80 percent of Texans want ban on assault weapons renewed

[Judi Lynn]

80 percent of Texans want ban on assault weapons renewed

Majority also back law allowing concealed guns with permit, poll says


11:36 PM CDT on Thursday, September 9, 2004


By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News



AUSTIN – Four out of five Texans think Congress should renew the ban on assault weapons that expires Monday, according to a new Texas Poll. The law bars sale of 19 kinds of semiautomatic weapons that have features of guns used by the military and it outlaws ammunition clips of more than 10 rounds.

The Texas Poll found that 53 percent of adults surveyed own a gun or live in a household in which someone else does. Sixty-one percent favor the law allowing Texans to carry concealed handguns with a permit.

Six times since 1988, the Texas Poll has asked whether restrictions on gun sales should be increased, decreased or kept the same. In the latest survey, 44 percent favored keeping restrictions unchanged, the first time that sentiment exceeded support for increasing restrictions (42 percent this survey).

Gun control adversaries Jim Dark, executive director of the Texas State Rifle Association, and Dave Smith of Houston, president of Texans for Gun Safety, agreed that satisfaction with current restrictions is rising. Both said there is a broad acceptance of instant background checks of gun buyers.
(snip/...)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/091004dntextxpoll.9f4ad.html
(Free registration required)

[amber dog democrat]

1. I wonder whom they are polling

as a liberal , and a Texan, I don't want to see that happen.
The assault weapons ban is a cosmetic law that only addresses certain features like foldiing stocks, and supposedly , high capacity magazines.

Anyone can get these guns already. There are still pre ban guns being sold by private owners and the magzines are readily available at any gun show in the state.

I honestly can not see there has been a diference.

[MrBenchley]

10. Gee, if its only a cosmetic law

don't the opponents of the law look childish and superficial fighting so hard for cosmetics?

[DoNotRefill]

20. Even the VPC calls it cosmetic....

and they're not a pro-gun group.

[MrBenchley]

21. Still trying to pretend they oppose the ban, eh, refill?

Here they are discussing the "cosmetics"



http://www.vpc.org/

[DoNotRefill]

63. Nope, but you're still trying to pretend I said that....

when you KNOW I didn't.

[NickB79]

28. If its only a cosmetic law

Don't the opponents of letting it expire look childish and superficial by claiming crime will skyrocket when it expires?

[MrBenchley]

29. Yeah, but who's claiming its a cosmetic law?

The same people who are being childish and superficial by insisting they neeeeeeeed assault weapons...

[DoNotRefill]

39. The VPC claims it's cosmetic...

and they're very anti gun.

[MrBenchley]

50. Yeah, here they are discussing the "cosmetic aspect"

http://www.vpc.org/

[stepnw1f]

49. Eaxactly

I want my toy. Fuck the kid with a hole in his head.

[MrBenchley]

51. That sure seems to be the sentiment from "pro gun democrats"

For whom no argument is too dishonest...or childish....

[NickB79]

2. One question

Why? What good does banning bayonet lugs and flash hiders do to combat crime?

I wish they'd include a survey question asking respondants to identify the features that make a banned assault-style weapon. I would bet money that at least 1/3 of them would say something like "machinegun" or "fully automatic".

[amber dog democrat]

3. And an FFL covers machine guns too.

If I went to a gun show I can piece together most to the features into an
AK copy and buy as many hi capacity mags as i could afford.
Do the respondants to the poll know what is in that law/

I wonder.

Its not like armed felong are going to use a mini 14 with a parachute folding stock,
flash suppressors, and bayonet to hold up someone,

[Ohio rules]

4. The law is smoke and mirrors

anything can be purchased by installing modifications ect.
wink wink, nod nod there ya go, good as legal.

I wonder if this issue will be up for debate?

[amber dog democrat]

5. probably no debate will happen on this issue.

I am guessing the smoke and mirrors aspect of this serves legislatures of all stripes.

When ever I hear about a "pre ban" rifle for sale I want to laugh.

[slackmaster]

6. Misinformed people live in every state

I'd like to see an "assault weapon" poll that includes questions that test whether or not the respondent knows the difference between an assault weapon and a machinegun.

Every day I read and hear statements that show a lot of people think the assault weapons ban is keeping fully automatic weapons from being readily available.

