TexasCHLforum.com

Do nothing shouldn't be an option. But any option that would reduce availability or create more hoops for those that aren't the problem isn't the answer.

I haven't been impressed with anything coming from the NRA so far.

How about demanding federal prosecution for felons in possession or attempting to obtain firearms.
How about increasing penalties for ALL crimes of violence so we can get bad guys off the street and keep them off the street.
If we have to offer up something, how about offering to take the 10% excise tax that already exists on guns and ammo and putting it towards mental health, better school security.

Were it up to me, the NRA should have simply come out on day 1 and simply said: "Evil people do evil things, crazy people do crazy things. We will support actions that address those two groups. Legal gun owners generally fall into neither group and we will oppose any actions that would only effect them. We are currently not enforcing current gun laws (cite examples). We will oppose any new legislation along those lines until the laws already on the books are enforced."

Gordie Howe wrote:The NRA decided a long time ago that they would support rifle ownership mainly and abandon handguns and concealed carry licenses. Now with the focus on military looking or "tactial" rifles and handguns; they are offering them up as well.

Graham has only two goals, hanging onto the gravy train as long as possible, and feathering his nests.

This kind.d of absolutism is unhelpful.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Gordie Howe wrote:The NRA decided a long time ago that they would support rifle ownership mainly and abandon handguns and concealed carry licenses. Now with the focus on military looking or "tactial" rifles and handguns; they are offering them up as well.

Graham has only two goals, hanging onto the gravy train as long as possible, and feathering his nests.

This kind.d of absolutism is unhelpful.

Not to mention its completely untrue. The NRA supports all firearm ownership, including handguns, and has helped in crafting and/or passing carry laws in most, if not all, states that have them.

Disagreeing with the political powers that be & informed discussion is one thing. But if you can't contribute something to the discussion that will help our cause PLEASE PLEASE don't say anything that hurts it!

Gordie Howe wrote:There has been a surge of artcile on how mentally ill veterans are. The system fears combat vets becuase they kniow they dont run fast when they see thugs, and bullies that wantg\ trouble.

I absolutely agree with this...Anyone on this forum that knows me personally, should know that I, and many other veterans do not, and will never be what these unapreciative liberal/Fabian socialist and their water-bearers (political enablers) want us to be...So I reject any blanket conclusion to their demented ideals...

I still object, and do not support this bill, for the potential it brings against the gun owning community as a whole...IT IS a baby step in the WRONG direction, and it does nothing but put at risk ANYONE's right to keep and bear arms, over some arbitrary psychological sterotype of a class of citizen who actually and clearly does understand what it means to defend this country from ALL enemies foriegn and domestic...

And those domestic enemies are really becoming more of a threat (to ALL of us) every single day...To accept a "do something" path, while socially and politically laudible, to do it in this regard, I find it to be destructive to the very foundations this country has fought for, and had so many real patriots sacrifice themselves for to protect these basic principles...

We need to STOP being fearful about insulting or making those domestic enemies feel uncomfortable in promoting their agenda...What is wrong with standing up and being counted as a person who will not comply (and fight against with more than just words) with such a destructive agenda???

With all the fighting and sacrificing many people in this country have done over the lasst 230+ years to protect our way of life, what is wrong with making our position (and intent) clear to those that wish to believe they can take away that ability domestically??? What a tremendous political miscalculation to assume there will not come a point where some people's line in the sand will not be crossed???

I, for one, am hoping we never have to get to that point, and I hope (again) the fight stays where it needs to be, and it stops getting so perilously close to what anyone of sane mind hopes it doesn't get to...

What is SO hard about this concept...Why have some lost their will to fight this progressive threat at such opportunistic times???

I'm getting off my soapbox for now, because I am going to get ready to go to a gunshow here this morning...Not that I am fearful and need to pad my preparations any further...I go because it reminds me so much of what is at stake here...

Sorry for the long rant, but again, something about all of this just clicks inside my heart, and it pains me to see such apathy and acceptance (compramising)of these encroachments upon our freedoms, it almost makes me sick...

Gordie Howe wrote:Graham has only two goals, hanging onto the gravy train as long as possible, and feathering his nests.

I see nothing wrong with this part of their statement...

Gordie Howe wrote:The NRA decided a long time ago that they would support rifle ownership mainly and abandon handguns and concealed carry licenses. Now with the focus on military looking or "tactial" rifles and handguns; they are offering them up as well.

It isn't true, just stop it for goodness sake!

Three only thing that this proposal does is enforce the already-present prohibition against the mentally ill owning firearms. And it does that by using the same mechanism that is in place to prohibit criminals from owning firearms - the court system. And it makes sense. If you're judged guilty of a felony, it is reported through NICS. This provision would only add a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity or a determination of mentally incompetent to stand trial to the NICS. Honestly, I'm surprised that these aren't already part of the background check.

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.

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

For what it's worth: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... story.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It essentially says the NRA would not support any legislation that would criminalize private sales between law-abiding citizens, and therefore opposes any expanded background checks.

That said, the NRA, as good as they have been on many gun issues, has long had a history of compromising on our rights. For those who would consider a compromise in the belief that the gun grabbers will be satisfied, I say 'when have they ever been satisfied?'

Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back. By the way, there are some organizations that represent us who are truly "no compromise".

lbuehler325 wrote:Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back.

BINGO!!!

stevie_d_64 wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back.

BINGO!!!

Shall-issue concealed carry in 44 states would contradict that notion.

It is always worth fighting for liberty. I do agree it is preferable to keep a right than have to win it back.

Jumping Frog wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back.

BINGO!!!

Shall-issue concealed carry in 44 states would contradict that notion.

It is always worth fighting for liberty. I do agree it is preferable to keep a right than have to win it back.

I believe what is being inferred to here is the notion that "doing something" whether it is right or wrong, just to appease public sentiment, whether they (general non-gun owning public) understand the issue or not, compramising for appearances sake is not something I support...

Yes, having 44 states on the "shall issue" column is a good thing, but that is not what this particular discussion is about...

Universal background checks is un-necessary, it will not prevent ANYTHING a person with ill intent wants to do to harm others...So it is infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms per that Amendment we all know and enjoy...If it passes, it gives someone else the ability to get into our business, our privacy which is none of their business...I just don't particularly care for this bill that would add someone else into a process that has been private all along...

I don't want anyone to know what I do with my private property in this instance...But I am sure someone will tell me I got this all wrong...And that I should support this bill...

Jumping Frog wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:Once we give up a freedom, there's no getting it back.

BINGO!!!

Shall-issue concealed carry in 44 states would contradict that notion.

It is always worth fighting for liberty. I do agree it is preferable to keep a right than have to win it back.

Concealed Carry permits, period, are an example of the erosion of our 2A rights. God-given rights, only affirmed by the document, not granted by government. As a citizen of this land, you would think that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means six states, the District of Columbia, and countless territories and principalities are already an exception. We already know that one's permit (government approval) in a certain state does not grant them a right to bear arms in another state without a reciprocity agreement (government approval). The whole licensing system is an infringement on our rights. If you are poor and are just scratching by and happen to live in a rough area, how do you figure spending $85 on a course, another amount for the state, and simply waiting 4-6 for the process to run aren't infringing upon his ability to keep and bear arms?

Or, take MA as an example. They have a licensing process there called a "License to Carry". It cost upwards of $300, take 6 - 9 months to finish the process, and the local police chief can tell you to pound sand. And, by the way, in Massachusetts, you need the license just to own a weapon. How that doesn't infringe on the 2A, I don't know.