school teacher punishing my whole class because one student misbehaved. Didn't make sense to me as a 1st grader and makes even less sense now.

I could be imagining things, but I thought murder was illegal. (We might have to get Charles to weigh in on this one. )

I am amazed that there are people out there that listen to the tripe of the antis and believe (Like the title topic says) that someone is going to come and take our guns away.

Its not going to happen!

I didn't say they were going to take our guns....just that they were coming FOR our guns with more restrictions and limitations......

Liberty wrote:I am amazed that there are people out there that listen to the tripe of the antis and believe (Like the title topic says) that someone is going to come and take our guns away.

Its not going to happen!

Tell that to the poeple in CA and NYC who have had their registered guns confiscated.