A lot of people, including most gun owners, are very ignorant about the subject.

[One_Life_To_Give]

7. Headline not supported.

The poll and the headline are talking apples and oranges. Asking people about all gun control regulations and assuming it can be directly applied to the AWB is foolish. Actual support for the AWB could be anywhere between zero and 100 percent.

[redqueen]

8. Yes it is

The poll asked more than one question.

[MrBenchley]

12. The plain fact is nobody wants these weapons on the market

except the lunatic fringe...and they weren't going to vote Democratic anyway.

[Radius]

16. They are ON the market

Want to buy one, here is a link:
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/bushmaster308.asp

You are spreading disinformation. The AWB does not ban weapons, it just banned cosmetic features.

A nice feel good, look good bill.

BTW where are you positng from, city and state? Just curious.

Have you ever fired a weapon in your life?

[MrBenchley]

18. If that were true...

trigger happy gumps wouldn't be pissing and moaning whenever renewing the ban was discussed.

"The AWB does not ban weapons, it just banned cosmetic features."
Gee, if that was true, don't the bill's opponents look chidlish and superficial, sniveling about wanting "cosmetics"?

"Have you ever fired a weapon in your life?"
Yeah, and believe it or not, I didn't become dishonest and start spouting right wing crap as a result.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

32. Wish you had even one fact

instead of this right wing horseshit.

"t makes the people who wrote look like a bunch of uber left urban twits"
But only to the sort of person who says crap like "uber left urban twits"

"You are abrasive and narrow minded"
Want a bullet to bite on?

"Grow up and argue like an adult"
Not me..I'm going to continue to be an "uber left urban twit"

[Radius]

33. You are

not following the links i sent you.

The idiots who wrote the bill only banned bayonet lugs and other silly crap.

YOU CAN BUY AN AR-15 RIGHT NOW WITH YOUR VISA. NOW TODAY!!

There is no ban, it is all in your head young one.


Your plentyful use of the words sniveling, right wing, blah are drama.

You got drama, no fact.

I asked you all day yesterday and will ask you now, what is in the AWB you want to preserve?

edit: spelling

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

44. Gee, if there is no ban, what do you care?

[Radius]

53. I don't

own any "assault weapons". If I wanted to buy one this law would not have any effect on that purchase. You realize that right?

It is a idiotic law that is a political hot button issue. Plays well with the north east and ultra left, people who don't own guns, but mainstream Americans don't like gun control and will vote accordingly.
Not all democrats support gun control, by a long shot, NPI.

If the brady law was on the line, that would be different. Since handguns are what the vast majority of murders and violent crimes are committed with. You are aware of that right?

This law has no real effect, honestly my interest in just to prove you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Radius]

9. Devaluation

Pre ban firearms sell for much more than current rifles. Like any commodity this will change their value.

So if someone payed big bucks for a preban ar-15 it will now be worth less than a soon to be available ar-15 with the same features.

people equate "assault riles" with machine guns.

[sam sarrha]

11. Then show the Republicans the Money !!! have to bribe more than NRA does.

it is all about money, and not about making us safe.

The Chinese have something to do with this also.. they are the largest manufactor of these weaponds now...

[kwolf68]

13. Does not matter

All the pro-gun claptrap notwithstanding it shows that this nation is FOR gun control laws they deem sensible.

[MrBenchley]

14. Exactly so....

[Radius]

15. Pig and a pocketwatch

The public likes a warm fuzzy.

This does not legalize guns. It legalizes cosmetic features. Bayonet mount, flash suppressor and folding or collapsible stock.

Magazines were grandfathered and millions are on the market legally.

All these features either reduce accuracy or are irrelevant to the operation of the firearms in questions.

I repeat the only thing this bill does is make people who know little about firearms feel like they are "making America safer". It is a big joke.

[One_Life_To_Give]

35. Sensible is the key

Sensible gun control is supported. But the AWB was just bad legislation. Maybe with it gone we can finally get a real piece of Firearms Legislation thru that will have meaning.

For starters lets base the regulation on "Gun Safety"
1)So we can write regulations about people with files "accidentaly" modifying the receiver to be full auto/select fire.
2) Set the Maximum number of cartridges allowed to be attached to a weapon which will not cause increased risk. (aka Magazine size limits)
3) Establish standard test proceedure and limits for recoil on the hand and shoulder. (.44 mag Derringer)

And I am sure we can craft additional requirements to restrict the Tec 9 and the Sat. Night Special and most guns commonly used in crime. While leaving alone the firearms which are not typically associated with crime like the Colt Gold Cup, M1 Garand, etc.

