<p>The NRA really bugs me. But, sometimes the ACLU bugs me, too.</p>
<p>“If you tell me one mass murderer about whom a movie was not made, I will put it back in my pocket.”</p>
<p>07DAD already proved me right. so back off." </p>
<p>Correlation does not imply causation. </p>
<p>No he did not. He showed that CA and TX have relatively the same amount (though Texas is still higher) of homicides.</p>
<p>"… so you’re not a fan of the bill of rights?"</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of the part that says my kid has to die in a movie theatre in order to justify some twisted interpretation of “A well-regulated militia …”</p>
<p>But, it doesn’t matter, emilybee. The people who live in Texas are happy with the laws they have and the people who live in California are happy having the strongest gun control laws in the country.</p>
<p>Why is it necessary to impose, from outside, laws onto Texans they do not want? The tenth amendment states that anything not explicitly IN the constitution is a STATE issue. I don’t even know what the problem is with the texas laws if the texans want their laws that way.</p>
<p>Could you please explain why this matters?</p>
<p>Both serve a purpose. Their spokespersons sometimes leave much to be desired. Charleton Heston has left a big void.</p>
<p>Poetgirl - because they know it all. and we in texas usually don’t give a rodent’s behind what most other states think but I digress.</p>
<p>If the Texas laws are enough to prevent someone from Baltimore from buying a truckload of assault weapons (or even one assault weapon) in Texas and transporting them to Baltimore where they will be used illegally, then the Texas laws are fine.</p>
<p>Tell me something, Tex, is it true that Texas might leave the republic?</p>
<p>poetgrl, I agree with you to some extent on the state by state laws. I only have 2 issues with it:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>With everyone interpreting the second ammendment differently, I wonder if this is a constitutional issue. THough could easily be pursuaded either way. </p></li>
<li><p>How would state boarder crossing of guns be controlled? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>again, not easy questions to answer, but things that need to be considered.</p>
<p>“Charleton Heston has left a big void.”</p>
<p>The guy who left the biggest void was Ronald Reagan. He wasn’t an advocate for gun control by any means, but he appreciated that bad things happen when citizens decide to act out using firearms.</p>
<p>Nah. we just enjoy tormenting the republic too much by coming up with unpalatable ideas to the rest in the republic.</p>
<p>I suspect we will accept greenmail though.</p>
<p>Was Ronald Reagan a spokesperson for NRA?</p>
<p>As of year end 2011, California had 35,000 carry permits. Texas had 519,000 carry permits.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf[/url]”>http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf</a></p>
<p>This does not seem to square with the argument that keeping people from legally carrying makes it less likely that others will be killed.</p>
<p>Vlines and I had the same thought about why Texas gun laws matter to the rest of the country.</p>
<p>what is greenmail? </p>
<p>ETA: Well, they just declared the law against concealed carry in Illinois to be unconstitutional. Of course, we haven’t noticed a decline in the murder rate even with concealed carry banned statewide and guns being illegal in Chicago. </p>
<p>This is why I’m skeptical.</p>
<p>[Greenmail</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenmail]Greenmail”>Greenmail - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>We are shareholders of the republic…</p>
<p>“Could you please explain why this matters?”</p>
<p>It matters because he presented his original assumption (that looser gun laws reduces the amount of gun crime and is why Texas has FAR LESS gun crime than states with tighter regulation) as if it were fact, which it is not. </p>
<p>The reason we need national laws regulating the guns is because there is nothing stopping the guns purchased in states with lax laws from ending up in states with stricter laws. </p>
<p>For instance, the guns used to kill the firefighters in upstate NY were purchased in Virginia and brought into NY illegally.</p>
<p>"It matters because he presented his original assumption (that looser gun laws reduces the amount of gun crime and is why Texas has FAR LESS gun crime than states with tighter regulation) as if it were fact, which it is not. "</p>
<p>I presented no such thing and you do let your imagination run wild. </p>
<p>It is known as musing. My only example is Illinois. They do seem to have a counter while we in Texas are not so worried that we have such daily trackers. It is all in perception.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, since I don’t live in New York and we have too many of our own murders to keep track of here in Chicago, I’m not familiar with any firefighters being shot. </p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl- I already acknowledged that having teachers armed would only move the violence to more unprotected places. On your’ other post, I don’t think that many of you are wanting to take armed guards out of casinos, or banks. My point is that if 99.9% of institutions that are targets for violence arm themselves, and it works, why wouldn’t you do the same to protect the children in our’ schools?</p>
<p>poetgirl, it was pretty big news, even down here in Texas.</p>
<p>[‘Chaos:</a>’ Gunman ambushes, kills two firefighters at New York blaze - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html]'Chaos:”>http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/index.html)</p>
<p>OT, what’s with the odd apostrophe placements, raiders?</p>
<p>^^^ A paroled murderer paid his neighbor to buy guns for him … guns he used to kill two firemen responding to the fire he’d set.</p>
<p><a href=“2 Firefighters Killed in Western New York - The New York Times”>2 Firefighters Killed in Western New York - The New York Times;
<p>Sorry, cross-posted.</p>