TexasCHLforum.com

Not sure about you, but I love our new Senator from TEXAS! Ted Cuz so far is saying and doing the right things. Check out today. Oh and the guy at the end of the video, well straw man.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gguess66 wrote:Not sure about you, but I love our new Senator from TEXAS! Ted Cuz so far is saying and doing the right things. Check out today. Oh and the guy at the end of the video, well straw man.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The video ended, but I would have hoped that Sen. Cruz would have at least told the Baltimore chief, who went off about guns coming into his city and Chicago as the cause, "Sir, you didn't answer my question, which was what empirical data do you have that stricter gun laws for law abiding citizens reduce crime?" The chief seems to think that because guns from outside come into Baltimore, that's the reason for their homicide rate to be 10 times that of Austin, TX where there are guns readily available to law abiding citizens. Typical anti gun drivel.

I watched this portion of the Senate hearings, but re-watching this portion of the video was VERY helpful...

I'll summarize what I took away..

Their argument: The reason gun violence is so high in cities like DC, Chicago and Baltimore, cities with the strictest gun laws in the nation, is that guns are coming in from outside due to the lack of background checks and straw purchases made in places with less restrictive gun laws.

My new reply: Please tell me why those areas that you would cite as the source of your illegal gun problem have less per-capita gun crime than DC, Chicago and Baltimore. By what facts or what logic do you conclude that these low-crime, low-gun-control areas manage to keep crime down locally with fewer restrictions, while causing your city more crime? Are those same guns not available to be used locally in cities like Austin and Houston? Why then, does Austin and Houston, allegedly the source of the guns used in DC, Chicago and Baltimore, not have as high or HIGHER gun crime rate than DC, Chicago and Baltimore? If your argument were true, wouldn't lax gun laws = MORE crime? But what we see, in reality, is that the crime rate is LOWER in places that you would accuse to be the source of YOUR gun problem. Please explain that to me.

Not bad for a freshman senator.

mojo84 wrote:Not bad for a freshman senator.

He may be a freshman senator, but he has a PhD in Capitol Hill.

MoJo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not bad for a freshman senator.

He may be a freshman senator, but he has a PhD in Capitol Hill.

Apparently he does. I couldn't detect any rookie shakes or stumbles at all in that clip. I think he is going to be a good one.

RoyGBiv wrote:Please tell me why those areas that you would cite as the source of your illegal gun problem have less per-capita gun crime than DC, Chicago and Baltimore. By what facts or what logic do you conclude that these low-crime, low-gun-control areas manage to keep crime down locally with fewer restrictions, while causing your city more crime? Are those same guns not available to be used locally in cities like Austin and Houston? Why then, does Austin and Houston, allegedly the source of the guns used in DC, Chicago and Baltimore, not have as high or HIGHER gun crime rate than DC, Chicago and Baltimore? If your argument were true, wouldn't lax gun laws = MORE crime? But what we see, in reality, is that the crime rate is LOWER in places that you would accuse to be the source of YOUR gun problem. Please explain that to me.

Here is their difficulty......

Your question CANNOT be answered without a complete indictment of the cultural, social and political environment their policies have created. There is literally NO logical explanation or reasoned discussion about why they have the highest murder rates in the nation that does NOT lead back to the bankruptcy of their leftist ideology and its implementation in the nation's largest cities. The ONLY argument they have, if you can call it an "argument," is to blame it all on nebulous dark forces from the "outside," because that is the ONLY train of what passes for thought which is not an indictment. They stand accused. And like ANY accused, they will blame it all on someone else, even while every other eyewitness to the very same situation all point the finger right back at them. They refuse to consider the evidence, because the evidence is damning.

If a young man who buys a gun outside of Baltimore and then brings it back into Baltimore to commit the crime, HE IS THE CRIMINAL....not the person who sold him the gun, provided that the state and federal laws were observed in the sale. If I buy a gun at BassPro in Grapevine, drive down to Houston and kill someone with it, BassPro has no responsibility in the matter. I filled out a 4473. The background check requirements are fulfilled by my CHL. LITERALLY NOTHING will stop me from driving to Houston and committing a murder, if that is what I wanted to do.......EXCEPT that I am a moral person with a finely tuned sense of personal responsibility.

Baltimore cannot address its murder problem without addressing its moral environment, its disregard for the Constitution, its disregard for education, particularly education about moral precepts, the Constitution, and civic and personal responsibility..........because THOSE things are the cause of its murder problem, not the guns which all their legislation do not keep out of the city.

TAM's right.

they can't answer the question without admitting we're right. and they're rather shoot themselves in the head than do that.

but ohhhh, I do love Ted (and yes, I've admitted my infatuation to my husband)