TexasCHLforum.com

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

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?

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

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

Based purely on this statement I would have to agree that the bill is bad. But until reality meets up with our desires, I feel that the bill is good.

Can someone help me see how this proposed legislation would have prevented the AZ, CO, or CT shootings? Please connect the dots for me.

Weren't those events the impetus for this current desire for additional control legislation?

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?

anygunanywhere wrote:

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

You have no idea what my political stance is on anything other than the bill at hand. Pretty bold of you to come out of the gate swinging.

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?

It did not occur to me that it was a poke. It appeared to be a direct attack. That is the problem with posting on a forum. What you say can be interpreted quite differently than what you intended.

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:

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

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"

If you think appeasement is a good strategy, you may want to brush up on world history.

I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

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.

Are you an FFL by any chance?

The FTF isn't a loophole it is how a free society works. If I acquire something legally, I have the right to sell it to whomever I see fit. I personally prefer to sell to CHL holders only, but that is my choice and I don't need a nanny type government overseeing my private transactions.

The problem with this legislation is that it puts in place a framework to in the future change the definition of who is or is not mentally stable. The way it is proposed it would just eliminate those involuntarily committed. Fast forward 10 years from now and the laws in changed to include those voluntarily committed. Fast forward 10 years from that and the law is changed to include those who are been committed of crimes which are indicative of being mentally unstable, which includes the "crime" of owning more than 4 firearms of 10 boxes of ammo.

It is a slippery slope....

K.Mooneyham wrote:I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

Exactly.

This bill is about putting the conversation back on point. It talks about restricting access to guns for people who should not have them. It's not perfect. But it will do our side much good politically.

I understand the desire towards absolutism on 2A, but I am inclined to support this bit of political realism.

ALL of you need to stop the personal attacks and keep this on track, or your posts will be deleted.

Haven't had a chance to read up on it in detail. What is the definition of mental illnesses? Mild to moderate depression that is controlled by medication or counseling, ADD, work related stress, grieving from the loss of a loved one, financial trouble stress.

What about people that contact their employer provided employ assistance program?

Where do they draw the line?

The problem is this won't "head them off at the pass." They will just point out that this would not have prevented AZ, CO, or CT. They say they are for "common sense" legislation, but the anti crowd (and complicit media) are about using absolute standards. Since there is no way to absolutely stop tragic gun crimes, they won't stop until they have their absolute ban in place.

Slowplay wrote:The problem is this won't "head them off at the pass." They will just point out that this would not have prevented AZ, CO, or CT. They say they are for "common sense" legislation, but the anti crowd (and complicit media) are about using absolute standards. Since there is no way to absolutely stop tragic gun crimes, they won't stop until they have their absolute ban in place.

Of course you're correct... The fervent anti's will never be quelled.
However, the battle is to win the middle.

If all we do is stand with our fists balled saying "NONONONONONONONONO", then the anti's will win the middle and we will watch our rights get trampled.

Or..... we can fight the fight on two fronts.
1. Negotiate the best deal we can. Get in front of the issues. Get something in return for any ground given. How stupid does the administration look now that Uncle Joe says armed guards in schools is a good idea? The NRA was loudly ridiculed for suggesting this. Win. Similarly, the NRA has correctly pointed to the fact that nothing in the current mass of legislation proposed by the anti's will do any good at all. Here we have an example of something at actually tries to address keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Will this quell the anti's? Certainly not. Will it help us win the middle? That is the more important question. What have we given up? Argue "slippery slope" all you want... This is political reality. Deal.

and

2. Even after a bill is passed, even this Graham/NRA bill.... Nothing prevents us from arguing it to SCOTUS (except time and money) if we believe it's infringing. Just because we work to get the least onerous bill passed doesn't mean we give up the right to argue later that it's still unconstitutional.