TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:Baldeagle:


As long as we want to keep an eye on history (a good thing, IMO), we should remember why Texas was run by the Democrats from 1877 to 1978 - reconstruction. The Republicans demonstrated they could be just as bad as the Democrats.

I would argue they are worse. They appear to support our rights until they gain power. Then they become typical politicians; existing for their own benefit and unconcerned with our rights or the Constitution.

srothstein wrote:I did see an interesting bumper sticker the other day. It read "Change: it takes a Carter to get a Reagan." Somehow, that seems appropriate to this topic.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could skip the Carters and stick with the Reagans....

More to the point, wouldn't it be nice if the people of this country would be informed and stay informed so that we could maintain the rights we had when this country was first founded?

Oh, and substitute Mayor Daley for Mayor Bloomberg.

Ronald Reagan and daddy Bush both signed and approved anti gun laws Even Tricky dick stated
Rudolph Guilianni supports gun grabbing.

The only party that unequivelatly supports the RKBA is the Liberarian Party unfortunatly they don't get elected much. We love to blame the leftist, but without the Republicans co-operating we would never haver had the assault weapons ban, or the Brady bill.

Liberty wrote:Ronald Reagan and daddy Bush both signed and approved anti gun laws Even Tricky dick stated
Rudolph Guilianni supports gun grabbing.

The only party that unequivelatly supports the RKBA is the Liberarian Party unfortunatly they don't get elected much. We love to blame the leftist, but without the Republicans co-operating we would never haver had the assault weapons ban, or the Brady bill.

In my opinion, many Republicans are leftists too. There are very few people in government who actually stand for freedom.

srothstein wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Maybe at the state level, but not really at the national level.

The only gun related law that I am aware of that has passed at the federal level strengthened the RKBA just a little bit. The law made it legal to carry in national parks in accordance with state laws. This does not mean the current Congress or administration supports guns, but RiverCity .45 had a point. It also does not mean the fear was not justified. This fortunate situation (no anti-gun laws passed) might have been a result of the Democratic fear of reprisal shown by the gun owner's fervor.

....

I did see an interesting bumper sticker the other day. It read "Change: it takes a Carter to get a Reagan." Somehow, that seems appropriate to this topic.

Steve, I had forgotten about the National Parks carry issue. But even that was not something supported by most Democrats in Congress. Rather, in was un-opposed (which is different from support), and it was only included in the bill because Republicans maneuvered it into the bill. I believe it is accurate to say that, left to their own devices, most Democrats would not have included National Parks carry in a credit card spending bill. That it did get included is due largely to the efforts of Republican Tom Coburn, supported by a bipartisan but small coalition. Firearms have been regulated in National Parks since 1936. During Roosevelt's administration, from 1933 until 1945, the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. Ergo, Democrats were responsible for the loss of the RKBA in National Parks to begin with; and it was a Republican who led the fight to get the RKBA in National Parks restored. None of this is speculation, other than my statement that if they had been left to their own devices, without Republican Tom Coburn's leading the charge, National Parks carry would not have been passed by a Democrat controlled Congress. But even my speculation is pretty well founded in historical precedent.

And by the way, Republicans haven't always had a spotless record on the RKBA either. William Safire interviewed President Nixon in 1969 (SOURCE) and asked the president what he thought about guns, Nixon's answer:

"Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

That same linked article goes on to say:

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

But, 20 years have passed since then, and for the past 20 years, gun-control has been more the bailiwick of the Democrat Party, rather than the Republican Party.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Doesn't mean you're not welcome if you disagree.

baldeagle wrote: In my opinion, many Republicans are leftists too. There are very few people in government who actually stand for freedom.

I believe the operative word here is "Progressive." Progressives may be found in both major parties.

G26ster wrote:

baldeagle wrote: In my opinion, many Republicans are leftists too. There are very few people in government who actually stand for freedom.

I believe the operative word here is "Progressive." Progressives may be found in both major parties.

I despise the present day use of the word progressive. There is nothing progressive about stealing man's rights and enslaving him to an all powerful government. Tyranny isn't progressive.

baldeagle wrote:

G26ster wrote:

baldeagle wrote: In my opinion, many Republicans are leftists too. There are very few people in government who actually stand for freedom.

I believe the operative word here is "Progressive." Progressives may be found in both major parties.

I despise the present day use of the word progressive. There is nothing progressive about stealing man's rights and enslaving him to an all powerful government. Tyranny isn't progressive.

I'm referring to the "original" Progressives. Those are the one's you are referring to also. Some modern Democrats call themselves Progressive when they mean Liberal, but are a far cry from the real Progressive movement of the last hundred years. The problem is, a once moderate Democratic Party is being taken over by true "old school" Progressives who believe in huge government and it's intrusion and control of every aspect of life. But you are correct, there is nothing progressive about them, and there are better words to describe what their end goals are.

ADDED:

IOW, I believe the Democrat Party is made up of "Blue Dogs" (a few), Liberals (a lot), and Progressives (the dangerous ones, IMHO). Unfortunately too may Liberals call themselves Progressive, because it sounds "modern," without knowing the true nature of the Progressive movement over the last century and it's long history of seeking control over the population. Unfortunately, under the current administration, the Progressives are in most positions of power.

baldeagle wrote:In my opinion, many Republicans are leftists too. There are very few people in government who actually stand for freedom.

I was going to post this in the other discussion viewtopic.php?f=83&t=36642 but this one is more active.

It's like a recent editorial http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PU ... _land.html in the journal said, the choice is why we work and how to spend the money we earn. We work and we decide, or we work and they decide? Check out the last three paragraphs.

Remember in November.

If I might hesitantly step back to the OP, I saw in the newspaper this morning that the gun owners' bankruptcy act passed the House of Representatives. If I recall correctly, the bill as passed by the House exempts no more than three guns, with an aggregate value of no more than $1,500.00. I suspect that it might be very difficult for some of us to carve out three of our guns having an aggregate value of no more than $1,500.00.

A Pyrrhic victory?

b322da wrote:If I might hesitantly step back to the OP, I saw in the newspaper this morning that the gun owners' bankruptcy act passed the House of Representatives. If I recall correctly, the bill as passed by the House exempts no more than three guns, with an aggragate value of no more than $1,500.00. I suspect that it might be very difficult for some of us to carve out three of our guns having an aggragate value of no more than $1,500.00.

A Pyrrhic victory?

Still it sounds reasonable, 3 guns worth 1500 is es enough to protect ourselves, and have a hunting piece or two.
Only problem I see is that a few years from now $1500 isn't likely to much of any gun. when you consider the dollar isn't likely to be worth much.

If it passes will it override the current Texas bankruptcy homestead allowance for firearms, be in addition to it, or will the debtor have a choice, or what?