TexasCHLforum.com

I wonder why or if being mentally incompetent is required to get those benefits.

Stripes Dude wrote:Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

baldeagle wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

No need to be condescending. Sometimes, people have different opinions on how problems should be solved. If in your life, there are no differing opinions, then congratulations on being able to surround yourself with like minded people. But don't be rude, asking rhetorical questions. Besides, paying for a BG check to transfer a gun to your daughter is no different than paying to transfer a car title. So do you have issues with FFLs doing a background check, because you clearly do when it comes to private checks? I don't understand your logic.

Looks like I stirred the pot. What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution, and my personal belief is that we won't fix the issue of firearms falling into the hands of criminals or the insane, but an attempt at doing so is what we should aim for. This is how politics work, compromise. The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none. So time to think outside the box. It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation.

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

The topic of allowing CHL in 51% bars comes up a bit. And those connected to the TX legislature say it won't happen, and don't even ask for it because that would get a bill killed, and take with it all of the other things we are trying to pass. That's called compromise - lots of us want that, but won't take it forward in legislature because it has no chance of passing.

I don't want any of this. I wish it had never gotten to this point. But I'm being honest with myself and others - no one will end up in a good place by being bull headed.

Stripes Dude wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

No need to be condescending. Sometimes, people have different opinions on how problems should be solved. If in your life, there are no differing opinions, then congratulations on being able to surround yourself with like minded people. But don't be rude, asking rhetorical questions. Besides, paying for a BG check to transfer a gun to your daughter is no different than paying to transfer a car title.

Your comparison would hold true if the constitution guaranteed the right to bear cars.

Stripes Dude wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

No need to be condescending. Sometimes, people have different opinions on how problems should be solved. If in your life, there are no differing opinions, then congratulations on being able to surround yourself with like minded people. But don't be rude, asking rhetorical questions. Besides, paying for a BG check to transfer a gun to your daughter is no different than paying to transfer a car title. So do you have issues with FFLs doing a background check, because you clearly do when it comes to private checks? I don't understand your logic.

Looks like I stirred the pot. What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution, and my personal belief is that we won't fix the issue of firearms falling into the hands of criminals or the insane, but an attempt at doing so is what we should aim for. This is how politics work, compromise. The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none. So time to think outside the box. It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation.

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

The topic of allowing CHL in 51% bars comes up a bit. And those connected to the TX legislature say it won't happen, and don't even ask for it because that would get a bill killed, and take with it all of the other things we are trying to pass. That's called compromise - lots of us want that, but won't take it forward in legislature because it has no chance of passing.

I don't want any of this. I wish it had never gotten to this point. But I'm being honest with myself and others - no one will end up in a good place by being bull headed.

Maybe you should read this again:
SRH78 wrote:
The problem with giving a little at a time is that eventually, you still end up with nothing.
One side giving ground each time isn't compromise.

What you are describing isn't compromise. The constitution isn't something we negotiate. If they want to change the 2A there is a process for that. Otherwise, we will stand firm.

Stripes Dude wrote:What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution, and my personal belief is that we won't fix the issue of firearms falling into the hands of criminals or the insane, but an attempt at doing so is what we should aim for.

Ok. Here's my solution: What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Punish the criminals and leave the law-abiding alone.

Stripes Dude wrote:This is how politics work, compromise.

No, that's how slaves are made. So far, gun owners have been the only ones to give anything up. And we've been doing one little bit at a time. I'm sick of it. Many of us are sick of it. And it's time to stop it.

Stripes Dude wrote:It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation.

You couldn't be more wrong. If a law violates the Constitution, then we, as American citizens, we have a duty to disobey it. Hopefully that disobedience can be peaceful and respectful. But if it can't be, that's on those who seek to violate our rights, not on those who are trying to preserve them.

The issue is remarkably simple. If gun grabbers want to take guns away from law abiding folks legally and constitutionally, all they have to do is amend the Constitution. But they know that the American people won't stand for it, so they use various legal tricks and other methods, and people like you say "hey, we need to compromise a little or we'll lose a lot". It is that way of thinking that has gotten us to where we are today.