[FeebMaster]

38. Sensible gun control?

1)So we can write regulations about people with files "accidentaly" modifying the receiver to be full auto/select fire.

They're way ahead of you. Reagan banned the civilian production of machine guns in 1986.


2) Set the Maximum number of cartridges allowed to be attached to a weapon which will not cause increased risk. (aka Magazine size limits)

There's already a 10 round limit on newly manufactured magazines, although not for long since it's sunsetting with the AWB. It was pretty useless for the most part, other than driving the prices of magazines up at least, since there are millions upon millions of them in circulation already.


3) Establish standard test proceedure and limits for recoil on the hand and shoulder. (.44 mag Derringer)

Why?



And I am sure we can craft additional requirements to restrict the Tec 9 and the Sat. Night Special and most guns commonly used in crime. While leaving alone the firearms which are not typically associated with crime like the Colt Gold Cup, M1 Garand, etc.

I'm not sure you need to restrict the Tec-9 or it's post-ban equivalents. I'm pretty sure Intratec went out of business a while ago. As for Saturday Night Specials, what's wrong with guns even poor people can afford?

[One_Life_To_Give]

41. Re:Sensible gun control?

They're way ahead of you. Reagan banned the civilian production of machine guns in 1986.
THis addresses multiple concernds. 1) The was a Chinese version of the AK-47 which was so poorly made that it would intermittently give full auto fire. 2 )There are people concerned that some of these firearms will be purchased solely to be modified to full auto.
By writing the proper technical requirements the unsafe condition of the first point and unlawfull modification without the use of machine tools can be nearly eliminated.

There's already a 10 round limit
As you point out this limit is expiring. It seems redundant to limit the magazine size given the point above about robust semi-auto only. But the concern has been raised on these boards, and this is one way to address it. Antoher could be that the pistol grip on a hand gun be given a maximum length including any clip which could be attached. As the clip extending 1 or more feet from the bottom of the hand could pose a hazard omn such a small weapon.

Recoil
The case I cited is a gun that almost no one could hang onto when discharged. Regulating recoil particularly in handguns is one way to effect the size of a weapon. e.g. A K-Frame .44 vs the Derringer in .44

The only reason I mentioned the Tec 9 was that it was the only Banned gun that I could recall being used in gang drive by shootings.

But the other part of this is that every one of these regulations is based on making the weapons safer for the user. Arguably it does not actually ban a weapon for a specific characteristic other than poor safety.

As for cheap guns. Cheap guns are the weapons of choice for crime. I beleive we can give the consumer high quality firearms to meet their expectations and the public safety concerns, while effectivly regulating the flow of these weapons to the criminals who use them.

[FeebMaster]

45. sensible gun control

THis addresses multiple concernds. 1) The was a Chinese version of the AK-47 which was so poorly made that it would intermittently give full auto fire. 2 )There are people concerned that some of these firearms will be purchased solely to be modified to full auto.
By writing the proper technical requirements the unsafe condition of the first point and unlawfull modification without the use of machine tools can be nearly eliminated.

Well they're still way ahead of you. There are a number of import bans preventing AK-47 clones from being imported from China. Also, the ATF considers any gun that is "easily convertible" as if it were already a machine gun, whether or not it will fire full-auto. The standard is, I believe, eight hours in a machine shop to convert to full-auto. Been that way for more than 20 years.


As you point out this limit is expiring. It seems redundant to limit the magazine size given the point above about robust semi-auto only. But the concern has been raised on these boards, and this is one way to address it. Antoher could be that the pistol grip on a hand gun be given a maximum length including any clip which could be attached. As the clip extending 1 or more feet from the bottom of the hand could pose a hazard omn such a small weapon.

Funny thing about pistol grips on pistols and in general, they're usually roughly hand sized. Not really much of a push for manufacturers to make them as long as possible. How a clip extending from the weapon could pose a hazard is anyone's guess but since you apparently have some idea about that, maybe you could explain it.


