TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote:Sorry to tell anyone who thinks otherwise but the background checks bill passed from the Senate committee on a PARTY LINE VOTE. There are more Democrats in the committee, and they ALL voted for it. The outnumbered Republicans did NOT vote for it. Link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/back ... itics.html

The following is from the article. Sorry to tell those who don't like the NRA, but they are NOT for gun control.

The National Rifle Association is opposing any expansion of background checks. An NRA spokesman said the lack of bipartisan support for the bill suggested it could not pass.

Excellent.

Keep up the heat.

Anygunanywhere

Keith B wrote:
No, this is the senator (singular) who thinks this way. Admittedly there are a few others on her boat, but overall this type or rhetoric will cause her discredit with her peers.

One of the things you need to think about is your level of fear. It seems you believe everyone is in cahoots and they are all out to take us down. While there are several in the anti-gun crowd in Washington than have been able to gain traction by sensationalizing the Newtown shootings, reasonable legislation can be implemented and the ludicrous over the top gun-grab bills can be blocked. To do this you must keep a level head and not get in a Chicken Little mode running around yelling 'The sky is falling'. Take off your tin hats, look logically at the pending legislation (which is a threat for sure), approach your representatives in a strong but business-like manner expressing your views and wants, and make sure your voice is heard as a level headed person and you are not perceived as some deranged gun-loving redneck

I seriously doubt that feinsteins rhetoric will discredit her with too many in the senate. The majority of them are exactly like her, some more obvious than others.

My "level of fear" is quite well founded given the actions of this legislature and administration. Most of them are out to take America down.

I am tired of being accused of wearing a tin hat. This label is demeaning and I object to its use. I do my part in expressing my opinions to my representative and senators.

My strength of convictions and belief that the Second Amendment is meant to be taken literally as written do not make me a deranged gun loving redneck. I am a Consitution loving individual, a veteran, and I love my country, my state, and want to enjoy a life without the shackles of a tyrannical government that acts as if they can solve all of my problems. I want the government to govern by the rule of law, the Constitution, and leave me alone.

As I have stated before I have no trust or faith in anything that comes out of DC these days. A government that ignores the facts surrounding the economy, the deficit spending, and all other far more important issues and focuses on these trivial details in a never ending attempt to erode away our freedoms is not a valid government.

Anygunanywhere

Feinstein: Veterans Have PTSD, Shouldn’t Own “Assault” Rifles

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... rn-rifles/

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transfer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member or veteran and there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

[...]

I think we have to – if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally, don’t have access to this kind of weapon.

These are the same senators who will be voting on this other bill regarding mental health. The senate is socialist controlled.

Your expectations are that this will go exactly as legislated?

Think about who the judges are and who appointed them? They answer to no one.

Obamacare passed and no one knew what was in the legislation.

What is this fascination with the word "adjudicated"? The courts and attorneys general can define mental illness in whatever way they choose and find anyone they choose as mentally unfit for whatever reason they decide.

The veterans are going to be the first ones hit with this to keep them from arming and rising up when the hammer falls.

Anygunanywhere

killerfly128 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

killerfly128 wrote: Your tin foil hat on too tight this morning?

I think that a simple, "I disagree" may be a more appropriate statement.

Seriously? It is OK for another member to be slightly condescending and nasty, but the second I poke fun it becomes wrong?

Actually I did instigate this by my unicorn and rainbow remark. I apologize for the remark.

Anygunanywhere

killerfly128 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: The government in its present form can do NOTHING right. NOTHING!> I trust the federal govertnment with NOTHING. All three branches are corrupt and do not follow the Constitution at all unless it furthers their agenda of running this country into the ground, turning it into a socilaist mecca.

Anygunanywhere

Your tin foil hat on too tight this morning?

Nope. I see your blinders are on snugly though.

Anygunanywhere

KaiserB wrote:
I am sure the NRA appreciates you just reading the first paragraph.

I read the whole article.

I also posted more reasons for my objection, which, by the way, applies to all infringements and firearms regulations.

Congress has no constitutional authority to pass any firearms laws. None.

Furthermore, this allowing the federal government the authority to determine sanity or insanity, or whether or not someone can purchase, own, or carry firearms is in the extreme absurd.

The government in its present form can do NOTHING right. NOTHING!> I trust the federal govertnment with NOTHING. All three branches are corrupt and do not follow the Constitution at all unless it furthers their agenda of running this country into the ground, turning it into a socilaist mecca.

Anygunanywhere

killerfly128 wrote:
Wouldn't have typed it if i didn't. This gives the POTUS a feather to stick in his cap and say "look we did something"

Obviously your view of the current fed.gov, their actions, history, and the state of the world is far removed from mine.

Did your belief system also tell you to believe barry when he said he was not going to take away our guns?

How are the unicorns and rainbows looking today?

Anygunanywhere

killerfly128 wrote:I am sure I will catch flak for this but ... I have always been a supporter of closing the FTF sale "loophole" Too many dishonest buyers and sellers out there. It wont stop all gun sales to criminals, but it will stop quite a few.

Besides, this might be enough to quell the cry for more gun laws.

Now that is funny.

Not.

You really believe this statement of yours?

Anygunanywhere

Allow me.

1. Federal government defines the system to track those defined individuals.

2. The feds appoint the judges.

3. The feds define the mental illness.

4. The Feds run the background check system that approves the purchase of firearms by all citizens.

Wow. What was I thinking? There is no possibility here that the fed will use this arbitrarily. We can simply ignore all of the discussions on the fed ignoring constitutional rights to kill US citizens without warrant, without due process.

Good bill? With this administration? The term is oxymoronic. This government wouldn't know good legislation if it kissed them on the forehead.

NOTHING that comes out of dc is worthy of a bucket of warm spit (Thanks TAM!)

You can believe all you want about how beneficial this crap is, Beiruty. Don't think ill of me if I decide not to consider your opinion. The odds are grossly in my favor that I am right.

Anygunanywhere

Thanks RINO Graham. Thanks RINO Flake. Thanks socialists Begich and Prior.

Thanks for the stab in the back, NRA.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... a-backing/

Washington (CNN) – New legislation introduced Wednesday aims to close one loophole in the process of purchasing a gun.

The bill from Sen. Lindsey Graham and three other bipartisan lawmakers expands the scope of mental health information submitted to the background check system used by gun sellers. It has the backing of the National Rifle Association, and background check-related legislation has been considered the most likely of the various gun violence proposals to survive the legislative process.

Sometimes I wonder just who is supporting who.

Can someone explain why the NRA is supporting this legislation?

I am physically ill.

Anygunanywhere