TexasCHLforum.com

Then we are out of luck because humans will from time to time act violently. History tells us that. But shootings have not gone up in number really, just how they are covered. We have to start making the argument loud and clear that a bad guy with a gun is only stopped by a good guy with a gun. Sincere cannot uninvent guns there will always be bad guys with guns so we need to keep ourselves armed.


If Washington really does go down that route.......well.......there is always the

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

option.

How about bracelets, rings and other technology to keep kids from playing ultra violent video games or watching ultra violent movies?

After all (waaaaaaait for iiiit------) it's for the children.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:No more reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. No more. Not one more inch.
Anygunanywhere

I hear you, but if we have many more public shootings and it will roll down hill. And politically, opponents will say that pro-gun lobby won't negotiate in good faith.
You won't get a chance to weigh in on "reasonable" restrictions. You'll get stuck with all the unreasonable ones.... Mark my words, more shootings = more restrictions.

If you can name one reasonable restriction or common sense gun law that does not infringe on the Second Amendment please do so. Further. please name one that ultimately did not lead to further infringemnet. Name one where the restrictions stopped and did not progress further into total confiscation.

Yes, the unconstitutioonal laws will continue as long as we allow tyranny to continue and do not hold those who govern to their oath to defend the Constitution.

Anygunanywhere

MeMelYup wrote:If the Secret Service and all other federal law enforcement that fall under DOJ go to the bracelets or fingerprint requirements I might think about it. Nope, I like what I have.

My firearms works just fine without any special technologies. The more crap you add to things, the more chances something will break. That ever reliable revolver or Glock or whatever may just become a brick when you need it most due to a bug in the technology. Not to mention, as some already have that there is the possibility of deactivating it either by govt or perpetrator. I can see it now. A black market for "gun jammers" or some such where the bad guys will have old style, reliable firearms and will be able to disable any firearm of a law abiding citizen in range via some jammer or remote, etc.

anygunanywhere wrote: If you can name one reasonable restriction or common sense gun law that does not infringe on the Second Amendment please do so. Further. please name one that ultimately did not lead to further infringemnet. Name one where the restrictions stopped and did not progress further into total confiscation.
Anygunanywhere

If you use a gun to commit a crime, you will go to jail.

MeMelYup wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: If you can name one reasonable restriction or common sense gun law that does not infringe on the Second Amendment please do so. Further. please name one that ultimately did not lead to further infringemnet. Name one where the restrictions stopped and did not progress further into total confiscation.
Anygunanywhere

If you use a gun to commit a crime, you will go to jail. [ Image ]

I've got something even better. If you committ a violent crime whether there was a gun or not you are going to go to jail.

I don't really want to advocate for this policy but I wish someone would ask him if these smart guns are the ones the government will approve for universal concealed carry. Some may opt to purchase these magical firearms if one could carry them anywhere in the U.S.

Texgun wrote:I don't really want to advocate for this policy but I wish someone would ask him if these smart guns are the ones the government will approve for universal concealed carry. Some may opt to purchase these magical firearms if one could carry them anywhere in the U.S.

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety.......I think we all know where that goes.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:No more reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. No more. Not one more inch.
Anygunanywhere

I hear you, but if we have many more public shootings and it will roll down hill. And politically, opponents will say that pro-gun lobby won't negotiate in good faith.
You won't get a chance to weigh in on "reasonable" restrictions. You'll get stuck with all the unreasonable ones.... Mark my words, more shootings = more restrictions.

That's exactly what the left would like you to think so you'll give up your rights a piece at a time instead of making them try to take them all at once.

They understand that getting the opposition to surrender is much less stressful (and safer) than having to fight for victory.