TexasCHLforum.com

Muhlbauer is on par with that soaring intellect of the left...Biden.

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Speaking of compromise, here you go. This is from an elected liberal legislator. Looks like he is really in to compromise.
http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=14934

It's idiots like this moron that are inflaming the situation. When you threaten to seize lawfully purchased weapons, you are treading on very dangerous ground, right on the edge of all out civil war. It will not go well for them, if they seriously think they can do this.

Be careful, you are going to scare off some of the more sensitive folks.

Abraham wrote:...on a side note, my .17 HMR is a rimfire.

I meant to say .17 Hornet, since the MR in HMR obviously stands for magnum rimfire.

mojo84 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Speaking of compromise, here you go. This is from an elected liberal legislator. Looks like he is really in to compromise.
http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=14934

It's idiots like this moron that are inflaming the situation. When you threaten to seize lawfully purchased weapons, you are treading on very dangerous ground, right on the edge of all out civil war. It will not go well for them, if they seriously think they can do this.

Be careful, you are going to scare off some of the more sensitive folks.

I have arrived at the point where I could care less what others think. I'm done being accommodating with liberals, and I don't give a hoot about sensitivity. Liberals are traitors to the Constitution, and I will tell them so to their faces. (Which is a great deal more respect than they will grant me.)

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Speaking of compromise, here you go. This is from an elected liberal legislator. Looks like he is really in to compromise.
http://carrollspaper.com/main.asp?Secti ... leID=14934

It's idiots like this moron that are inflaming the situation. When you threaten to seize lawfully purchased weapons, you are treading on very dangerous ground, right on the edge of all out civil war. It will not go well for them, if they seriously think they can do this.

Be careful, you are going to scare off some of the more sensitive folks.

I have arrived at the point where I could care less what others think. I'm done being accommodating with liberals, and I don't give a hoot about sensitivity. Liberals are traitors to the Constitution, and I will tell them so to their faces. (Which is a great deal more respect than they will grant me.)

Yeah, why is it these traitors think they can insult and demonize us and talk about denying a Constitutional right, violating several Constitutional amendments by banning and confiscating guns, putting us in re-education camps, designating us a "terrorists," dragging us behind trucks, shooting us in the testicles, and killing us, and we're going to be nice?

JALLEN wrote:A week or so ago, I posted links to articles which included the following, which I re-post here:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY ***** CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

I re-told this as best as I could to a kitchen full of church people over lunch after church last Sunday and thought we'd need to resurrect those who were about to die laughing.

This is about the best analogy I've ever seen.
Thanks

baldeagle wrote:

G26ster wrote:

AndyC wrote:All right, boys - it's an emotional subject but let's all cool off and debate the merits of our respective positions and not fall into the ad hominem trap so beloved of our opponents.

Amen! It's overdue, and insults on either side of this issue do no one any good in representing their position. We should respect everyone's view on the forum, regardless of their position.

I have insulted no one. I've asked Coastie for straight answers, and so far he has not given them. I'm still waiting.

I never said you personally did. I was speaking "in general." Perhaps I should have just posted this:

FORUM RULES

2. No personal attacks on other members - NONE! We can be respectful even in disagreement. If you're talking about the person rather than the issue, then the post will be deleted.

RPB wrote:

JALLEN wrote:A week or so ago, I posted links to articles which included the following, which I re-post here:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY ***** CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

I re-told this as best as I could to a kitchen full of church people over lunch after church last Sunday and thought we'd need to resurrect those who were about to die laughing.

This is about the best analogy I've ever seen.
Thanks

For the record, the original of that morality tale was written by LawDog of The LawDog Files blog: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010 ... -play.html, and it is just the last third or so of the post. The first 2/3 is just as good. LawDog rocks.

http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/

By ROBERT J. AVRECH | DECEMBER 18, 2012

Jew Without a Gun

I am republishing my three-part series about the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 in which Karen and I and the children were trapped for several frightening hours. We were unarmed, helpless save for our wits. The police were conspicuously absent and the bad guys, frequently armed with heavy weapons, owned the streets. It was a defining moment in my life.

I’m reposting this series as a cautionary tale because the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre has sharpened the claws of the statist utopians, whose ultimate aim is to disarm law-abiding American citizens.

Just as Obamacare has nothing to do with health, and cap and trade has nothing to do with so-called global warming, anti-gun laws have nothing to do with saving children’s lives.

It’s just another opportunity for the left to centralize power.

This has ALREADY happened in the U.S. I WAS THERE! And the senator from the state where this happened wants to make sure that if something like that ever happens again, the rioters will be able to literally dismember their victims without a shot being fired.

