TexasCHLforum.com

TX Rancher

KBCraig wrote:
TX Rancher wrote:I also agree with National Vermont Style Carry...
The wording for that should be, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary... "

Stop me if you've heard it before.

Kevin

I absolutely agree sir! I just wish instead of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", it had been shortened to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To many ways today to "spin" the militia part...

TX Rancher

jimlongley wrote:This from the city that dropped a bomb on itself back in the 80s. Can it be more than 20 years now? EEEEEEEKKKKK!!!!!

I think other cities will follow, there are just enough misguided politicians to see this as a good idea, after all it works so well in Chicago.

The problem with it passing and showing no effect is that the anti gun nuts will continue to push for more laws, claiming that it didn't work because the laws in surrounding cities and states were too lax, etc, etc, etc. This has happened continually throughout gun control history and will continue to do so, Carolyn McCarthy wants to re-establish the "Assault Weapons Ban" with even broader restrictions because it is logically obvious that the reason it didn't work the first time is because it wasn't strict enough.

It's time for national Vermont Style Carry, just like it used to be, when the west was wild and there were more murders in NY City and Chicago, each, than throughout the entire "wild west."

I agree...Wasn't it NYC that said Virginia needs tougher gun laws since some of the VA weapons were ending up in NYC? Basically saying the ban would be effective if other places would only get onboard.

I also agree with National Vermont Style Carry...

Search found 2 matches