TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:I’ve posted a direct link to the text of this house bill elsewhere on these pages. At the top, there are by my count 155 democrat sponsors/cosponsors. There are only 193 democrats in the House, which means that just over 80% of democrats in the House support this bill. It is probably safe to say that the same percentage of democrats in the Senate would support a Senate version of this bill, or would vote for the House version as is.

That right there shows that the democrat party IS the party of gun banning - no matter what they say. So when they say stuff like “nobody wants to take your guns away”, they are flat out lying, without equivocation, and without any conflict of conscience. They are, therefore, evil; and they must never be handed the reins of gov’t again.

But that said, if the RNC lets Trump get away with tacking Dian Feinstein’s version of an AWB onto a proposed gun-control bill currently being discussed - as he asked her to do ON VIDEO - then the GOP will have demonstrated that THEY are as much a part of the problem as the DNC.

I can't say it much better than this, and it's why I continue to be disturbed by Trump's "gun meeting" last week no matter how much he appears to be walking back some of the ridiculous things he said. The Democrats have been itching for this for a long time and they aren't trying to hide it anymore.

The way I read it, this is not an "assault weapons" ban, even being generous with the definition of "assault weapon". It is essentially a ban on all or nearly all semi-automatic weapons that we currently enjoy - rifles, handguns, and shotguns.

It is vitally imperative that everybody understands that Ted Cruz's likely Democratic opponent, Beto O'Rourke, is a co-sponsor of this bill and uber-left on most everything else. He's been "aw, shucking" his way around the state and the Democrats think they've found the next Doug Jones. I realize Cruz has rubbed people the wrong way on various things, but if Texas loses this seat we and the nation are in big, big trouble. We cannot take this lightly; I no longer trust Trump on this issue, and I've never fully trusted the RINO establishment. But I do trust Cruz.

imkopaka wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I hope I don't come across as uncaring, but none of us here had anything to do with Parkland, Vegas, etc., and we should not lose a single right as a result.

How dare you! You'd better realign to a socialist viewpoint or you want people to die!

That's closer to the truth than any of us would like to think.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... 86304.html

state Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation, told the Herald Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag.

Guess the progressive socialists will have to amend their bill to ban 10 round magazines too.

rp_photo wrote:I hope I don't come across as uncaring, but none of us here had anything to do with Parkland, Vegas, etc., and we should not lose a single right as a result.

It’s not only not uncaring, it is absolutely right. Demonizing 2nd Amendment advocates by accusing them of “not caring” about the victims of mass shootings, besides being a vile accusation, does nothing to address the actual problem. When it comes to solving the problem of mass shootings, the left is all about virtue-signaling between themselves by “gun-shaming” gun-rights advocates - instead of actually addressing the failure of authority to enforce existing law. Why? For the following reasons:

• Because the left is intellectually lazy, and virtue signaling is a lot easier than problem solving;
• Because gov’t is their (little “g”) god, and you never question or examine that god’s authority, deficiencies, or failures;
• Because you cannot claim that gov’t is perfect and inerrant if you have to also admit that its failure to take actions - mandated by law - resulted in the deaths of innocents;
• Because if you do have to admit that perhaps more gov’t won’t solve the problem, then you have to examine matters of culture, morality, and basic human nature that the left would rather ignore - because having to finally address those things makes them look really disconnected from reality.

The effect of the original ban was carefully studied. The results were clear:

National Institute of Justice: Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994–96

...the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban...

...The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.

Because the guns are rarely used in crime, not only did the 1994 law not make a difference, it could not make a difference.

This proposed ban is about gutting our enumerated constitutional rights, not crime.

bblhd672 wrote:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/c ... 86304.html

state Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation, told the Herald Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag.

Guess the progressive socialists will have to amend their bill to ban 10 round magazines too.

Don't you mean clips?

When will the Democrats agree to reasonable restrictions like a ban on high capacity duffel bags?

Close the luggage loophole!