TexasCHLforum.com

I'm entirely too libertarian, I don't want anything regulated, not bump-stocks, not sudafed. I don't want the Feds telling the states they have to recognize other states gun licenses. I don't want the feds doing anything.
Personally, I'd love it if the Feds worked more like Texas....3 months every other year, they tire me....

SewTexas wrote:I'm entirely too libertarian, I don't want anything regulated, not bump-stocks, not sudafed. I don't want the Feds telling the states they have to recognize other states gun licenses. I don't want the feds doing anything.
Personally, I'd love it if the Feds worked more like Texas....3 months every other year, they tire me....

I agree in general. But I draw the line at allowing other states to interfere with the constitutional rights of US citizens who are visiting their state. I should have the right to keep and bear arms when I visit NYC, or LA, or our nation's capitol. Just like I maintain my right to free speech, and my right against self-incrimination when visiting those places. If a privately owned business wants to infringe on my rights, that's between them and me. But a state should not say that a U.S. citizen cannot carry a handgun on city streets or publicly owned buildings.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I'm entirely too libertarian, I don't want anything regulated, not bump-stocks, not sudafed. I don't want the Feds telling the states they have to recognize other states gun licenses. I don't want the feds doing anything.
Personally, I'd love it if the Feds worked more like Texas....3 months every other year, they tire me....

I agree in general. But I draw the line at allowing other states to interfere with the constitutional rights of US citizens who are visiting their state. I should have the right to keep and bear arms when I visit NYC, or LA, or our nation's capitol. Just like I maintain my right to free speech, and my right against self-incrimination when visiting those places. If a privately owned business wants to infringe on my rights, that's between them and me. But a state should not say that a U.S. citizen cannot carry a handgun on city streets or publicly owned buildings.

I just really don't think that's how nat. rec. is going to ultimately end up working.

SewTexas wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:I'm entirely too libertarian, I don't want anything regulated, not bump-stocks, not sudafed. I don't want the Feds telling the states they have to recognize other states gun licenses. I don't want the feds doing anything.
Personally, I'd love it if the Feds worked more like Texas....3 months every other year, they tire me....

I agree in general. But I draw the line at allowing other states to interfere with the constitutional rights of US citizens who are visiting their state. I should have the right to keep and bear arms when I visit NYC, or LA, or our nation's capitol. Just like I maintain my right to free speech, and my right against self-incrimination when visiting those places. If a privately owned business wants to infringe on my rights, that's between them and me. But a state should not say that a U.S. citizen cannot carry a handgun on city streets or publicly owned buildings.

I just really don't think that's how nat. rec. is going to ultimately end up working.

I don't disagree with you. Unfortunately.

After all, my above statement isn't even true for Texas.

I hate to see comments like "it won't affect me". Anything that politicians call "common sense" will affect you and will not in any way stop mass killings.

Draw a line. Kill those who cross it. Repeat as needed.

Hickok45's comments.

http://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbi ... 4641617269

mojo84 wrote:Hickok45's comments.

http://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbi ... 4641617269

Page not found - is it a facebook post or a link to a video on facebook?

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Hickok45's comments.

http://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbi ... 4641617269

Page not found - is it a facebook post or a link to a video on facebook?

It's a facebook post.

Well I like Hickok45 and have great respect for him, but this NRA member is not happy that they folded so quickly on this and I'll have to disagree.

Again, I could care less for bump-stocks, to me they are just plain ugly. For me it is about principle of gradual loss of freedoms. Drip, drip, drip.

Now, give me some pro-gun legislation with some teeth and then maybe I'll re-consider. As it stands, I feel like we've given and lost more, at the Federal level in particular.

Anygunanywhere wrote:

http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/201 ... -come.html

I agree on all points: Couple the SHARE act with a bump fire ban and I'm on board.
But I fear that the antigunners will get their ban and we will get an empty promise from Cornyn to "Get 'em next time."
Will someone please primary this RINO?
I'd love to contribute to his opponent in a primary.

Geraldo goes full liberal.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxNews/stat ... 5817026562

mojo84 wrote:Geraldo goes full liberal.

https://mobile.twitter.com/FoxNews/stat ... 5817026562

And there's treasure in Al Capone's vault!!

Even a republican congressman that is going to propose legislation admits it's just a step to more.

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/5976022