She is an agent of Satan. Anyone who agrees with her is in league with the devil.

On the TV, Karen and I watch as Reginald Denny gets his brains bashed in. We gaze in horror and disbelief as the barbarians dance over his broken body. With tears in our eyes, we see pious citizens, G-d bless them, step in and halt this atrocity, rescuing the tragic truck driver.

There’s a video of Fidel Lopez, a Guatemalan immigrant. He, like Denny, is pulled from his truck and robbed. But theft is almost beside the point. The rioters-slash-torturers smash open his head, then slice off an ear. The mob graffiti his chest, torso and genitals.

Take my word for it, graffiti is not an art form.

Between fifty and fifty-six citizens are murdered in the riots; two thousand are seriously injured.

At last, the LAPD is deployed. Its officers make approximately 10,000 arrests.

Estimates of between 800 million and a billion dollars in property damage have been reported. Approximately 3,600 fires were deliberately set, destroying 1,100 buildings.

Korean shopkeepers were specifically targeted by black rioters. But the Koreans owned guns and heroically defended their property and lives through force of arms, frequently using AR-15s against heavily-armed looters. So anyone who tells you that private citizens don’t need assault weapons are just plain ignorant. Besides, it is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

It was a lesson that should have reverberated nationally, but some commentators labeled the Koreans vigilantes. Just another case of the mainstream media getting it wrong.

Liberal totalitarians demand increased gun control, if not the outright banning of gun sales to citizens.

Second Amendment — what’s that?

And then, of course, the race hustlers — Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters, the usual vulgar demagogues — parade across TV screens informing the good citizens of Los Angeles that the riots were really “an uprising.”

Oh, really?

As in: The Warsaw Ghetto uprising?

57Coastie wrote:

VMI77 wrote:57Coastie, with all due respect, you're either misrepresenting yourself in this forum or you're delusional.

Never before have I been so insulted. I am neither misrepresenting myself, lying, nor, according to my physician, delusional.

I have always done the very best that I can in letting all hands here know who I am and my background. I have nothing to hide, and nothing to lie about, as you have blatantly accused me of doing. Perhaps I have been mistaken in assuming that what I put in my profile here is open to the public. If I am wrong in that I will publish it right here after someone lets me know. All you to do is ask, and I will post it immediately.

Nuts -- I will do it anyway, just in case my profile is not in fact public.

Website: http://www.donatominxbrown.com/FSL5CS/X ... 25A500620C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Occupation: Military officer, Foreign Service officer, law enforcement officer, trial lawyer, trial judge, appellate judge, seaman, commercial pilot, flight instructor, Confederate Air Force pilot. Never could hold down a steady job. Never really wanted to. Happily retired now.

Interests: One who is concerned for our nation's future and that of the world. Have enjoyed handgun competitive marksmanship since training and competing with the U. S. Army Marksmanship Unit, more than 50 years ago.

Birthday: 18 June 1935

If there is anything you or anyone else wants to know about me, just let me know. If there are indeed gun-nuts out there they can find my address in the College Station telephone book very easily. If that does not work, just ask me for it. No point in your asking for my telephone number, however. I cannot use a telephone reliably, being almost completely deaf, although I have recently had a Cochlear implant surgically implanted, and my training program with a therapist is showing great improvement in my hearing. I am told by my physician that my deafness was probably brought about by a combination of guns, little ones and big ones (not larger than 5" 38, however, thank goodness), too many hours in airplanes, including open cockpits, vintage WWII -- all before ear protection became the norm in the military, and just plain old age. Contrary to your allegation of delusion, he finds no degenerative disorder of the central nervous system.

Do I truly have a CHL? Yes, I do indeed have a CHL and I carry at least one concealed handgun. I cannot remember the precise date of when I first got it, along with my wife, but I have renewed it often enough to fall into the 10-year category. I still audit a CHL renewal course generally annually, and no less often than at the end of each legislature, if only to be sure I am aware of what the latest is that came out of Austin. One of the best annual CHL renewal class audits I took was one given by Charles Cotton at the PSC. I also attended a lawyers' continuing legal education (CLE) course on Texas Gun Law at which Charles was one of the several presenters, even though my age exempts me from having to take these classes annually.

Do I have other guns in the gunsafe besides the one or ones I am carrying? Absolutely. Both modern and vintage collectibles, both long guns and handguns, my prize example of the latter being a "real" Colt m1911 vintage 1917 which I purchased in 1961, if I remember right. I knowingly possibly ruined its value as a collectible when I had the AMU armorer accurize the piece the next year. But it is not a safe queen. It is the best weapon I have for marksmanship shooting, bar none, even given its age and mine. I have put literally thousands of rounds through her, which is so easy to do firing sometime three 2600s daily with the AMU.

