TexasCHLforum.com

Today, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called on the President and Governor Romney to address gun violence, saying “maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

Because of the recent shooting in Colorado, It looks like the anti-gun people are starting their assault weapons ban rhetoric.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell decried federal lawmakers for failing to pass a permanent ban on assault weapons, such as the one used in Friday’s deadly Colorado movie theater shooting.

Rendell said it was an “act of cowardice by the Congress” not to renew the ban, which expired in 2004, and blamed lawmakers for being too “terrified” of the National Rife Association, which has lobbied against the ban, to actually do it.

“We’re terrified of the NRA. We Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Everyone is scared of the NRA,” Rendell said Friday on MSNBC. “There are some things worth losing for in politics, and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for.”

Rendell said there is “no reason” for people to have assault weapons.

“No hunter needs it, no citizen needs it to protect their home,” he said.

Full article here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... cowardice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I say the President and his cronies may have secretly wanted something high profile like this tragedy to happen. First, it takes the focus off of his horrible handling of the economy and his socialistic ideology and second, they absolutely HATE guns.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
-- Rahm Emanuel.

I like this quote from our very own:
"Liberals. You could almost laugh at their antics if they weren't so dangerous to the economy or our natural God-given rights."
-- The Annoyed Man

What say you?...

EVERY MASS SHOOTING HAD THIS IN COMMON ... IF YOU WANT TO BAN ...

Seriously, not every mass shooter wears body armor, uses Glocks or them foot-long "clips" or rifles with a pistol grip "handle"

Every one though ... wore shoes. YES, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these mass murderers trying to kill others wears shoes. These shoes which every evil person gets access to easily, help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and sometimes are used in escapes.

Ban shoes.




.
Spoons made me fat.

I love when people with soap boxes, no one wants to ban the body armor here was wearing. The real tragedy here is if one person would have been armed and fought back things might have changed

fixed ex-Gov. Rendell's quote to reflect its true meaning:

“We’re terrified of the [People]. We Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. Everyone is scared of the [People],” Rendell said Friday on MSNBC. “There are some things worth losing for in politics, and to be able to prevent carnage like this is worth losing for.”

Yes, Mr. Rendell, when you fight against the will of the People, YOU WILL LOSE

but since you're an EX governor, I'm sure you already know that

I am surprised that the obvious has not yet been mentioned... Is is legal for a common citizen to own tear gas grenades? I am not sure, but doubt it.

AlphaWhiskey wrote:I am surprised that the obvious has not yet been mentioned... Is is legal for a common citizen to own tear gas grenades? I am not sure, but doubt it.

grenades are in the same class as silencers its just 200 dollar stamp tax. does tear gas even kill?

I remember Ed Rendell as the Mayor of Philadelphia...yep, he cleaned up that town, sure did. A model of civic virtue, a place of shining hope and a beacon of beauty to the world...much like Jerry Brown cleaned up Oakland, California...

Dear Ed Rendell:

You can't have my firearms. That is all, have a nice day.

It was just a matter of time, and it did not take long did it. I get so tired of the same comments coming from the anti crowd, and everyone running around crying Oh big brother save us from ourselves.
These people don't want to here what Romney or anyone else has to say, they just want to here themselves talk, get their name in a headline again.

We want to carry guns because there are individuals out there like Holmes. Need I say more. Want to ban something? Ban the rhetoric!

Very sad situation caused by a very troubled person.
I really wonder where the answer is. Right................ Middle ........ Left

New here, so please forgive me if this has been addressed someplace before (I searched). I am only 22 years old, so the "assault" weapons ban was a little before my time. I know that guns purchased before the ban were legal, but were you still allowed to purchase parts for them? Was is similar to the way class 3 firearms are handled today? With all this new talk of bans, I don't want to be out of luck if something does happen. Thanks.

KurteL10 wrote:New here, so please forgive me if this has been addressed someplace before (I searched). I am only 22 years old, so the "assault" weapons ban was a little before my time. I know that guns purchased before the ban were legal, but were you still allowed to purchase parts for them? Was is similar to the way class 3 firearms are handled today? With all this new talk of bans, I don't want to be out of luck if something does happen. Thanks.

FYI - since you're new here, fair warning the 3-letter acronym in your last sentence is not allowed under rules as its intended meaning includes a vulgar/profane word.

I'm no expert on the 1994 ban, but I believe it only limited the specific parts used to define the made-up term "assault weapon" - thus flash hiders, magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. would have been illegal except for the grandfathered pre-94 versions. Not too many other "parts" that I can think of - collapsible/folding stocks, perhaps the pistol grip itself?

Anyway, someone will be along shortly who knows/remembers more of the details.

A-R wrote:FYI - since you're new here, fair warning the 3-letter acronym in your last sentence is not allowed under rules as its intended meaning includes a vulgar/profane word.

Thanks for the info, and I edited my post. I am a member of other forums where such things are okay. I should of read the rules for this forum. I will do so now.

Edit: It is the first rule.

A-R wrote:I'm no expert on the 1994 ban, but I believe it only limited the specific parts used to define the made-up term "assault weapon" - thus flash hiders, magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. would have been illegal except for the grandfathered pre-94 versions. Not too many other "parts" that I can think of - collapsible/folding stocks, perhaps the pistol grip itself?

Speaking of which, does anyone know why pistol grips, flash hiders, or adjustable stocks making something an "assault weapon"? It seems to me that those are cosmetic issues.

Dave2 wrote:

A-R wrote:I'm no expert on the 1994 ban, but I believe it only limited the specific parts used to define the made-up term "assault weapon" - thus flash hiders, magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. would have been illegal except for the grandfathered pre-94 versions. Not too many other "parts" that I can think of - collapsible/folding stocks, perhaps the pistol grip itself?

Speaking of which, does anyone know why pistol grips, flash hiders, or adjustable stocks making something an "assault weapon"? It seems to me that those are cosmetic issues.

They looked at a midwayusa catalog and picked out which features they thought looked scary

Dave2 wrote:

A-R wrote:I'm no expert on the 1994 ban, but I believe it only limited the specific parts used to define the made-up term "assault weapon" - thus flash hiders, magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. would have been illegal except for the grandfathered pre-94 versions. Not too many other "parts" that I can think of - collapsible/folding stocks, perhaps the pistol grip itself?

Speaking of which, does anyone know why pistol grips, flash hiders, or adjustable stocks making something an "assault weapon"? It seems to me that those are cosmetic issues.

Yes, in many ways those are cosmetic features. However, the liberal gun-banner types consider those features to be the things that allow the firearms to be used in a "spray and pray" mode...they (Carolyn McCarthy, etc.) either think or they (His Imperial Highness Mayor Bloomberg, etc.) want to convince others, that the term "assault weapon" = assault rifle = full machinegun, rock-n-roll action like in some Hollyweird war movie with a dude holding it down low, finger on the trigger, swinging it back and forth, a thousand bullets coming out of it nonstop and a tongue of flame shooting out of the barrel...THAT is the image they want to portray to the uninformed voter. The truth of the matter is that IF he had wanted to, the evil excuse for a human who accomplished this tragic attack could have used a old Mini-14 and 10 round magazines, and done the same damage...even in the dark, he could have changed magazines in a couple of SECONDS and had a pocket full of them...and the lack of a pistolgrip, flash hider or adjustable stock would have made ZERO difference.