TexasCHLforum.com

No. Auto dealers aren't held liable for selling a car to a driver that subsequently kills some while DUI or intentionally runs over people on a walkway. I agree with Beiruty. The only thing gun control does is make criminals out of law abiding citizens. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Namely those that kept their outlawed guns.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:19 pm I understand “the shall not be infringed.”

My understanding it’s illegal to shout fire in a theatre. A judge recently ruled pointing your finger at some one like a gun is disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct and a lot of people here said “hades yeah” it is.

Shouting fire in a theater in not illegal. Shouting fire in order to cause a panic and cause people to get hurt while trying to evacuate the building is illegal.
Pointing your finger at someone like a gun is not illegal. But doing so to embolden a threat could be illegal or could cause someone to defend themselves against you.
The intend matters.

philip964 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:19 pm Legal concealed carry was sold to the Texas legislature because it would allow people to defend themselves, if another Luby’s happened.

We let them down, there were three mass shootings and there were no LTC’s to stop it. ( yes the church shooting was stopped by a citizen with a gun ) The fourth in Texas was a gun free zone, not our fault.

Walmart has always been very good to us and we weren’t there to stop it.

They have reacted. Moderately. They still allow us to conceal carry.

You had one part correct, that concealed carry was passed to allow people to defend THEMSELVES. That's the keyword here. We have a right to protect ourselves. We carry so that we can protect our loved ones and ourselves. If we can protect any others along the way while still protecting our love ones, that is a plus. We let none down. Conceal carry does not exist to protect the public. That is the job of our first responders.

We let our loved ones down if we fail to protect them. We let our loved ones down (along with all free Americans) if we let more of our rights be taken.

Stop twisting things and stop sounding like our lovely left neighbors. Let's stop picking fights with each other here too.

No. Never.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:27 pm I'm not sure if I want psychiatrists making a determination to adjudicate someone a mental defective with no check on their decision. I'm not sure that every psychiatrist is compelled by law to report to NICS. Also I'm not sure that every state is required to report to NICS or if there are penalties for failing to do so. Maybe with the fix NICS law?. Anyway unfunded mandates and commandeering the States by the federal government is unconstitutional. My proposal is to eliminate NICS and leave it back to the States as prior to 1998. YES, that's my proposal. There is really no evidence that NICS is useful in reducing crime. And the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) or whatever they're calling it these days that is the basis for NICS is a lousy system, riddled with errors and incomplete or incorrect data.

Well I don’t have a problem with that idea either. My point is simply that, if we’re going to be saddled with it, then everyone who is supposed to report into it should be held to the same level of accountability as those of us who have to submit to it to buy a gun from an FFL. And if they are not to be held accountable to the system, then neither should we.

Sad to see so many gun grabbing talking points coming from our side.

While I don't disagree in principle with the above statement, as far as any further restriction on private sale/purchases.... NO.

As it stands now, as a seller you can certainly insist all sales go through an FFL or you can require the buyer to do a criminal background check & show you the printed results. There is nothing to be gained by additional burdens on private sales because as we all well know, it only affects those of us who obey laws.

gun control, purchase/sale restrictions/requirements, etc exist for these reasons:
1. the ill-informed who really do think it will help
2. those (politicians) who put this in place because of #1. (and the perception that it buys votes)
3. those who do it for control & power. A disarmed, depressed, easy-to-offend, cannot-think-for-themselves, mis-educated population is far easier to control.
3.1 (there are other reasons, such as the racist roots of gun control, but you get the point...)



The reality is no 'control' measures will save lives. If it was about saving lives people would be looking at more 'bang for the buck': heart disease, cancer, natural disasters, car accidents, "medical misadventure".

Even Bernie's website has a press release that says medical mistakes are the 3rd leading cause of death:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom ... eath-in-us

Startling evidence suggests that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.

I don't like Nazi gun control laws.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:45 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:27 pm I'm not sure if I want psychiatrists making a determination to adjudicate someone a mental defective with no check on their decision. I'm not sure that every psychiatrist is compelled by law to report to NICS. Also I'm not sure that every state is required to report to NICS or if there are penalties for failing to do so. Maybe with the fix NICS law?. Anyway unfunded mandates and commandeering the States by the federal government is unconstitutional. My proposal is to eliminate NICS and leave it back to the States as prior to 1998. YES, that's my proposal. There is really no evidence that NICS is useful in reducing crime. And the National Crime Information Computer (NCIC) or whatever they're calling it these days that is the basis for NICS is a lousy system, riddled with errors and incomplete or incorrect data.

Well I don’t have a problem with that idea either. My point is simply that, if we’re going to be saddled with it, then everyone who is supposed to report into it should be held to the same level of accountability as those of us who have to submit to it to buy a gun from an FFL. And if they are not to be held accountable to the system, then neither should we.

SQLGeek wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:55 pm Sad to see so many gun grabbing talking points coming from our side.

oljames3 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 10:10 pm

SQLGeek wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:55 pm Sad to see so many gun grabbing talking points coming from our side.

It is the old, "Well it doesn't affect me, so let them have it" type thinking. I know there are some gun owners that think they are in a special class and everyone else should have to meet their personal criteria. Even on this forum. What these particular firearm owners don't realize is that first they come for your neighbors, then they come for you.

First they came for the machine guns, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a machine gun owner
Then they came for the "assault-15s", and I did not speak out
Because I was not an AR-15 owner
Then they they came for all semi-auto rifles, and I did not speak out
Because I etc, etc..

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Truth is, it is a very sad statement that we have gun owners who claim to be supporters of the second amendment who are actually entertaining the idea of "giving up" something that the government has no right to take away. There should be NO GIVE at all. Not one thing discussed in this thread or Washington will keep a mass shooting from occurring. We darn well better all tighten up or we will be facing some hard choices of surrender or fight. Me... I will fight.

one only has to look around on this small planet to see the effect of 'compromise' in foreign countries, with little (or opposite) effect on crime:

England, Australia, Canada, California, etc.

and of course, when it does not reduce crime, its followed by more calls for yet more restrictions.

Firearms ownership in Canada is strictly regulated (though they recently gave up on long gun registration as overly expensive & effectively useless) and yet Toronto now has a homicide rate higher then NYC:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/06/tor ... -new-york/

ghostrider wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 11:23 pm one only has to look around on this small planet to see the effect of 'compromise' in foreign countries, with little (or opposite) effect on crime:

England, Australia, Canada, California, etc.

and of course, when it does not reduce crime, its followed by more calls for yet more restrictions.

Firearms ownership in Canada is strictly regulated (though they recently gave up on long gun registration as overly expensive & effectively useless) and yet Toronto now has a homicide rate higher then NYC:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/06/tor ... -new-york/

This thread is analogous to being surrounded by the enemy in a war zone and thinking that executing one of your own and throwing the dead body out will make the enemy go away. No surrender, no negotiating. We need to stand our ground. The anti gun crowd is after complete confiscation. They are simply after it in steps.

When the constitution is changed then we can go with your suggestions, until then it violates our rights (and common sense). Your suggestions seem to show that you don’t fully understand the underlying issue and I don’t think it will make a dent in lowering gun crime. More laws will not stop the problem, we can remove every gun in our country and people will still use cutlery, vehicles, chemicals, airplanes etc.