TexasCHLforum.com

I saw an interview on FoxNews today with Sheppard Smith and Chuck Schumer. Smith asked a question about the 30 round mag used by the Tuscon shooter "who needs that big a magazine?" Schumer's reply was "no one". Schumer went on to talk about the 10 round limit that was in the assault weapon ban and how it had expired. Schumer said he was a supporter of the right to bear arms, but felt that "reasonable" restrictions should be used to protect lives.

I've got a bad feeling about this. The antis are going to push 10 round limits as "reasonable" and paint those opposed as unreasonable and opposed to saving lives. Unfortunately, I think some type of large capacity mag ban will be passed.

What do you do when the house is republican and Senate are also Pro 2nA? I say if we can't defend our rights and those who were elected with good NRA rating would not stand up against the those restrictions. Than, something is totally wrong.

I understand what you are saying and hope that is the case. I just worry that some will "cave" in the name of "being reasonable".

Commander wrote:I understand what you are saying and hope that is the case. I just worry that some will "cave" in the name of "being reasonable".

What I see, maybe maybe more mental health and drug-dependencies info being shared among Governmental agencies.

more good news on the side of Pro 2nA:

MILWAUKEE (Reuters) – Wisconsin, one of two states in the nation that prohibits citizens from carrying a concealed weapon, is expected to reverse this law during the upcoming state legislative session, according to a local newspaper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110118/us_ ... NpbmV4cA--" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shep Smith is no conservative.

Chuckie also said he was a supporter of 2A rights when he was "proving" how bad it was to allow .50 caliber rifles in civilian hands.

You know, the ones that can shoot through a "three inch manhole cover" (no such thing.)
the ones that can penetrate a "concrete wall" (actually stacked cinder blocks with no mortar.)
the ones that can go right through a "600 pound safe" (actually a secure file cabinet.)

The man has no honesty in him.

Commander wrote:I saw an interview on FoxNews today with Sheppard Smith and Chuck Schumer. Smith asked a question about the 30 round mag used by the Tuscon shooter "who needs that big a magazine?" Schumer's reply was "no one". Schumer went on to talk about the 10 round limit that was in the assault weapon ban and how it had expired. Schumer said he was a supporter of the right to bear arms, but felt that "reasonable" restrictions should be used to protect lives.

I've got a bad feeling about this. The antis are going to push 10 round limits as "reasonable" and paint those opposed as unreasonable and opposed to saving lives. Unfortunately, I think some type of large capacity mag ban will be passed.

A Justice Department study concluded that the AWB did nothing to reduce crime. Then there's the little fact that the crime rate has been dropping significantly since the assault weapons ban expired.

The socialists hope that the sound bites that used to work on masses of submissive citizens still will. I don't think they're right, and I see signs that a lot of people have wised up to their propaganda. Folks are asking questions like - since the 10 round magazine limit didn't reduce crime over the 10 years it was in place, and the crime rate in fact dropped after the ban was eliminated even though you said it was essential in order to keep crime in check, the reason you want to restore it might be?

jimlongley wrote:Chuckie also said he was a supporter of 2A rights when he was "proving" how bad it was to allow .50 caliber rifles in civilian hands.

You know, the ones that can shoot through a "three inch manhole cover" (no such thing.)
the ones that can penetrate a "concrete wall" (actually stacked cinder blocks with no mortar.)
the ones that can go right through a "600 pound safe" (actually a secure file cabinet.)

The man has no honesty in him.

No, but his campaign against .50 caliber rifles is pretty easily neutralized by asking him to cite a few instances where one of those 24 pound rifles was used in a crime.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Shep Smith is no conservative.

...and no believer in our 2A RKBA. Listen to his newscasts when he uses the word "GUN".

They're doing it for one reason only.

Lots of Dems were/are not happy with their party, especially after the past year.

This is something they can shift attention to, while simultaneously shifting it away from other matters, that will help them get their favor back with their constituents, and turn them against some of the moderates that were actually starting to gain traction with a lot of the left wingers.

The sheep won't notice them grabbing money from their pockets if they're pointing at conservatives and shouting 'guns guns! Ban em! ban em!' with their other hands.

In Dallas, Last year we had almost weekly wrong-way DWI accident that killed multiple victims per accident. I did not see any of those Fed liberals saying a single word. How do they care when DWI kills more!

cbr600 wrote:Is that a rhetorical question?

I mean why there is no concern to reduce DWI deaths, I call them homicide. When the danger on public far more exceed the misuse of firearms by wackos.

Beiruty wrote:
I mean why there is no concern to reduce DWI deaths, I call them homicide. When the danger on public far more exceed the misuse of firearms by wackos.

I've never and I don't think ever will understand the vitriol (to use the dems favorite new word) when it comes to guns.
So many more people are killed by so many more things than guns, unless you live in Juarez, and they need more guns.

Dogs, out of control ladder trucks, domestic violence, merchandise falling of the top shelf at a Home Depot blah blah blah.

Spend your time trying to solve a problem that is not my constitutional right and I might help.

How is my Constitutional Right your problem?