You've picked on the wrong guy, VMI, and your assumptions are invalid. I am sure you have seen the word "ASSUME" broken down into its component parts.

Jim

I've been reviewing your posts, not all of them, but those mostly relevant to gun control, and I want to make a broader apology to you than I did in my previous post. Apparently, one fundamental difference between the two of us is that you seem to have a lot of respect for the current system and the politicians who preside over it. You seem to actually believe some significant portion of what they say and accept certain appearances as reality. You have also made remarks such as you want to maintain the 2nd Amendment as currently interpreted by the SC. I view the current system as completely out of control and dysfunctional and have no respect whatsoever for the majority of politicians, with an escalating contempt for those at the top of the governmental pyramid. And quite frankly, I can't understand why anyone would willingly associate themselves with the scoundrels in either party (and I'm saying that most of them are scoundrels), but I find it particularly incredible that any moral and intelligent person who isn't is some way directly benefiting from such support would ever associate themselves with the moral, financial, and Constitutional disaster that is the Democratic Party.

I think your faith in the system as it now exists is misplaced and sometimes plain wrong. For instance, your statement that you support the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the SC. I grant that it represents an improvement of past court rulings but it is still flat-out a misrepresentation of the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment. It is written in plain English, and it says free men have a right to KEEP and BEAR arms, and that this right shall not be infringed. That you support a such a blatant misinterpretation of the court that does indeed infringe upon this right is alarming enough, but your phasing also suggests to me that you would accept a subsequent interpretation that rejects the half of the right that was partially supported as just another legitimate interpretation --so you'd turn in all your guns if it was so ruled. That is like saying that you'd stop criticizing public officials if a SC decision supported a law that made it illegal. This is an inference on my part and I hope I'm wrong, but your remarks consistently lead me to such inferences about your respect for government power over the clear text of the Constitution.

I have apparently drawn cumulative inferences from your remarks that may be incorrect. However, you are partially to blame because you have yet to articulate your interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights and what constitutes infringement. My inference from your remarks is that you seem to believe the concept of infringement may vary with popular desire, as if some Democratic majority gets to determine what infringement means. That is directly opposite to the well established intent of the Constitution, which is to protect the pre-existing rights of individuals. What a majority desires is irrelevant to these rights --I'd personally would say completely irrelevant and unchangeable-- but the Constitution does allow a process for change, so a large enough majority could "Constitutionally" take them away. That is not the process the gun-grabbers are following.

It is also difficult for me to reconcile your support for people like Obama and Hillary, and a Party with the likes of a DiFi and a Pelosi, with your professed belief in some limited right to own firearms for self-defense. All of these people want to ban private ownership of ALL guns. Some, like DiFi, have made their desires known unequivocally, so your support for such people makes it difficult to infer something other than a willingness to concede your 2nd Amendment rights.

So, by the words you've written I am wrong in suggesting that you have misrepresented your position, even as I clarified my meaning in my previous post, and I apologize. It is probably most accurate for me to say that I have absolutely no idea where you stand on 2nd Amendment rights and the definition of infringement.

baldeagle wrote: I have arrived at the point where I could care less what others think. I'm done being accommodating with liberals, and I don't give a hoot about sensitivity. Liberals are traitors to the Constitution, and I will tell them so to their faces. (Which is a great deal more respect than they will grant me.)

This.

VMI77 wrote:
Yeah, why is it these traitors think they can insult and demonize us and talk about denying a Constitutional right, violating several Constitutional amendments by banning and confiscating guns, putting us in re-education camps, designating us a "terrorists," dragging us behind trucks, shooting us in the testicles, and killing us, and we're going to be nice?

And this.

I will honor Charles' request to tone down my posts.

Anygunanywhere

Six pages of posts and still no definitive answer from Coastie. Coastie, you seem like an intelligent and well-disciplined guy. Yet you've not yet given us any concrete suggestions for what you think our accommodations should be with the gun grabbers. Can you just answer, "I don't have any suggestions" if that's the case? Or do you have some you're choosing not to share with us? You've consistently asked for calmness and moderation. All I'm asking is that you lay out your plan, as I have done in the Resolving the Sandy Hook Dilemma thread. Is that too much to ask? You say you want us to talk. Let's talk.

I don't think you'll hear from 57Coastie, as it appears he requested his account be deactivated. I believed he started this thread in a jesting manner, but it slid into a precarious area. It's really too bad.