I'm sorry. But there can be no more compromise. Not for me.

Stripes Dude wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:Reading this eased my fears a bit.

I personally have no issue with strengthening background checks, eliminating private sales without a BG check (that may infuriate some here)

It doesn't infuriate me. It just makes me shake my head. Do you realize what you are saying? If I want to sell a firearm to my daughter, under that scenario, I would have to pay for a background check. Does that even make sense to you? Because it if does, I think you need to think about it a little more clearly. Would you mind if the government checked your background before you sold your house? Your car? Any other possession? NONE of those things are constitutionally protected. Guns are. Yet you would allow an intrusion that you would never think of allowing for mere possessions.

It's no wonder America is in trouble when we've departed so far from an understanding of the Constitution.

No need to be condescending. Sometimes, people have different opinions on how problems should be solved. If in your life, there are no differing opinions, then congratulations on being able to surround yourself with like minded people. But don't be rude, asking rhetorical questions. Besides, paying for a BG check to transfer a gun to your daughter is no different than paying to transfer a car title. So do you have issues with FFLs doing a background check, because you clearly do when it comes to private checks? I don't understand your logic.

Looks like I stirred the pot. What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution, and my personal belief is that we won't fix the issue of firearms falling into the hands of criminals or the insane, but an attempt at doing so is what we should aim for. This is how politics work, compromise. The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none. So time to think outside the box. It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation.

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

The topic of allowing CHL in 51% bars comes up a bit. And those connected to the TX legislature say it won't happen, and don't even ask for it because that would get a bill killed, and take with it all of the other things we are trying to pass. That's called compromise - lots of us want that, but won't take it forward in legislature because it has no chance of passing.

I don't want any of this. I wish it had never gotten to this point. But I'm being honest with myself and others - no one will end up in a good place by being bull headed.

I asked this question once before, and I will ask it once again: what is the anti-gun side going to give to US, the firearms community, if we give up something to them? I am asking this in a concrete way, looking for specific answers. And I'll even give an example...if we are all forced to get background checks before any firearms change hands, then the anti-gun people should repeal the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and that Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986 and allow us to purchase NEW fully-automatic weapons, short-barreled weapons, and sound suppressors. See, that would be a compromise...they give something and we give something...so, would this be acceptable to you? Or do you have something else that we should gain in exchange for what they want to take away from us? Because if we don't gain something in the exchange, then its not compromise...its concession and I want no part of it.

Stripes Dude wrote:What I am attempting to convey is that all sides need to come to the table with a solution,

Here's a solution for you. From an essay you can find on the web - "If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. "

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

My recommendation is that WE dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and retain our rights as granted by God and affirmed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Not interested in compromising and losing my rights..

mojo84 wrote:

We can dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and lose a lot. Or we can compromise.

My recommendation is that WE dig in our heels, not budge an inch, and retain our rights as granted by God and affirmed by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Not interested in compromising and losing my rights..

steveincowtown wrote:Your comparison would hold true if the constitution guaranteed the right to bear cars.

Why on earth would anyone want a bear car???



Sorry. I just had to lighten things up a bit.

RottenApple wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Your comparison would hold true if the constitution guaranteed the right to bear cars.

Why on earth would anyone want a bear car???

[ Image ]

Sorry. I just had to lighten things up a bit.

Bwahhh....greatness!


Having bear arms is also inconvenient...no opposable thumb.

By the way, if Obama does come out and say something different then what he has been saying, it has nothing to do with him changing his mind. It will have more to do with Soros and Obama's other elitist handlers changing tact.

"This is how politics work, compromise. The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none. So time to think outside the box. It isn't about constitutionality, it's about being able to compromise with those who are creating legislation."

Compromise - The mantra of the left, with the understanding that compromise is defined as give up your gun rights. Period. That's compromise for you...

"The likelihood that things will remain as-is are slim to none."

You're right about that.

Gun sales are at an all time high.

NRA subscriptions and donations are absolutely sky rocketing.

Ammunition is flying off the shelves. Can't be kept in stock.

State governments are straining trying to keep up with CHL applications in every state you find them.

Stand Firm!!