The case I cited is a gun that almost no one could hang onto when discharged. Regulating recoil particularly in handguns is one way to effect the size of a weapon. e.g. A K-Frame .44 vs the Derringer in .44

What will your standard be? Clearly people who buy derringers in large calibers are able to fire them without dropping them or whatever. I've never heard a story about it being a problem. I've even seen a video of a derringer in 7.62x39 being fired, the fellow firing it didn't seem to have a problem.



The only reason I mentioned the Tec 9 was that it was the only Banned gun that I could recall being used in gang drive by shootings.

You've apparently never heard of the AB-10 the Tec-9s post-ban brother. Obviously not nearly as deadly as it's pre-ban counterpart since it lacks a barrel shroud. Does it really matter what weapons get used in a drive-by? You could use a revolver or a shotgun in a drive by.


But the other part of this is that every one of these regulations is based on making the weapons safer for the user. Arguably it does not actually ban a weapon for a specific characteristic other than poor safety.

Safety. Right. Conveniently these laws will also have the effect of taking cheap guns out of the hands of people who are least likely to be able to buy a more expensive gun.


As for cheap guns. Cheap guns are the weapons of choice for crime. I beleive we can give the consumer high quality firearms to meet their expectations and the public safety concerns, while effectivly regulating the flow of these weapons to the criminals who use them.

And here I thought Assault Weapons were the weapons of choice for crime. I guess it depends on what kind of gun you're trying to regulate. I'm sure making guns more expensive will keep them out of the hands of criminals. We certainly know that no criminals commit crimes with illegal machine guns and that's obviously because they're so expensive on the legal market.

[One_Life_To_Give]

47. Cost +

We certainly know that no criminals commit crimes with illegal machine guns and that's obviously because they're so expensive on the legal market.

Don't forget size and weight. Not many crimes commited with 26lb weapons like the BAR.

But the real question is what is the best compromise to try and limit guns to the lawful gun owners and prevent guns from falling into the hands of those whom it is illegal to posses and would use it for illegal purposes.

[FeebMaster]

48. Oh I'm sorry.

So you do think there aren't criminals committing crimes with illegal machine guns? Sorry, that was a joke. Machine guns on the illegal market cost way less than they do legally. A legal machine gun is going to cost ten times what an illegal one is going to cost you.

If you think all machine guns are as heavy as the BAR, you might want to do a bit of research on the subject.


But the real question is what is the best compromise to try and limit guns to the lawful gun owners and prevent guns from falling into the hands of those whom it is illegal to posses and would use it for illegal purposes.

But you were just arguing for limits on what lawful owners could own a post or 2 ago? You wanted cheap and "possibly dangerous" weapons off the market whether it was lawful owners buying them or not. If you think you can stop people from using guns for illegal purposes I suggest looking up "prohibition" and "the war on drugs" to see how that is going to turn out.

[Nordic]

17. once again the GOP shows its absolute contempt for Democracy

they just don't give a shit what the people want or think.

They're all about corruption and control. Nothing else.

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. well...

when it comes to rights we shouldnt bend over to majority rule.

Your not going to get me to defend the GOP but I think its sad more democrats dont support gun rights. Its a right just like any other.

You may argue that well the AWB doesnt infringe on anyone's gun rights because its just cosmetics and we could still get those weapons, so we should just keep it.

IMO thats like arguing that blacks should have just sat at the back of the bus, "cmon they werent having thier rights infringed they still got to ride on the bus."

[MrBenchley]

23. Gee, what a phony analogy....

"thats like arguing that blacks should have just sat at the back of the bus"
What's especially hilarious is that pretty much every civil rights group around ended up on the NRA enemies list, and every racist around today peddles this phony gun rights crap.

[Jack_DeLeon]

24. I dont know what all is on...

the "NRA's enemy list," I'm sure there are plenty of so-called civil rights groups though that would like to do away with the right to keep and bear arms, which in my opinion would make them hypocrits.

[MrBenchley]

30. So you jumped into an issue without knowing the players

or what's going on....

"I'm sure there are plenty of so-called civil rights groups though that would like to do away with the right to keep and bear arms, which in my opinion would make them hypocrits."
I'm sure the NAACP will lose sleep over that, too.....especially considering what the courts have said about that so-called right.

[NickB79]

27. The NRA and the ACLU fought together

Against that aweful campaign finance reform bill a few yrs ago that Bush signed into law. Why would the the ACLU work with the NRA if they are on their enemies list?

