TexasCHLforum.com

bigbang wrote: This is about the murders in the Sandy Hook gun free zone not the storm named Sandy. (For the storm, I think anyone who can afford a beach house can afford insurance for their house. They don't need a bailout I mean handout from blue collar taxpayers who make less money than those rich folk do.)

I agree the only thoughts I had about the hurricane were.." Man I sure do hope the cast of Jersey Shore is among the victims".

bigbang wrote: This is about the murders in the Sandy Hook gun free zone not the storm named Sandy. (For the storm, I think anyone who can afford a beach house can afford insurance for their house. They don't need a bailout I mean handout from blue collar taxpayers who make less money than those rich folk do.)

I don't want to take this thread further off-topic, but I must respond. Having grown up in one of the areas on Long Island devastated by Sandy, I can tell you they are mainly middle class houses and working folks, and certainly not a vacation paradise. It is much like Galveston, which itself was once again devastated by a storm in recent history, and I don't think many Texas believe the relief effort there was to "bailout" the rich.

I was reflecting upon this nation's traditional historical response to marauding incidents throughout the frontier whether perpetrated by Indians, or the occassional criminally violent predators.

The historical reaction has never been to register, ban , or confiscate the very arms needed to defend against such frontier marauders.

These nutcase mass shooters are nothing new under the sun. They too are simply murderous marauders.

What is new within the last 50 years or so is the movement to exchange the sovereignty of our constitutional republic for statehood under the United Nations.

The anti-gun hostility is not a natural response to murderous marauding. Sure family members of the victims can be expected to allign with the anti-gun movement, but they are only pawns to be exploited like Gabby Gifford in the bigger plan which is to diminish public support for our 2nd Amendment.

This is why compromise with the anti-constitutionalist on their "reasonable gun regulations " will only result in moving the ball "half the distance to THEIR GOAL".

Using the football analogy we must cause them to "fumble ", and take possession of the "ball" - or they will win eventually.

The achilles heel of the anit-gun lobby is their illogical rejection of the self defense concept. Remember SCOTUS Justice Sotomayer would not acknowledge that people have a natural right to self defense during her confirmation hearing ?

rp_photo wrote:Anti-gun exploiters of these tragedies are doing the victims a huge disservice.

Other than a very distractful and emotional father the night of the event (which BTW was completely understandable), I haven't seen any other parent or relative on TV (yeah, I don't watch TV that much).

The reaction I've seen is more from politicians and celebrities... so my resentment is against those who didn't wait for the bodies to cool off before spewing their venom against responsible law-abiding gun owners.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Newtown is in the southwest corner of the state, just east of Danbury. To put it in geographic perspective, Newtown is 70 miles NE of downtown Manhattan, and there are a number of Newtownians who commute to Manhattan It is a fairly safe bet that most or all of Newtown's residents voted for the very gun policies that resulted in Sandy Hook.

TAM,

You are normally right on, but I think you missed the mark on this one. I am (as well as my entire extended family is) from Danbury, CT... and still have relatives and friends in the immediate area. There have been shootings in several other areas of the country... no one town or county is responsible for entire state's or region's gun policy. Our own gun free zones in TX are just like those in NY or CT so I fail to see how texans would be any different than what you just stereotyped? We are, in fact, just as susceptible to a lunatic showing up in a school or other gun free zone, as it has happened at UT, several courthouses, Luby's and earlier (before CHL exemptions) church shootings.

If you get 70 miles from most metro areas and you are in a different world- and in this case, another state altogether. People all over the county commute to metro areas... that only means they work there, not that they agree with the politics.

The one thing I know we all agree on is that you can't "legislate" insanity. Until we find a way to prevent a person from going off the deep end (which probably isn't possible) we'll be fighting this war on gun control, even though the tool had very little to do with the tragedy.

Carry on.

As long as we allow ourselves to be framed into a DEFENSIVE posture by the Left's incessant attack upon HOW we will be ALLOWED to exercise our 2nd Amendment right - we will eventually LOSE .

If you watch the anti vs pro-2A debates on the talk shows - it is apparent that WE are presently " on the ropes" . This pattern must be reversed.

They intend to paint us as enablers of child murderers as they proceed with their assault on our 2A right.

We must go on the OFFENSE in this political contest - or we will lose it.

The same rant keeps being repeated by the anti's : "I SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT- BUT.......I don't see ANY REASON for a private citizen to own an assault weapon- or large capacity magazine."

Our response to such a statement needs to be:

" That being your position I suggest that you get your hands on a copy of the U.S. Constitution , and actually READ the wording of the 2ND AMENDMENT... and pay particularly close attention to the caveat regarding the NECESSITY of there being a well regulated MILITIA in order to maintain the SECURITY of a FREE state. You will not find any reference whatsoever to REASONABLE infringement, hunting, or skeet shooting in that amendment."
-
"The 2ND AMENDMENT to the Constitution of the United States, which you as an elected representative of the people have sworn to uphold, explicitly RESTRICTS the federal government of the United States from restricting the ability of the people to be adequately armed in the even it becomes necessary to muster with the militia in defense of the state."

SherwoodForest ,

Are you suggesting the start up of militias or simply demonstrating a strong pro 2nd amendment stance?

rp_photo wrote:It's probably no coincidence that this horrific crime also took place nearby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_ ... on_murders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It almost seems like the people there are easy prey.

Almost????