TexasCHLforum.com

The first thing we should propose is the repeal of the gun free zone around schools.

Then we should propose the repeal of the NFA law.

Then we should reinstute state militias with requirements that every male citizen in good standing between the ages of 18 and 45 must own at his own expense a AR 15 or clone, or pump action or automatic 12 guage shotgun or a duty size pistol.

stroo wrote:The first thing we should propose is the repeal of the gun free zone around schools.

Then we should propose the repeal of the NFA law.

More anti gun laws are not the answer. If somebody wants anti gun laws on general principle, the ones proposed by Obummer and Feinswine are as good as any.

If we really want to stop violent criminals and nutters, and save the lives of innocents, the answer is less restrictions on they types of guns available to the good guys, and eliminating gun free zones that help the bad guys kill without facing effective resistance.

My point is that if we don't introduce laws that favor law abiding citizens, we would always be on defense of our liberty.

1. GFSZA and NFA are laws that only hurt law abiding citizens so getting rid of them helps law abiding citizens.

2. At the state level we can get rid of the rules against CHL in schools and while voting.

3. We can also safely repeal 46.035 completely because it applies only to someone who passed the background check. An unlicensed person can carry a SHOTGUN or AR15 in those places but we can't carry a handgun? Someone must guzzle gallons of antigun koolaid for it to make sense to ban handguns where more powerful firearms like shotguns and semiauto rifles are allowed.

We don't need to introduce more laws.

We need to remove a great many...

Stupid wrote:My point is that if we don't introduce laws that favor law abiding citizens, we would always be on defense of our liberty.

Since you are the proponent of more gun laws, please provide some examples of gun laws that will not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens and our 2A rights and at the same time reduce or eliminate unlawful acts.

I will help you out. Give me a moment.

Hmmmmm. I'm thinking.

I got nothin'.

Any supposed common sense gun law and reasonable restriction will infringe on my rights.

If you really think about it, the current focus of the antis is to eliminate firearms totally and disarm us. The focus is not to reduce crime. DISARMAMENT.

Your suggestion that we propose our own gun laws is futile. We need to repeal all gun laws.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Your suggestion that we propose our own gun laws is futile. We need to repeal all gun laws.

Anygunanywhere

Gun control isn't about guns. It's definitely not about reducing crime. The only gun law worth passing is "any gun, anywhere" otherwise known as the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed which is already the highest law of the land, and the most violated gun law in American history.

Amendment—The Second Amendment is hereby repealed. The federal government shall insure that no private individuals keep or possess nuclear, chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. All other forms of weapons may be owned, borne and possessed by the citizens of the United States without restriction or registration. Such weapons may not be taxed.

How's that for a proposed gun control law? It came from Tom Kratman's book A State of Disobedience. It is a very good book about Texas seceding from the union, thus creating a constitutional crisis that yields several changes to the Constitution written in a new Constitutional Convention. If that little suggestion hasn't whetted your appetite for the book, look at the author's bio....

In 1974, at age seventeen, Tom Kratman became a political refugee and defector from the PRM (People's Republic of Massachusetts) by virtue of joining the Regular Army. He stayed a Regular Army infantryman most of his adult life, returning to Massachusetts as an unofficial dissident while attending Boston College after his first hitch. Back in the Army, he managed to do just about everything there was to do, at one time or another. After the Gulf War, and with the bottom dropping completely out of the anti-communism market, Tom decided to become a lawyer. (Big mistake, way big. Chilluns don't do it.) Every now and again, when the frustrations of legal life and having to deal with other lawyers got to be too much, Tom would rejoin the Army (or a somewhat similar group, say) for fun and frolic in other climes. His family, muttering darkly, still puts up with this. Tom is currently an attorney practicing in southwest Virginia. A State of Disobedience is his first novel.

Why can't we propose some real gun control laws?

- A person, who commits a felony involving a firearm or a high capacity magazine, would receive mandatory 25 years without parole.

- A person, who commits a first degree murder involving a firearm or a high capacity magazine, would receive mandatory life sentence without parole.

- A convicted felony, who ever touches or in possession a firearm or a high capacity magazine, receives mandatory 25 years without parole.

"Involving" means if a gun or a magazine is present with or without the knowledge of criminal.

no.
we need to do the opposite and demand that useless laws are repealed and removed from the books.
In addition, I can't see any "upside" to including language specifying magazines of any capacity. In fact,
if a person is guilty of murder, why should it matter what tool was misused in the act?

Is beating or stabbing someone to death any less of a crime tha shooting them to death?