Texas officials want their own gun rights - rights that wouldn't be extended to other citizens.

[jpak]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/04/17/Texas-officials-want-their-own-gun-rights/UPI-20701303066976/

DALLAS, April 17 (UPI) -- Texas state lawmakers want an expanded right to carry guns in public places, a right that wouldn't be extended to other citizens.

The measure now pending in the Legislature also invokes the Arizona shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as a justification.

"Obviously we present a greater target for those people that are emotionally disturbed out there in the public than the average person does," Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt, Redit-moran-Lexington, told the Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram Saturday.

<snip>

"With that gold pin on your jacket, when you put that nameplate on and at the microphone, you make a target," he told the paper.

<more>

some morans are more equal than others

yup

[WatsonT]

1. Isn't that what you want?

Restrictions on guns that make it all but impossible for the poor/middle class to own one, but leaves the very wealthy and politically connected (who can afford/be issued body guards/police protection) well defended?

Seems like you would approve of this.

[jpak]

2. LOL!!111 I'm so evil

:rofl:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

12. Not evil, but you are contradicting yourself.

What is the difference between an agent of the state in the form of the police being the only ones to have guns, i.e. special rights because they represent government power, and directly giving special rights to the members of the government?

[jpak]

29. Special rights for GOP morans- who did not criticize Sarah Palin's Gabby Gifford target map

but now are scared of the public

they suck

yup

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

4. Dummies. They are at risk because of the public's access to guns and ammo.

[Taverner]

5. This is what NRA Republicans really want

They don't give a shit about guns being available to everyone, they want them available only to them

[PavePusher]

7. Uh, WTH?

Can you cite that?

[Taverner]

10. I'm pretty sure the OP cites that fairly well

[PavePusher]

13. Oddly, I do not see "NRA" mentioned once in the article.

Am I using the wrong decoder ring?

[Taverner]

14. NRA Republicans is a meme

As in any meme, it describes a very specific group of people

Not NRA Members

Not Republicans

But NRA Republicans

[PavePusher]

16. And yet I still don't see any evidence that this is at all NRA related.

No mention of NRA membership was involved.

[Taverner]

Whatever.

If you don't get it, then you are not trying to on purpose

[PavePusher]

18. Uh, right.

I'm deliberately not seeing something that isn't there.

Shame on me.

[lawodevolution]

23. Yeah we get it, you want there to be a connection to the NRA and if there is no evidence of

A connection you want us to think there is anyway. You simply want to make the NRA look bad because they are very good at stopping you from taking away my guns. Dont worry, we are used to this kind of dishonesty from the anti gun side.

[Taverner]

26. Did I say The NRA? No, I did not. I said "NRA Republicans"

It would help if you learned to fucking read, OK?

[PavePusher]

27. It would help if you'd point out the fucking causality link, OK? n/t

[jpak]

15. I bet all these R-guns-4-US-but-not-4-U morans have 100% NRA ratings

yup

[PavePusher]

17. And I'm sure you can cite that, right?

Please, don't anyone else do her homework for her....

[Taverner]

30. ...just like a broken record

the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?

And when you give this poster one, you still get

...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?...the link?

[Tejas]

32. So, jpak doesn't speak unless you say he can?

[Taverner]

19. Don't argue with him/her - you can't shed any light into the already decided

..

[Tejas]

33. Without a link, you nor your ankle-biter can shed light on anything.

[WatsonT]

22. Yeah if there's anything the NRA stands for, it's fewer guns

and more restrictive laws regarding ownership.

:eyes:

[Taverner]

25. Did I say the NRA? No - I did not. I said "NRA Republicans"

[WatsonT]

31. If so then they should work with our anti-gun enthusiasts here

as both seem to favor laws/policies that disarm the lower classes and leave self defense in the hands of the wealthy elite.

[Taverner]

34. If you ask me, I think all citizens should have full access to guns

Even if they had a Felony

But at the same time, I don't see any problem with a National Gun Registry, so that if a cop was going to enter a home, they would know how many legal firearms are housed within. However doing that will rile the Gun Rights Activists, after the bitter taste left by the UK (the UK had a gun registry once, and they PROMISED never to take away people's guns. Then a few years later, guess what? They took everyone's guns - and they had a list from which they could use to track them down. This is perhaps why when a Med Marijuana Coop gets raided, the first thing they look for is the customer database.)

If a gun registry were to be created, there would have to be something that would keep it from turning into what the UK did. I have no idea how that would be done, however.

