TexasCHLforum.com

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... times?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to this article, soldiers in Afghanistan will now be required to be fully armed at all times in resonse to the recent attacks by Afghans being trained by our military. I find it interesting that the military's reaction to the shootings is "everybody must now carry". While our political structure's knee-jerk reaction to situations like Aurora CO are to disarm everyone. Thoughts? Comments?

I thought your subject line was proven along time ago.

Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

It is against the law to feed the animals at national parks because they tend to lose the ability to fend for themselves...
We have added more people to the food stamp program than any other time in history. Consistant?

Topbuilder wrote:It is against the law to feed the animals at national parks because they tend to lose the ability to fend for themselves...
We have added more people to the food stamp program than any other time in history. Consistant?

Yes it is, when you consider the true purpose of welfare and similar social programs.

hillfighter wrote:Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

No need to say more as this says it all.

hillfighter wrote:Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

Exactly, and to boot, this is entirely consistent with gun grabber arguments that only police and soldiers should be allowed to carry guns.

I agree with the decision, but realistically, it will never fly in public discourse unless you're talking to someone who is already convinced of the accurate and true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Thread already running here. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=57456" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;