Intentional or not, it seems more and more the people in this country are becoming further divided.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

newTexan wrote:But you know what, if trading a mountain of paperwork gets me the ability to own them *AT ALL* then that's a compromise I can take. Neither side got what they wanted, but both sides can live with the outcome. If the issues are *process* issues, then there's some room to negotiate.

So then, you're willing to accept that mountain of paperwork in order to buy a Ruger 10/22, if it will make it possible to fill out another mountain of paperwork so that you can buy a noise reduction device for it?

Allow me to try to clarify. First, I think there are some fundamental rights issues. On these, there can be no compromise. If there is confiscation or sweeping bans like DiFi is wanting or any restrictions that make the right essentially useless for self-defense, then those are fundamental rights issues. The right to self-defense is to effective self-defense. Why do I want an AR and a 30-round mag? For the same reason I want a flashlight, it makes my self-defense more effective. If your goal (or the results of your other goals) is to make me unable to defend myself, there is no compromise.

However, I think there are ways to change the processes that, while I may not like them, I can certainly tolerate. I already have to fill out a yellowsheet. If you ask 3 more questions on that sheet, I'm not really bothered (provided they're reasonable questions). If more state records of people who are federally disqualified under existing law are reported to NICS, that sounds to me like a good idea.

Now, we must be careful in that some process discussions are actually veiled attempts to make the fundamental right ineffective. If say, you have to have a tax stamp, but the government isn't approving any tax stamps - that's a process that is being used to vitiate your fundamental right. No compromises there. We have to be *careful* whenever we go to a negotiating table.

My point ultimately is that if we re-frame the question from "why do you need x gun?" over to "how do we keep all guns away from criminals and nutjobs better than we do?" then I think we can win. Not only can we win, we can actually maybe put all our heads together and actually find something that works to keep us all safer. In the end, the problem is not about the mag, the calibur, the handguard, or the gun at all. It's about the nutjobs, and nutjobs are a problem that we all want to solve. If my only solution to a nutjob trying to kill me is a .45 then so be it. However, I hope to God it never comes to that. I'd rather be well-armed and never need it. If the only solution to the next mass nutjob is acute lead poisoning, then so be it. However, I would hope that with all the smart people on both sides of the issue that we can find a way to reduce the number of nutjobs who make it that far. That's the discussion I want our "leaders" to have.

Instead, we get to watch Alex Jones and Piers Morgan in prime time. Right or wrong, they have both come off on national TV at one time or another as complete idiots and hurt not only their causes, but the conversation as a whole. They get Joe Biden and DiFi, who are shall we say way off base on their "thinking" but look like reasonable folks on TV. We get....um....what government official has gone on TV and said No we're not doing that in a forceful but respectful manner? The best I saw was Ted Cruz, the newest Senator on the block. Where is the Speaker? Where is Mitch? Where is Harry? So far, the leadership that could fight for our rights is absent. I hope that's a sign they're waiting for their moment to strike back. I hope its not a sign of capitulation. I want those leaders to come on TV, look like leaders, and articulate why hurting our rights is a bad idea, wouldn't help, and is just not ever going to happen.

So, back to your question. If me filling out paperwork (a) was not a way to make my access to guns ineffective to defend me and mine; (b) had a reasonable chance of helping with the overall violent crime issues; and (c) made logical sense then, I might be ok with it. I would submit that's a pretty high hurdle. If it's such a burden as to make my right to guns ineffective then there is no compromise.

Two other bits if you've read this far..

First, I believe if those three tests - won't make my right ineffective, reasonable chance to do good, and logical - were applied honestly then I think the country would be a whole lot better off.

Second, I don't own a suppressor but someday I would like to. Not because I need one. Not even because I think it would make my self-defense efforts more effective, but simply because I also believe that the best way to keep your rights is to exercise them. Somehow, that doesn't stop Congress from coming after millions of law-abiding gun-owners.

newTexan wrote: Second, I don't own a suppressor but someday I would like to. Not because I need one. Not even because I think it would make my self-defense efforts more effective, but simply because I also believe that the best way to keep your rights is to exercise them. Somehow, that doesn't stop Congress from coming after millions of law-abiding gun-owners.

This is not on topic, but your last paragraph made me recall some thoughts I've often had about suppressors. If our legislators fancy themselves as being watchdogs of public health and defenders of affordable healthcare, you'd think they would REQUIRE suppressors, not limit access to them. Does the lack of readily available suppressors actually reduce gun violence or just risk the hearing of many Americans?