TexasCHLforum.com

So I went with my in-laws to see the Capitol today. There was an organized anti-2A protest going on on the south steps. I got quite angry. My wife kept me contained while they spewed their bull. Fewer people than the Pro-2A that happened aways back. I have never been more proud to us my CHL to enter the building than I was today.

I respect their 1A rights to protest. Why can't they respect my 2A rights?

Okay, vent over.

I believe the collaborator Art Acevado was speaking at the event, as well.

Little publicized. I had to hunt to see that anything was even going on there.

Now that it is over, I don't feel bad about posting the notice I found...
http://events.austin360.com/austin_tx/e ... -gun-sense

Once again...people getting together to push for "common sense gun control". No list of speakers, but they do call it a family event. I for one was doing other, more productive family events today, all the while using my common sense to quietly carry and watch over my family.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I believe the collaborator Art Acevado was speaking at the event, as well.

He's only interested in his own safety and rights, not that of the citizens. I have no respect for him and his smug little grin.

lbuehler325 wrote:

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I believe the collaborator Art Acevado was speaking at the event, as well.

He's only interested in his own safety and rights, not that of the citizens. I have no respect for him and his smug little grin.

Art Avacado has shown his true colors. He is anti 2A and has made that pretty clear.

I guess he took his oath to the moon goddess of Austin.

I guess it was a heated debate!

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege ... ted-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And I think the criminal's just found their "easy target" signs!

http://safehome411.homestead.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SF18C wrote:I guess it was a heated debate!

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege ... ted-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And I think the criminal's just found their "easy target" signs!

http://safehome411.homestead.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A more sober assessment (rare in Austin) would acknowledge that hope is not a plan, and vulnerability is not a defense.

The anti-2A movement is precisely that - a siege against the Second Amendment.

Think about it . By and large most of these anti-2A radical constitutional revisionists refuse to accept the right of the Second Amendment to exist. Similar to the antagonism exhibited by Israel's Muslim neighbors towards the existence of that state. " Common sense" compromise with these tyrants makes as much "common sense" as Israel withdrawing its borders to Tel Aviv.

If the anti-2A radicals could achieve ratification of a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A - they would be busying themselves with that crusade - much like the push for the "Equal Rights Amendment" back in the 1970's. They know that 70 percent of the American people would never agree to outright removal of the 2A from the U.S.Constitution.

Well meaning, but naive Americans may buy into the "common sense" gun control measures - but they will not give up the 2A
The anti-2A tyrants use the naive, well meaning folks to set the stage with a vast array of INFRINGEMENTS that they feel will eventually pass muster by a FUTURE anti-2A majority after Obama appoints a couple more revisionist justices.

Once we begin to appreciate the anti-2A strategy , it becomes apparent that the SCOTUS cannot be relied upon to preserve the 2A.
The 9A, and 10A are the keys to turning back this siege against the 2A. We cannot be content to merely stave off the assault, and hold the enemy at bay just to entertain continued erection of siege works. We must advance against these tyrants and drive a wedge right down the middle of their seige works. In short we must knock them on there @$$'s.

The session time for tolerance of tyrants has expired.

Texas is at the forefront of this siege. "Common sense" means providing armed security for our children in the schools, in the home, and the public square. "Common sense" is also alloting resources to hire USHERS in movie theaters to monitor emergency exits to prevent " Joker's" from repeating the Aurora , Colorado tragedy.

There ARE "common sense" measures that the excercise of a little common sense will reveal.

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... tol/nXFQt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Was just reading about this. The part I do not like is that Chief Acevedo is out there in uniform and allowed to speak on this. Most leo's are not allowed to wear uniforms and speak at a political event.

eureka40 wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I believe the collaborator Art Acevado was speaking at the event, as well.

He's only interested in his own safety and rights, not that of the citizens. I have no respect for him and his smug little grin.

Art Avacado has shown his true colors. He is anti 2A and has made that pretty clear.

I guess he took his oath to the moon goddess of Austin.

I hear that he took the oath while celebrating the Spring solstice at Barton Springs with the naked Wiccans.

