TexasCHLforum.com

barres wrote: You are, first of all, "talking" to the owner of this board, so show some respect.

That you are the owner of an Internet discussion forum doesn't entitle you to respect. Courtesy is the best I can do for you. I would have appreciated it if you could have offered me the same.

There is a reason we have two ears and only one mouth. We need to listen more than we need to speak. I would humbly suggest that it is time for you to listen, because we have a wonderful community who love and support our right to keep and bear arms , and we can all learn a lot from each other, if we aren't always fighting.

Marching to the tune of one drummer who happens to own the forum wasn't what I had in mind when I registered. Like I said, I'll just be on my way now.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You are dead wrong. Your attitude is counterproductive and totally out of touch with reality. The small percentage of CHLs in Texas has little to do with eligibility requirements. Overstating current restrictions is the political equivalent of "crying wolf" and it doesn't help our cause.

Discussing issues is a very big part of the TexasCHLforum.com. However, this is not going to become a bully-pulpit for anarchist philosophy. You are a new member and I think every one of your posts has been in this vein.

Chas.

Asserting that I'm dead wrong, talking about my attitude, claiming I'm out of touch with reality, talking about me crying wolf, this is what you call a poisoning of the well fallacy. Claiming that my position is anarchist is what you call a strawman fallacy. If this is the standard for discourse around here, I suppose I'll just be on my way.

It's been nice chatting with everyone else.

ScubaSigGuy wrote:Great info Charles. We need to get some of those bullet statements printed on the back of no chl / no business cards.

Thanks.

It seems to me that using this data in the way you've suggested may be counter productive to other aspects of the promotion of gun rights. Today, through a prohibitive and onerous set of laws, associated costs, delays and investment in time, only a limited number of the most determined citizens are able to exercise their right to legally defend themselves with a firearm in public at all. By definition of these onerous laws, it's not surprising that this subset of citizens have a history of abiding by the law. Using this fact to further the rights of this exclusive subset of citizens may be counter productive to guaranteeing the right to all citizens.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:CHLs have proven themselves to be responsible and law-abiding and the public deserves to know that the unscrupulous scare tactics used by opponents of campus-carry and other pro-CHL measures are refuted by clear and convincing evidence.

To me, this data doesn't say anything really relevant. We have laws on the books that limit CHLs only to citizens with a long history of abiding by the law. Why would anyone be surprised that law abiding citizens abide by the law?