[MrBenchley]

31. Did they, Nick? Be sure and show us the court filing.

I think you'll find that those were two very different lawsuits. Because they were.

By the way, one very funny thing...the NRA has been very loud to scream that the Bill of Rights covers only "individual rights" and not collective rights...but they were quick to run into court to claim their COLLECTIVE right to freedom of speech was somehow being impaired because they couldn't throw blood money around anonymously or under false premises.

And when they LOST it wasn't because the Bill of Rights covers only "individual rights."

So now they're trying to pretend to be a news organization to break the law. So much for "law-abiding responsible gun owners", eh?

[DoNotRefill]

19. So how many MORE seats are you willing to get rid of in Congress???

"The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it."

Gun control has become political suicide in much of the country.

[GizDog]

26. and the

great thing is that it really doesn't matter what 4 out of 5 texans surveyed, who were told that the ban is on machine guns, think.

[leesa]

34. Anti-gun control is all about selling arms and making lots of

dough off of frightened Americans. They scare you with violent teevee news, films, etc and then tell you the government's going to take all your guns away. Stupid Americans suck it all up and the arms sellers laugh all the way to the bank.

[MrBenchley]

37. Exactly so...

As to what the gun groups are about...here's an excellent piece on that....

"And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater.
Within two years, the Gun Owners of America organization appeared with its leadership roots in the John Birch Society. Thirty years later, the group remains true to its mission, a watchdog group making sure the gun rights movement stays on course, fulfilling its reactionary conservative mandate. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

Worth noting that the head of the Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, is such a virulent racist that even Pat Buchanan had to disassociate himself publicly from Pratt.

[derby378]

40. Why the AWB is incompatible with Democratic core ideals

Here's my take...

Preserving the reproductive freedoms of women - a resounding Yes.

Guaranteeing the civil rights of gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans - green light.

Freedom of the press, speech, religious convictions - okey-dokey to all three.

The right to associate with our fellow Americans without being spied on - Hell, yeah.

Access to a jury trial, including curbing abuse of jury nullification - it's a no-brainer.

The right to keep and bear non-hunting and non-sporting arms - hold it right there, buster!!

You see the dichotomy there? We Democrats are campaigning for greater freedom for Americans. That's one reason why I can't see why we'd turn a blind eye to one critical portion of the Bill of Rights in the interest of a false sense of security.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but we don't need tougher gun laws - we need smarter gun laws, not to mention smarter gun owners. I don't think we need to mandate getting a license for a squirrel rifle, like Chuck Schumer seems to indicate.

It's all about freedom - and freedom is what Democrats are all about.

So please, what am I missing? Let's talk.

[DoNotRefill]

42. here's something you should read.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040427

[derby378]

66. Great article - thanks, DnR (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

43. The only thing the AWB is incompatible with

is the lunatic fringe....

"You see the dichotomy there?"
Yeah, it's amazing that the same epople opposed to all those real ideals are the ones peddling this bogus gun rights crap.

"Maybe I'm an idealist, but we don't need tougher gun laws - we need smarter gun laws, not to mention smarter gun owners. "
I got to admit, some of the ones sounding off here are dumb as dirt...and dishonest.

"I don't think we need to mandate getting a license for a squirrel rifle, like Chuck Schumer seems to indicate."
Why the fuck not? We register cars and license their owners. Cuts way down on car crime.

"It's all about freedom "
By that measure--Somalia must be the free-est country on earth and Fallujah is a paradise of liberty.

[w4rma]

57. My gosh you're shriller than usual, MrBenchley. (nt)

[w4rma]

58. That is my logic also, derby378. (nt)

[AlFrankenFan]

46. wow

amazing. probably accurate, seeing as there are lots of gun loving republicans there.

[unionjack]

52. As an ousider looking in....

....I can only say that, barring hunting, it's beyond my understanding why any member of the public, save a criminal or a nutter, would want to carry a concealed weapon, own an assault rifle or in any way feel the need to possess a firearm at all.

How many died in England last year from gunshot wounds ?

And in the States ?

Why all the debate and the arguing the finer points. Just get rid of the fuckin things....it's that easy. There's no place for them in civilised society.