[WatsonT]

37. Knowing the number of legally owned fire arms in a house

is of little use to a cop. It's the illegal ones that usually get them. All this would do is A) provide a false sense of security for the police and B) make it really easy to confiscate guns.

You say we should set it up so that can't happen. How?

The ones obliged with making sure it isn't abused are the ones we have to worry about abusing it.

Like saying we should have former sex offenders run day cares but somehow set it up so they can't abuse the kids, I guess by making them promise not to or something.

[Taverner]

38. "You say we should set it up so that can't happen. How?" Good question

And perhaps it *can't* be done. At this point there is absolutely 0 trust in between both parties (gun owners/gun control advocates) as both have had long histories of disinformation campaigns.

Yes, the cops will never know the amount of illegal guns in a home - and therein lies the rub. In all likelihood, guns used to commit crimes are illegal weapons.

The thought that keeps coming back to me is the Waco compound led by David Koresh. Most of those guns were in fact legal weapons - the cops knew it and that's why they proceeded with such caution. I may be in the minority, but I think Waco was handled as good as could be - considering you had a delusional madman with lots of guns, and no grip on reality. The kids who died did so because of Koresh, not because of anything the FBI or law enforcement did wrong. Same thing applies to Randy Weaver and Ruby Ridge. Weaver was responsible for his wife and child's deaths, not law enforcement.

But I digress...

The thing all sides should know is that gun control, except in a few exceptions, doesn't work. It does not reduce gun violence, and statistics show that it actually increases gun violence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. You most certainly did- without offering *any* evidence.

And that which is asserted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.

-1 to you.

[Taverner]

36. I said NRA Republican

Now, you can pretend this isn't a distinct group of people, who holler the loudest when minorities have access to guns. Yes, I know the NRA has had a lot of press-heavy accounts of getting guns in the hands of minorities. I know a photo-op when I see one.

But the NRA really has little to do with gun freedom. Look at the biggest donors to the NRA. Smith & Wesson. Ruger. Heckler and Koch. Glock (and I would love a Glock 9mm someday, just to shoot with one!)

But back to the issue - I am all for the right to bear, keep and buy arms. But that is what the NRA is all about - its not supporting the gun owner, but the gun buyer. Yeah, as in 'how do we sell more of these things?'

The NRA is the lobbying arm of the personal weapons industry. They are not 'the ACLU of the 2nd Ammendment.' No one is, actually. There should be a Hippie Gun Club - and I would love to start a chapter.

But it is not the NRA. They are the ones who send out the sinister emails when a Black Man is elected President. Even though Obama has never threatened gun freedom, the NRA keeps writing about his 'closet anti-gun agenda.' Those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about should get on the NRA's email group. You'll get all kinds of emails asking for your money fanning the flames of fear. Cute alliteration no?

[Possumpoint]

6. Do They Really Think

As a fat assed politician they would have the necessary reaction times to be able to respond to a shooter like the one that shot Gifford? I don't! They'd be another causality like she was.

[PavePusher]

8. Because that one instance is representative of the circumstances of all instances, amIright? n/t

[Logical]

9. Another hit and run. Yup.

[TheWraith]

11. Fuck that. No special privileges for the wealthy, well connected, or insiders.

Reminds me of Chicago, where nobody is allowed to have a handgun--except for the aldermen, you know, because their lives are more important than the average people. :eyes:

This guy already has security around him, and the priority response of the police any time he needs it, which I'm sure is a lot more than the people who live in the bad neighborhoods of Fort Worth can say.

[TPaine7]

20. Same as it ever was--it's the gun control way

Isn't this what you and many other gun control advocates (as well as many "moderate, middle of the road" types who pretend to stand above the fray) want? A world where criminals, politicians, police and people guarding the wealthy and their possessions are the only ones armed?

[rl6214]

24. Unrec for the normal shtick from you and

WTF are you talking about?

[benEzra]

28. So they want to be like Chicago and California, eh?

No thanks. If they want to carry, they can carry the same way that any other citizen can. Pass the background checks, take the training, get the carry license, and carry in exactly the same places (and with exactly the same restrictions) that the peons can/can't.

Sounds like Mr. Kleinschmidt has a very Brady-esque view of carry, just like Dianne "guns for me but not for thee" Feinstein.

[Euromutt]

39. It's a fundamental safeguard of democracy that legislators not be exempt from the laws they pass

There is, after all, no better deterrent to passing a shitty law than the knowledge that it will also apply to you yourself.

When's the last time somebody tried to assassinate a state legislator, anyway?