Well, 290 is my favorite route to Houston, but as for your characterization of Austin –
eyes the forum
You are not backing up what you say by saying “I lived in Austin for 12 years.” If you lived in Westlake, you likely met a lot of materialistic jerks. University area, some very… ah, enthusiastic protesters. But two things:
First, if you never met anyone intelligent in Austin, then you were hanging out among the wrong people. We exist, liberal and conservative. Intelligent does not always mean “agrees with me and everything I say”.
Second, if you stand by your “nothing intelligent or worthwhile has ever come out of Austin” as well as “I lived in Austin for 12 years”, I can only smirk at you.
Elaborate on your claim or eyes forum again kindly refrain from babbling about it.
On topic – IME, while liberalism is slowly growing in Texas, I seriously doubt that most of those liberals are interested in more gun control. They might be disenchanted with the neo-conservative politics of their elected officials, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to give up their guns.
Could you do me a favor and tell me how you came to the conclusion that I am a conservative or that I’m against marriage? Before you apply labels to people you might want to actually ask them what they think about certain issues. If it makes you feel any better I’m all for homosexual marriages and against the banning of handguns.
They’re just an example of one of the many organizations that sticks their nose in local areas. I don’t always agree with them but I find that on the whole they do good work.
To tell you the truth, Marc, I’m not sure how that part, from “you” to “anyway” got in there. I promise it wasn’t directed at you. It was a thought left over from a previous post. Sorry.
The rest, after “honestly” was me trying to reply to your question.
The ACLU is pretty balanced in what they take on. Their famous action defending the KKK’s right to assemble is a pretty good example. They are a liberal organization, but they do a good job of keeping that out of their legal causes. The ACLU is not universally loved by the left.
I’m trying to think of a parallel from the NRA. Although they have pissed off a lot of pro-gun supporters, they have never came out in favor of truly anti-gun policy. They have leaned toward the “collective right” thing (the middle) mentioned by ExTank. Many, uh, enthusiastic gun rights advocates hate the NRA almost as much (more?) as they do the ACLU.
First, as ExTank has noted, presuming the 2nd amendment confers only a collective right to gun ownership is indeed anti-gun. It can’t be anything else. If an organization says there’s no federally guaranteed right to private gun ownership, were that view enforced, it would have a definite change on the status quo. And since that change would mean fewer guns in the hands of private owners, it is per se, anti-gun.
Second, the ACLU has gone much farther than “leaning” towards a collective right. They’ve made it explicit that that is their view. See ACLU Policy #47, which says:
This statement shows that the ACLU quite clearly believes the possession of firearms is not constitutionally gauranteed. This leads logically to the conclusion that extent of the “regulation” of firearms the ACLU thinks legal, includes outright banning. Their utter failure to ever speak up in defense of the private right to own guns in any courtroom, regardless of the regulatory issues involved, speaks volumes.
In making this policy, as you can see from the link, the ACLU relies on an “all or nothing” approach; their reasoning is based on the logical fallacy of the exlcuded middle. Further, the ACLU relies on a misinterpretation theSupreme Court’s opinion in the famous 1939 U.S. vs. Miller case. They make no accomodation for the Supreme’s opinion being issued in the light of the defendant’s failure to appear.
Goes to show you how out of the debate lingo I am.
Back in the day when I was active and excited about politics, and having heated discussions about the wonderful world we were looking for, a collective right was anything that was a right because “everybody” did it. More accurately, because few actively opposed it. That right could be modified, of course, by whether it did harm, etc. We have a right to travel at will, for example, but we can’t walk down the middle of a busy highway.
We have a right to own guns, but not Patriot missles. It’s the same idea as the old “shout fire in a theater” limitation. That limitation works for both my collective right and for the Constitution. What doesn’t work for me is intimidation. For example; Bill O’Reilly and his ilk saying “Sure you have the right to speak, but there will be consequencies” (paraphrased).
But for the excessive expense, I’d dearly love to see San Francisco’s ban work it’s way through the legal system.
Me, I’m eagerly anticipating retirement so I can enjoy an occasional joint, a right shared amoung my community. And as spoken to in The Declaration of Independence as an Unalienable Right.
Peace,
mangeorge
Really? Could be.
The dealer didn’t say anything about who owned the pistol I recently bought, only what the price was and that it’s in excellent condition. The forms were in his business name, as was the receipt.
Come to think of it, I didn’t pay any seperate transfer fee, just the tagged price, sales tax, and DROS. He could waive the fee, I guess.
Are you sure about what you’re saying, Unregistered Bull?
Anyway, it’s breakfast time.
Yes. It is. As a civillian, these are all the dealer owned semi-autos and double action that you can own: http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/
“Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice. Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.”
I’m sure. If it happens to be on the approved list, then it could still be sold. There are several MKIIs still on the list. They do expire in 2006 or 2007 though. Given current regulations now in place in CA, Ruger came up with the MKIII having a magazine disconnect, built-in lock, and chamber loaded indicator. After these specific MKIIs expire. Only CA tested MKIIIs will be available.
Thanks for the links, Unregistered Bull. I’ll give them a better read later, when I’m less distracted. All three of my pistols are listed, but I’m still fuzzy on the “used” thing.
I think I’ve had my general question answered, before the thread went awry.
I believe that my co-worker was sincere and there are plenty of liberals in Texas, but they mostly lie pretty low.
Same thing for those who favor some controls (not neccessarily liberals). The majority of Texans aren’t exactly tolerant of that viewpoint, methinks.
Again, thanks.
Peace,
mangeorge
Now, let’s talk about the death penalty. :eek:
Gun control, gun control, gun control . . . In Texas, is gun control really the most crucial issue distinguishing liberals from conservatives? Don’t they think or talk about anything else?
As a Texas liberal, Vietnam era veteran, airline captain, and hunter, gun owner, I have to remind folks that it was a BLACK liberal who introduced the right to carry law. Ann Richards could outshoot W Bush any day and was a hunter as well. John Kerry took time out in his campaigns to go hunting which is a regular sport he does. He is FAR better shot than either Bush or Cheney too.
It is wildly unfair to say that ALL liberals hate guns and want to ban them. Just because we have nuts on our side does NOT mean that liberals ALL agree with them.
:eek: That’s it?! Of all the important issues that divide our country, those are the only ones that have any traction in Texas?! I knew they were conservative there, but I had no idea the scope of their political thinking was so narrow!
I’m sure they aren’t the ONLY ones (I’ve only lived here for eight months), but they certainly seem to be the ones that get the most play in the local media and from local politicians.
And as spoken to in The Declaration of Independence as an Unalienable Right.