[DoNotRefill]

54. Do you really want to compare the US and England?

if so, instead of just comparing the gun homicide rates, compare the non-gun homicide rates, too. If the lack of guns is what makes England safer, the non-gun homicide rates should be the same between England and the US.

You'll find that England has far fewer homicides, regardless of the method used. England has less people killed with guns. England has less people killed with knives. England has less people killed with blunt objects. England has less people killed with bare hands. That would lead a rational person to conclude that England overall is a much less violent society than the US is.

So saying that if we banned guns, we'd have a homicide rate like England's is absolute crap.

BTW, you might be interested to know that something like 50 times the number of infants (defined as a child under 1 year old) in the US drown accidentally in 5 gallon buckets than are accidentally shot and killed. So why aren't we banning 5 gallon buckets?

[MrBenchley]

59. Still dragging out that "buckets" horseshit, refill?

"why aren't we banning 5 gallon buckets"
Because we're not all desperately trying to pimp for a corrupt industry, silly.

"If the lack of guns is what makes England safer, the non-gun homicide rates should be the same between England and the US."
Why? Because you want to pretend gun control doesn't work?

[DoNotRefill]

62. Nah....

"Why? Because you want to pretend gun control doesn't work?"

because that's how things work, silly. If guns are the reason America is so violent, and England isn't as violent because they've banned guns, then the other rates should be comparable.

[MrBenchley]

67. Makes as little sense as everything else in RKBA logic...

All of the United Kingdon has less gun violence in a typical year than a medium-sized American city like Birmingham, Alabama....

sounds like a success to me.

[DoNotRefill]

68. And all of the united kingdom....

has less knife homicide in a typical year than a medium sized american city...

has less blunt object homicide in a typical year than a medium sized american city...

has less strangulation homicide in a typical year than a medium sized american city...


That's the whole point. England is a less violent place any way you cut it. The tool used doesn't matter. But, of course, you knew that already...

[MrBenchley]

69. So fucking what?

"England is a less violent place any way you cut it. "
Too too funny....so we should allow the gun industry to set public policy AND not strictly regulate a product that increases violence because England has less violence than we do?

[DoNotRefill]

70. nope...

but it pretty well shoots in the ass the argument that England is less violent than the US because they've banned guns.

[MrBenchley]

72. Yeah, but since nobody but you made that argument

who gives a flying fuck...

[DoNotRefill]

73. Unionjack said:

"How many died in England last year from gunshot wounds ?

And in the States ?"

That sounds like he's arguing that.

[MrBenchley]

74. Gee, refill, sounds to me like he's discussing gun violence

And it's very noticeable you're still dodging his question with this rubbish....

[DoNotRefill]

55. There are lots of "gun loving" Democrats out there too.

it's a highly divisive issue that's cost us dearly.

[AlFrankenFan]

56. that's true

I should've been less specific.

[MrBenchley]

60. Sure there are, refill....

Just look at any online gun owner forum..oh wait, there's nothing but freeper type right wing garbage on those forums.

Well, just look at all the outrage among gun owners that the gun owner groups are spreading anti-Democrat dittohead propaganda...oops, there's not a single peep of outrage, even among those pretending to be "pro gun democrats" here.

[napi21]

61. I lived in Tx, and I question the 53% of people own guns.

I'd bet it's closer to 90%!!! Believe me, almost every Texan owns a gun of some kind! Most own a hand gun and keep it in their car!

Did ya know that it's legal in Texas to cary a gun in the open, unconcealed, almost anywhere! Of I remember right, the few places you couldn't were churches.

I'm very skeptical of this poll that says 80% of Texans support a ban on assualt weapons. Texans don't approve of any gun control at all. Who did this poll?? I don't buy the results at all!!!!

[Jack_DeLeon]

64. sadly no this is not the case...

you cant openly carry handguns in Texas.

This is not to say that in some places it doesnt happen, however it is not legally to openly carry handguns in the public, it is only legal to carry handguns concealed with a concealed carry permit.

You are however free to openly carry shotguns or rifles.

[DaveSZ]

65. This is hard for me to believe

[jack99]

71. Well it wont matter

Because in 25 hours the ban will be gone.
Jack

[underpants]

75. But but Sen.Frist says the will of the American people want it to expire

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/231440p-198730c.html

I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Frist said in his gentle bedside tone.