TexasCHLforum.com

This poll doesn't require registration, and even though it is on a news page ADVOCATING more (useless) gun control the freedom lovers are trouncing them -- as your vote: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 ...

Thanks!

As of about 5 minutes ago:

No one. Americans have a right to bear arms. Period. 75.36% (4,315 votes)

Only for sales by licensed dealers, as proposed in I-591 17.22% (986 votes)

All gun sales, as proposed in I-594 7.42% (425 votes)


Total Votes: 5,726

i voted too, we have a right PERIOD....

No one. Americans have a right to bear arms. Period. 75.39% (4,325 votes)
Only for sales by licensed dealers, as proposed in I-591 17.2% (987 votes)
All gun sales, as proposed in I-594 7.41% (425 votes)

Total Votes: 5,737

I voted for all guns. Just kidding!!! But I did vote!

jimlongley wrote: Americans have a right to bear arms. Period.

Not exactly.
We have a right to bear handguns in public if we pass background checks and pay our fees.
We have a right to bear arms as long as we hide those handguns from public view.
We have a right to bear long guns as long as we don't alarm any of our neighbors or cause undue attention.
And we have these rights only in selective states that allow them.

We're already uber-restricted. Background checks for me are a non-issue as long as they are excluded from private party sales. Make them as restrictive as you want, because bad guys can simply go buy a gun in the WalMart parking lot.

Sorry, my disillusion isn't directed at you.. I'm grumpy today.

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Americans have a right to bear arms. Period.

Not exactly.
We have a right to bear handguns in public if we pass background checks and pay our fees.
We have a right to bear arms as long as we hide those handguns from public view.
We have a right to bear long guns as long as we don't alarm any of our neighbors or cause undue attention.
And we have these rights only in selective states that allow them.

We're already uber-restricted. Background checks for me are a non-issue as long as they are excluded from private party sales. Make them as restrictive as you want, because bad guys can simply go buy a gun in the WalMart parking lot.

Sorry, my disillusion isn't directed at you.. I'm grumpy today.

...or from the US Attorney General. (just trying to brighten your day a little)

I think background checks before someone can get government benefits would do more good.

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Americans have a right to bear arms. Period.

Not exactly.
We have a right to bear handguns in public if we pass background checks and pay our fees.
We have a right to bear arms as long as we hide those handguns from public view.
We have a right to bear long guns as long as we don't alarm any of our neighbors or cause undue attention.
And we have these rights only in selective states that allow them.

We're already uber-restricted. Background checks for me are a non-issue as long as they are excluded from private party sales. Make them as restrictive as you want, because bad guys can simply go buy a gun in the WalMart parking lot.

Sorry, my disillusion isn't directed at you.. I'm grumpy today.

That was the poll question, not my words.

And I disagree.

We have the privilege to bear CONCEALED handguns in public if we pass the background checks and pay our fees, which is a right removed. We have the privilege to bear long guns as long as . . ., which is also a right removed.

cb1000rider wrote:

jimlongley wrote: Americans have a right to bear arms. Period.

Not exactly.
We have a right to bear handguns in public if we pass background checks and pay our fees.
We have a right to bear arms as long as we hide those handguns from public view.
We have a right to bear long guns as long as we don't alarm any of our neighbors or cause undue attention.
And we have these rights only in selective states that allow them.

We're already uber-restricted. Background checks for me are a non-issue as long as they are excluded from private party sales. Make them as restrictive as you want, because bad guys can simply go buy a gun in the WalMart parking lot.

Sorry, my disillusion isn't directed at you.. I'm grumpy today.

Not a problem, and all the uber restrictions you listed above are restrictions that directly go against "shall not be infringed"....... not saying that it isn't the law simply saying it shouldn't be....

As of 2:37 pm CST 01/10/2014

Thanks folks.

While it is true that many of our "rights" are being infringed, it is also true that by a strict interpretation of the Constitution most or even all of these restrictions are completely unjustifiable.

Social Utility is seldom a sufficient reason for infringing a core human right (i.e., speech, religion, self-defense and bearing arms.)

In the case of firearms however, ALL of the "social utility" arguments actually go IN FAVOR of REMOVING "gun control" or at worst are neutral.

In the first place, arms save more lives than the ones lost by their misuse. Even if we foolishly believed that all accidents and misuse would magically disappear if firearms were just put under "common sense control" this would still mean a vast loss of life, property, health, and well-being by those law-abiding citizens who could no longer defense themselves.

In the second place, it is a simple fact that: None of the US Department of Justice, Centers for Disease Control, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.

NOT ONE SINGLE "gun control law" can be shown to be EFFECTIVE at what it is supposed to be doing (even ignoring the loss of the value that firearms offer.) NOT ONE!

This includes the "obviously common sense" idea of "background checks" -- even many otherwise 2nd Amendment supporters will suppose there is SOME utility in background checks even though this has NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED (and many have tried many times, including those above.)

Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of those are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't immediately make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Clearly a law that cannot be shown to work, and which is only enforced on the law-abiding is an egregious infringement of freedom.

Now THIS is just COMMON SENSE, right?

Unfortunately not common enough.

==
HerbM

The whole point of most "common sense" ideas I've ever heard is that you don't have to deal with research, data, or structured logic. It's just common sense. For most of human history, any fool could look out the window and see that the Earth was flat. It was just common sense. In my experience, most people will put more faith in their gut than in their head. Too many don't even use their head, just going with knee-jerk reactions.
Somehow, the gun grabbers have managed to set up a paradigm where the assumption is that a lot of gun laws make people safe. Also, a lot (Probably most) Americans are convinced that the government's primary responsibility is their safety, rather than their freedom and the pursuit of happiness. If you buy that proposition, then trading a few freedoms for what appears to be safety is just common sense.

Seems I remember some old guys saying something about that, trading freedoms for perceived safety.

+1000

You can save some clicks and time by going directly to the Seattle Times page. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw ... ashington/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;