Hunting Forum

I would go along with it. I know there are some Texas folks on here who do not go to the Misc. Thread so I am posting this here as well. I would hope you will contact your Texas Rep on this subject For or Againest, just would hope there are more for than againest.

http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/...-of-texas/

Here is a web site where you can find and contact your Texas Rep.

http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx

I dont see why not. Fireman should also. They shouldnt have to carry if they dont want to but it they do why not let them. Look at the poor firemen that got shot by that sicko out east.

I HOPE AND PRAY EVERY ONE SENDS THIS OUT TO ALL THERE CONTACTS THANK YOU --- On Fri, 3/1/13, DAVID MCCAULEY wrote:

Food for thought!

Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!


"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"


- Darrell Scott

Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can.


God Bless

We need more Americans like this

I have read this before ,but so true it is .

Anyone who can pass a background check should carry a gun period.

Big dawg I completely agree with you on that. I However can not find in the Constitution and the 2nd amendment where it states the right to keep and bear arms, as long as you pass a back ground check, or as far as that goes do not have a felony. Reason somthing seriously lacking on all sides dictates, It is up to those who carry to defend themselves againest those who would do harm and use a firearm wrongly. Criminals are never going to buy a gun on matter the laws we make ligally. Criminals and felons are going to get them, so to thinking and believe back grounds checks are going to fix or stop it, is liveing in a dream world. So as londg long as we are going to live by their rules, just take small steps at a time, just like they are doing in banning them.

WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ckell

As I have posted several times we as a nation have strayed so far from the 2nd amendment that even the "gun" community has not only accepted restrictions on our rights that are not consistent with the constitution but do not even think twice about these so called "reasonable limits", like as you point out needing the government’s permission to "bear" an arm (concealed carry permit). However, on the felony question. The way that a right is stripped from an individual is thru due process. Therefore, if convicted of a felony or other crime I believe there is a case to be made that it is constitutional to strip the right to keep and bear arms from individuals convicted of a felony in a court of law. Certainly we could argue if it is a state issue or a federal issue, as most felony convictions are at the state level, but the principle of losing rights under due process is constitutional.

My 2 cents anyway.

jack

Well I am of like mind and feel the give them and inch they will take a mile approach on new gun laws is the attitude we law abiding gun owners should always stand by if the grabbers even see a hint of daylight they will blow the 2nd amendment wide open

Jack, I have to go along with felons losing their rights; but not just their Second Amendment Rights, ALL rights!!!!!!!!! There should also be no air conditioning, television, communal visits, or special dietary considerations while in prison. A jail term is supposed to be punishment, but too many of the criminals actually are better off in prison than they would be on the outside. Convicted felons gave up all of their rights when they committed their crimes. The only people who are serving or have served time that I feel should be spared some of the punishment, are the ones convicted on petty drug charges, when they are only guilty of possession or smoking pot, not dealing or messing with hardcore narcotics.

Ron I think you know my post well enough to know I do not, would not advocate for a felon owning any weapon, much less a gun. When the Constittion was written, most everybody know everybody in their comunity. If somone was so bad a person they could not be trusted with a gun, they usually were hung. However I do believe they have made Felons out of people who would actualy never harm anyone. It is the same on both side of the political fence. They make a law that prohibits somthing, find that people still do it, so they keep makeing the punishment more harsh, it never solves the problem just makes more criminals. It was common place in that time to use drugs that are concidered a felony now days. Look at the real reason(s) many of those drugs were outlawed. It was not actualy for the protection of the users or families and such. It was for political and racal reasons having nothing to do with anyones safty.
The liberals want gun ownership prohibited, at face value background checks sound reasonable, but once they get that, what will they put on the list of reasons to prohibit a larger number of people.
As far as the Constitution, I did not see any where in it, that allows the stripping of the rights of any one. In those days if your crime was bad enough they hung you, or it was concidered dept paid once you were released. Maybe not in the comunity you were in, but there were no national data base ,you could move away and start a new life. What they did with that new life was up to them, go on to be an upstanding citizen in a new comunity or end up hung. The 8th and 9th Amendments deal with Punishments and the rights. Hanging was a common form of punishment in those day, so it is fair to say it was not concidered cruel and unusal by the Founders. For lesser crimes they recieved their punishment and were free to go with all rights, once paid.
Now days they put killers back on the street tell them you can not own a gun. But will allow them to have a car that can be a deadly weapon as much as a gun,. They may own a bow, knife, baseball bat any number of other things that can be deadly weapons but not a gun. Why is that ?  And that is some what my point why out of all the other things is a gun prohibited, sounds good and reasonable at face value. If you cannot be trusted you can not be trusted, and measure should be taken you never have the oppertunity to harm anyone again, and not having a gun does not insure that.

Well said Ahoffman. It has been said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In times of high emotion, many things seem good, rational and reasonable at face value, but look a little deeper you will find the problems with and in it. We have seen to over the years allowed our rights to be slowly eroded away by small things we may not do and feel it is justifed for those who do, without ever thinking ours may be next at the whim of some one saying that is reasonable.

Swift and fair justice and punishment are missing these days guys kill and are released after a few years today's felons are beating the systems because of the Liberals and bleeding hearts bring back the death penalty no more appeals more more jailhouse perks hell if a guy is for sure guilty shot them on the spot

Every right thinking law abiding Citizen shud.....why not EMT's???

TIT I agree with you, But who defines right thinking and law bidding, who's laws. There are alot of good Christain people out there I would not trust my life with and their idea of right thinking. More people have been disarmed and killed in the name of God than perhaps any other thing, along with other good intentions by good intentioned people and ideas. Fear anyone who proposes to take the rights of anyone or group for any reason in the name of God or good intentions. Many innocent people have been, imprisoned and killed by "right thinking people".

Healey so true. But even that must very carefully applied.

"GOD is on our side" is why the North won the War Between the States.....and WWI and WWII and the Indian Wars against savages and......Charlamange was converted by a Christian{1}*****.....

To clarify my position, I said an argument could be made to strip a right if convicted of a felony. I did not say I thought that is was a good idea to do so. Ckell you and I are really in full agreement except on the fine point of whether or not the constitution allows for stripping of rights via due process. I think our disagreement however is a matter of semantics because when you said "As far as the Constitution, I did not see anywhere in it, that allows the stripping of the rights of any one. In those days if your crime was bad enough they hung you,..." you do not appear to see hanging (the taking of someone’s life after due process) as taking away a right of theirs. From my point of view, you just stripped them of their basic right to life. I agree that all felons (especially all the stupid felony laws we have on the books these days) should be stripped of their right to own a gun and I agree that once released from prison (or off parole or whatever the court imposed as a penalty) one should be considered to have paid their debt and all rights fully restored.

Hope this clarifies my position.

jack