TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:Brady Campaign Dying?

Maybe so, BUT there will be other gangs of anti-gun cranks to take Brady's place...

Not to mention a certain new member to this board.

seamusTX wrote:Watch out for IANSA.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision may turn out to be the proverbial two-edged sword. I would like to be told in authoritative terms that I'm wrong.

- Jim

That page just makes me angry... especially this line:

The licensing system on its own is clearly insufficient, because it doesn’t foresee that previously law-abiding gun owners can become violent.

What, are they planning to build a system like in Minority Report now? So they can predict when all former law abiding people will decide to break the law?
Apparently to them, all law abiding citizens are felons, who have just not committed their felony yet....

Apparently to them, all law abiding citizens are felons, who have just not committed their felony yet....

Under the Anglo-Saxon common-law system on which U.S. justice is founded, a person is held to be innocent until proven guilty. We are so accustomed to this phrase that (unfortunately) it has become a cliché. The British and most former British colonies pay only lip service to this principle now.

In the rest of the world, an accused person is considered guilty until proven innocent.

It might be a good idea to forgo the reaction and consider the mindset of societies that regard their citizens as good little cogs in a machine that must be kept well lubricated with no sharp edges. Cf. Leviathan, 1984, etc.

- Jim

C-dub wrote:I wonder who, if anyone, is waiting in the wings to pick up the slack after their demise.

There will be someone, and they will blame Brady's failure on some sort of conspiracy by the NRA.

seamusTX wrote:Watch out for IANSA.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision may turn out to be the proverbial two-edged sword. I would like to be told in authoritative terms that I'm wrong.

- Jim

Bingo!!!

In the long run, The Brady Campaign can die for all I care...I hope it is exremely painful, and hope it hurts the next gun-control wannabes when they surface...

It's fine...I still have my guns, and they cannot have them...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Brady Campaign Dying?

Maybe so, BUT there will be other gangs of anti-gun cranks to take Brady's place...

Not to mention a certain new member to this board.

He wiped his eyes, picked up his empty marble sack &

jimlongley wrote:... they will blame Brady's failure on some sort of conspiracy by the NRA.

Of course. Who else could they blame?

It can't be the fault of the majority of the American people for realizing after 42 years that "gun control" doesn't work.

- Jim

seamustx:

So you see 1968 as the time when gun control really got rolling?

IIRC the feds passed a 1968 anti gun law after JFK/MLK/RFK's murders.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:So you see 1968 as the time when gun control really got rolling?

Yes. There was the federal GCA68, and many states and cities passed their own restrictive laws around the same time.

The assassinations of MLK and RFK within a few months, plus widespread urban rioting that had been going on since 1965, pushed the federal law over the top.

It's ironic now to read the speech that LBJ made when he signed the bill. It was supposed to be the end of violent crime in this country: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The crime rate was never lower after 1968 than before. It is just now coming back to about the 1968 level.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:So you see 1968 as the time when gun control really got rolling?

Yes. There was the federal GCA68, and many states and cities passed their own restrictive laws around the same time.

The assassinations of MLK and RFK within a few months, plus widespread urban rioting that had been going on since 1965, pushed the federal law over the top.

It's ironic now to read the speech that LBJ made when he signed the bill. It was supposed to be the end of violent crime in this country: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29197" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The crime rate was never lower after 1968 than before. It is just now coming back to about the 1968 level.

- Jim

I read the speech and it’s quite interesting.

I grew up in Stonewall, Tx and had been on the LBJ ranch many times as a kid while LBJ was still alive. My friends and I used to ride our bikes out there quite often. One interesting hobby ole LBJ had was to take a bunch of his friends out to a shooting stand at night, hand out loaded rifles, flip on the stadium lights that would light up all the deer that were out feeding on the winter oats that had been planted, and then all would blaze away at the deer. Anyone who knows anything about white tail deer hunting knows that this is about as illegal as it gets. This was quite a while after he wasn’t president anymore.

Even though he was a close acquaintance with my dad, my dad never went on any of those “hunts” and I was too young. (It was more a political connection and not a personal friendship.) I do remember seeing the lights on the oat field. That was the first of many things that opened my eyes to the type of man LBJ was.

What a hypocrite.

seamusTX:

Thanks for the LBJ link.

The GCA68 law is another example of the gummint over-promising
and under-delivering.

SIA

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Brady Campaign Dying?

Maybe so, BUT there will be other gangs of anti-gun cranks to take Brady's place...

Not to mention a certain new member to this board.

There's nothing at that link. I must have missed something.

davidtx wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Brady Campaign Dying?

Maybe so, BUT there will be other gangs of anti-gun cranks to take Brady's place...

Not to mention a certain new member to this board.

There's nothing at that link. I must have missed something.

I've already gotten a couple of PMs about that. If the moderators will permit, I will post what that link led to...

There was a member named "Billy", a troll, who joined the board a few days ago, and at that time he posted in the "LEO asked to leave coffee shop" thread, on about page 3 or 4.

In that thread, Oldgringo had posted a comment basically to the effect that CHL holders shouldn't presume themselves to be cops — a sentiment that most of us would probably agree with.

Billy posted by quoting Oldgringo's post out of context as follows:

Bïlly wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:BTW, a trained off duty LEO is not the same as a citizen with a CHL and a citizen with a CHL is definitely not the same as a trained off duty LEO. If CH licensees want to be LEO's they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

Thank you for talking common sense. A civilian with a hand gun license should be limited to having a pistol in their home, place of business, or a shooting range. There's no reason for a civilian to walk around in public with a pistol. If someone wants to strap a gun on their hip they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. Just like you said. Nobody except the police and military needs a pistol in public places.

That was the post I had linked to my seemingly "cryptic" comment in my previous post in this thread. The moderators deleted Billy's post, after I had linked to it in this thread - hence the confusion.

seamusTX wrote:Of course they do. "Gun control" is only for rednecks and colored people.

- Jim

OK.... that is the funniest post I have read on here in a very long time. Problem is... I think some of these elitist liberal actually believe this.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

davidtx wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Brady Campaign Dying?

Maybe so, BUT there will be other gangs of anti-gun cranks to take Brady's place...

Not to mention a certain new member to this board.

There's nothing at that link. I must have missed something.

I've already gotten a couple of PMs about that. If the moderators will permit, I will post what that link led to...

There was a member named "Billy", a troll, who joined the board a few days ago, and at that time he posted in the "LEO asked to leave coffee shop" thread, on about page 3 or 4.

In that thread, Oldgringo had posted a comment basically to the effect that CHL holders shouldn't presume themselves to be cops — a sentiment that most of us would probably agree with.

Billy posted by quoting Oldgringo's post out of context as follows:

Bïlly wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:BTW, a trained off duty LEO is not the same as a citizen with a CHL and a citizen with a CHL is definitely not the same as a trained off duty LEO. If CH licensees want to be LEO's they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

Thank you for talking common sense. A civilian with a hand gun license should be limited to having a pistol in their home, place of business, or a shooting range. There's no reason for a civilian to walk around in public with a pistol. If someone wants to strap a gun on their hip they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. Just like you said. Nobody except the police and military needs a pistol in public places.

That was the post I had linked to my seemingly "cryptic" comment in my previous post in this thread. The moderators deleted Billy's post, after I had linked to it in this thread - hence the confusion.

Well dangit!!! It sounds like I could have had some fun with ole Billy Boy. I need to get out and about more often... I am missing all the fun.