SF18C wrote:I guess it was a heated debate!

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege ... ted-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And I think the criminal's just found their "easy target" signs!

http://safehome411.homestead.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's one of "those" problems with side A against side B. Side A takes shots at side B without taking the time to understand what side B said or did.

So this sign is telling criminals it's an easy target? Read each item on the check list carefully. It's pretty much what responsible gun owners already do and it's cleverly worded, respecting the needs of defensive firearms in the home. 2 might be considered fluffers, but nothing that says anti-gun, or "I'm unarmed, come rob me".

http://safehome411.homestead.com/SafeHome411.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here, so you don't have to open the PDF. The checklist:

*All firearms are fully controlled at all times.
*Firearms are securely stored in a location inaccessible to children and other unauthorized persons.
*Sporting firearms are unloaded before they are brought into the home and never loaded while in the home.
*Sporting firearms are immediately cleaned and placed in secure storage when they are returned from hunting or target shooting.
*When firearms are removed from storage, they are always carefully checked to confirm that they are unloaded.
*Ammunition is stored under lock and key, separately from firearms.
*The owner’s manual that came with the firearm must be read and understood.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

eureka40 wrote:

lbuehler325 wrote:

Redneck_Buddha wrote:I believe the collaborator Art Acevado was speaking at the event, as well.

He's only interested in his own safety and rights, not that of the citizens. I have no respect for him and his smug little grin.

Art Avacado has shown his true colors. He is anti 2A and has made that pretty clear.

I guess he took his oath to the moon goddess of Austin.

I hear that he took the oath while celebrating the Spring solstice at Barton Springs with the naked Wiccans.

There is a conspiracy here today to ruin my lunch.

Anygunanywhere

SF18C wrote:I guess it was a heated debate!

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege ... ted-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And I think the criminal's just found their "easy target" signs!

http://safehome411.homestead.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will volunteer my time to emplace these signs at any home owners request.
I feel strongly criminals should know which home owners have taken a stand against guns, and made their homes safe by removing them.

Perhaps a google map with pins, showing address, and a clickable link with a picture of the home, and any publicly available pics of the occupants as well.

Dang nab it, Their Sign Shall Not Be Infringed

JKTex wrote:

SF18C wrote:I guess it was a heated debate!

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege ... ted-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And I think the criminal's just found their "easy target" signs!

http://safehome411.homestead.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's one of "those" problems with side A against side B. Side A takes shots at side B without taking the time to understand what side B said or did.

So this sign is telling criminals it's an easy target? Read each item on the check list carefully. It's pretty much what responsible gun owners already do and it's cleverly worded, respecting the needs of defensive firearms in the home. 2 might be considered fluffers, but nothing that says anti-gun, or "I'm unarmed, come rob me".

http://safehome411.homestead.com/SafeHome411.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here, so you don't have to open the PDF. The checklist:

*All firearms are fully controlled at all times.
*Firearms are securely stored in a location inaccessible to children and other unauthorized persons.
*Sporting firearms are unloaded before they are brought into the home and never loaded while in the home.
*Sporting firearms are immediately cleaned and placed in secure storage when they are returned from hunting or target shooting.
*When firearms are removed from storage, they are always carefully checked to confirm that they are unloaded.
*Ammunition is stored under lock and key, separately from firearms.
*The owner’s manual that came with the firearm must be read and understood.

How "cleverly" worded is the question? Go to their website and this is what it says:

What is a "Safe Home"?
No guns at all
OR
Guns are locked away & unloaded at all times

So, maybe they're even more clever than you're giving them credit for. To me this can be read as a safe home means not having guns, but if you do, they are always locked away and unloaded, hence useless for self-defense.

Another context, not stated in the pdf or on the webpage, is that the anti's don't recognize a non-"sporting" purpose for gun ownership. Through that lens, the pdf isn't cleverly exempting defensive firearms but cleverly suggesting that only guns for "sporting" purposes are acceptable, and only if they're unloaded and locked up so they can't be used for self-defense. I don't know what interpretation is intended, but given how sneaky, evasive, and deliberately deceptive the antis are, I am suspicious.