TexasCHLforum.com

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/ ... rm-process" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any idiot with an ISP could post that. Doesn't mean it's even a remote possibility....anti hunting campaign....right.

Don't bother getting mad - that guy is not the threat, right now. To me, it's the anti assault weapon conservatives that like to hunt and see no reasonable need for an AR. They're the ones with the powerful sound bytes.

He is welcome to come to my house anytime and try to take my guns. Operative word is "try".

gigag04 wrote: Don't bother getting mad - that guy is not the threat, right now. To me, it's the anti assault weapon conservatives that like to hunt and see no reasonable need for an AR. They're the ones with the powerful sound bytes.

^ This.

I like the poll at the end of the article:

Yes (to gun ban) 28%
No (" ) 70%

Wow ......this guy sounds like what Hitler did to the Jews! And he calls 5 of the SCOTUS judges fascists?

What's interesting is some of the democrat pro-gun comments. I'm on the Daily Kos emailing list......for the simple reason that if there is a viper in your house, you had better know where it is. 99.999999% of what they send out is such moonbattery that I just shake me head and click "Delete." But once in a while, I hit "Reply," vent ALL of my spleen, and then click "Send." Afterwards, I say three Hail Mary's and two Our Fathers because of the language I used. I'm sure nobody reads those replies, because I keep getting those emails, and nobody argues back, but it makes me feel better so that I can come here and be all reasonable-like.

gigag04 wrote:Any idiot with an ISP could post that. Doesn't mean it's even a remote possibility....anti hunting campaign....right.

Don't bother getting mad - that guy is not the threat, right now. To me, it's the anti assault weapon conservatives that like to hunt and see no reasonable need for an AR. They're the ones with the powerful sound bytes.

I agree. My "anger" (not mad just "Internet mad") is that anyone in this country could feel strongly enough against guns to dream that up and post it. It's like the first time you read some anarchist's or atheist's rambling, incoherent manifesto - the sheer oppositeness is initially disturbing.

The Annoyed Man wrote:What's interesting is some of the democrat pro-gun comments. I'm on the Daily Kos emailing list......for the simple reason that if there is a viper in your house, you had better know where it is. 99.999999% of what they send out is such moonbattery that I just shake me head and click "Delete." But once in a while, I hit "Reply," vent ALL of my spleen, and then click "Send." Afterwards, I say three Hail Mary's and two Our Fathers because of the language I used. I'm sure nobody reads those replies, because I keep getting those emails, and nobody argues back, but it makes me feel better so that I can come here and be all reasonable-like.

Not one bit surprised by pro-gun Democrats. Got some rabid liberal friends here in Austin who are major gun enthusiasts.

Without the 2nd amendment he would be unable to speak in the manner he does. His disregard for the constitution is appalling. He is free to pack his bags and go to the communist country of his choosing. I would like him to sit down with the hundreds of thousands of people that protect there lifes with with the use of a firearm ever year and tell them they dont have the RIGHT to stop the crimes that are are commited against them.

It may be time to start regulating, in some cases banning, some of these nut case rants.

I don't see anything wrong with banning some types of expressions. Unless you are a scallywag or trouble maker, nobody needs emotional diatribes, innuendo, frivolous nonsense, more posts on gun bans.

I think it would be OK to have a ten day cooling off period between the writing of something and the publication thereof, to run it by the DOJ for clearance, to make sure other legal requirements are met, proper licenses, etc. The publication, if cleared, would be limited to ten paragraphs, and a person would be allowed to do one writing a month.

All writers would have to have an "Expression Safety Certificate" issued within 5 years after passing a expression safety test, with at least 70% passing grade.

I think writers ought to be licensed by the state, after a showing of educational adequacy, good moral character, no criminal background etc. A three day test would be required to make sure the proposed journalist knew what (s)he was writing about. I can't imagine why this isn't in place already. For crying out loud, we license every kind of professional, real estate agents, embalmers, car salesmen, masseuses, food handlers, etc. Why do we allow unqualified idiots to inflict their blather on us willy-nilly?

A-R wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Any idiot with an ISP could post that. Doesn't mean it's even a remote possibility....anti hunting campaign....right.

Don't bother getting mad - that guy is not the threat, right now. To me, it's the anti assault weapon conservatives that like to hunt and see no reasonable need for an AR. They're the ones with the powerful sound bytes.

I agree. My "anger" (not mad just "Internet mad") is that anyone in this country could feel strongly enough against guns to dream that up and post it. It's like the first time you read some anarchist's or atheist's rambling, incoherent manifesto - the sheer oppositeness is initially disturbing.

Since the author has no regard for the 2nd Amendment, it would be interesting to play "20 questions" with he or she to determine which other parts (or perhaps the whole thing), they want to ignore.

What would be more interesting would be to play along but force them to live under the conditions that result from the Constitutional deletes that they picked. I suspect that they would have a much different message than. It would come down to who was in power and if wasn't them, I'd bet that they would have a real problem. It is all fun and games as long as it is someone else's ox that gets gored.

Reading the comments below the article, especially the author's, is quite enlightening.

JALLEN wrote:It may be time to start regulating, in some cases banning, some of these nut case rants.

I don't see anything wrong with banning some types of expressions. Unless you are a scallywag or trouble maker, nobody needs emotional diatribes, innuendo, frivolous nonsense, more posts on gun bans.

I think it would be OK to have a ten day cooling off period between the writing of something and the publication thereof, to run it by the DOJ for clearance, to make sure other legal requirements are met, proper licenses, etc. The publication, if cleared, would be limited to ten paragraphs, and a person would be allowed to do one writing a month.

All writers would have to have an "Expression Safety Certificate" issued within 5 years after passing a expression safety test, with at least 70% passing grade.

I think writers ought to be licensed by the state, after a showing of educational adequacy, good moral character, no criminal background etc. A three day test would be required to make sure the proposed journalist knew what (s)he was writing about. I can't imagine why this isn't in place already. For crying out loud, we license every kind of professional, real estate agents, embalmers, car salesmen, masseuses, food handlers, etc. Why do we allow unqualified idiots to inflict their blather on us willy-nilly?

Perhaps we should ban "assault-words", and limit all print articles to 10 words or less. Oh, and we have to eliminate all those semi-auto word processors.

JALLEN wrote:It may be time to start regulating, ....

Well done. Shamelessly stolen.