TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... rt+Feed%29

Oregon is the latest state to draft legislation that puts major restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. House Bill 3200’s summary states the “crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine” is punishable “by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.”

If this passes, Oregonians will have to surrender their 4th Amendment to exercise their 2nd Amendment. The day of the bullet box is rapidly approaching.

It seems that liberals really do want a civil war. They won't be content until they get one.

baldeagle wrote:It seems that liberals really do want a civil war. They won't be content until they get one.

The thought did cross my mind. You have to wonder, do they really have any idea of what will come of all these laws, or are thy just clueless and blinded by their power?

I just don't understand the logic.......

The Annoyed Man wrote:

baldeagle wrote:It seems that liberals really do want a civil war. They won't be content until they get one.

The thought did cross my mind. You have to wonder, do they really have any idea of what will come of all these laws, or are thy just clueless and blinded by their power?

This thread is about a local law, but I spent a good part of yesterday responding on popvox regarding all the Federal legislature's bills. According to my history, I responded to 26 different bills yesterday, and I see there are two more in the list this morning. Of those 26, only 5 were pro-gun. Many seemed to be duplicates, all I checked were sponsored by a list of Democrats.

“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

Well... It is the left coast...

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

It would not be stupid if the intent were to ban as many weapons as possible - which is clearly the case.

I believe it's a critical error to attach misguided good intentions to these folks any more. When you look at the pattern of gun bans, congressionally authorized extrajudicial killings of citizens at the whim of the president (currently practiced overseas but without a prohibition on doing so on American soil), to authorization of arrests without legal cause followed by indefinite military detention without any appeal or recourse, a reasonable person might well conclude we're witnessing a deliberate and single minded attempt to end liberty in America. If anyone can think of another explanation for the current highly choreographed nationwide assault on freedoms of all types, please let me know.

This battle is about a lot more than gun rights, and looking away from where these folks are trying to take us will most certainly not keep us from arriving there.

jimlongley wrote:“a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.” Somehow that cosmetic addition makes a gun an assault weapon.

Would include most rifles and many shotguns in the definition.

Sheer stupidity.

This part gets me too. Wouldn't it ban ALL rifles and shotguns because of the red parts? Even my 1903 Springfield has wood that partially encircles the barrel so I can hold it with my non-trigger hand and not be burned.

And what is a slide that encloses the barrel that is excluded? Is that free floating rails?

So Thunder Ranch would move back here?

The more I read and hear what is going on within this Nation, I intentionally step back from saying Union, the more I am disgusted and frightened. More than half of the people/voters chose this lot, that is now actively engaged in not only taking away our rights, but also fully violating the constitution. What do we do? We vote, we are actively involved, but it doesn't make a bit of difference. The Statists, Takers and Eaters outnumber those who believe in self reliance and what was once considered American morality. The mask is off of those who fully intend on destroying, what I consider to be the essence of what the U.S. stood for. I believe we have devolved into two camps, State worshipers, usually urban/Europeanized socialists against those who follow a God, or at least an ideal of self worth, usually those who hold traditional rural values. Again what do we do? We are outnumbered and outspent. We don't want Government intrusion; we just want to be left alone.

I know it isn't a correct thought, but with us so divided, isn't that word (secession) the only move left? We cannot vote the National leadership out and we aren't a fringe movement, but we are a substantial minority. Most of the States, usually rural, vote conservative, but the ones who do, do not count, there is not enough people. The urban states win, they can't grow their own food, or mine materials, but they do want and demand their want's, which to the Politico's, transfers into needs. This Nation's takers, although they say they are poor, have almost as much as the wealthy, large screen T.V.s, Government Cell Phones, with plenty to eat? Still the takers say they are oppressed and demand more and more. And to get more, they are willing to vote for and give up as much freedom as the Statist's want. The same with those urban eaters, they don't produce nothing, they have guaranteed themselves jobs, by controlling the movements/sales of food/material.

The majority of the takers and eaters are willing to give the state full control. I don't know why as it is fully foreign to me. Gun control? Got it. Unconstitutional detention? Its yours. I used to think it was due to their ignorance or in the case of the progressive, their feelings. But, now I believe they are fully cognizant of what they are doing and who they are destroying.

The communists, first goals are the destruction of faith in a higher power, the destruction of the rural independent farmer, full gun control and the control of people's movements. We used to make jokes about the Nazi Gestapo stopping people and asking for their papers. Now we do it. Stalin starved to death the Ukrainian Kulaks and Mao intentionally killed the rural landlords and the independent landowner. They made even the access to guns a capitol crime as they understood that an armed populace would not continence what they were soon to do. All of the communists attacked and killed those who followed a higher faith, especially Christians. One has to absolutely accept the state as the only power, for everything. No one, outside of these Nations complained, especially our very own intelligentsia. They still do not complain about the communists and their excesses. Now look at our own nation and the laws they espouse. One cannot conduct a Christian prayer within our Nation's military, our Schools, and all Government, as it might offend one person. They do the Orwellian thing in all of their rules. Everything is accomplished with the courts or by fiat, not votes. Gays are considered a protected species/oppressed minority; it is a hate crime to even say differently? You must accept their business, even if what they do is repugnant to you and for the previous thousands of years to society as a whole. I read that now you will have to hire previous Felons, another soon to be protected class. Illegals, another protected class. Although I find Abortion repugnant, I have to help subsidize it with my taxes or go to jail. Gun proponents are being transposed into the same arena as pedophiles. If you are Christian, forget about it; you are responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, American slavery, and the massacres of the American Indian. School Teachers are espousing all of the above. The Media is no longer independent. What is left for those of us who believe in individual responsibility and limited Government?

So the bottom line is, we already have two countries within this one, we are just waiting for an articulate leader to recognize this fact, organize and complete this schism; I pray nonviolently. I also know this missive was kind of disjointed, but it is my thoughts, I also wish I was as articulate as TAM and others.

DEB wrote:I also know this missive was kind of disjointed, but it is my thoughts, I also wish I was as articulate as TAM and others.

You're eloquent enough to get your point across and spot on with your observations.

I think we are running full tilt towards a civil war, the outcome of which is highly questionsble for all. Not a pleasant thought at all.

baldeagle wrote:It seems that liberals really do want a civil war. They won't be content until they get one.

And in a weird twist on the usual motives, they're intent on fighting it to reduce their freedoms. Usually these things are fought to overthrow tyrants, not install them.