TexasCHLforum.com

HGWC wrote:

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.

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.

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.

HGWC wrote:

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.

You are, first of all, "talking" to the owner of this board, so show some respect. Secondly, you are "talking" to the man most responsible for the passage of what laws we do have in regards to concealed carry. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find a better advocate of the 2nd Amendment or a man who better understands the political realities involved in us exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

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.

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.

HGWC wrote:

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.

Not me, fella. Charles is the owner. I do respect him. He has given me countless reasons to. Have you?

HGWC wrote:

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.

I didn't say you had to agree with him. I simply suggested you listen to him. He knows what he is talking about. If you decide to leave, that is your choice. I wish you the best at finding whatever it may be that you're looking for.

Some people's kids!

HGWC, I owe you an apology. After typing my last post, I took a couple of minutes to think about what I typed in both of my earlier posts, and how it would read to someone else. It comes across as a personal attack, and I did not mean for my posts to have that tone.

Again, I apologize for the way I said what I did. I will now bow out of this thread. Everyone please have a nice day.

HGWC wrote:
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.

HGWC, should you decide to stick around awhile, I wish to offer this:

Lately we have had quite a few folks showing up here and expressing extremely strong personalities, attitudes, and expressing their views in a manner that some would consider impolite. I have noticed Mr. Cotton several times having to "counsel" them in the proper use of this forum. If you had been around lurking or knew some history one issue Mr. Cotton will not tolerate is professing anarchy in any form.

New members clearly have much to offer to others on this forum. We might not agree with you, but you certainly will find out who does and does not.

One thing we would like to see from new members is for them to learn what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Judicous use of the search feature and reading old threads will give you an idea of where to tread.

If you choose to not continue to contribute that will be a shame for us all.

Anygunanywhere

HGWC wrote:. . . 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.

That's the problem; you do not offer a discourse, you simply attack any effort to reform the relatively few problems we now face. In the process, you made unfounded statements like your assertion that Heller can be used in the courts to attack what you consider oppressive laws. When confronted with proof that Heller expressly said it cannot be cited as authority to repeal laws prohibiting felons from possession firearms, you than claim that isn't want you meant. You have repeatedly claimed that our current laws effectively exclude the majority of Texans from getting a CHL. In order for that to be true, then you must believe the majority of Texans are convicted felons, have a Class A or B Misdemeanor conviction within the last 5 years, or they are have been finally determined to be delinquent on Texas taxes, Texas school loans, or child support. You cannot possibly believe the majority of Texans fit into one of these categories.

Now, in this thread, you attack using statistical proof of CHLs great track record to remove some of the few statutorily "off-limits" areas to CHLs. In so doing, you contend that it's "counter productive." If you truly believe that, then you don't have the slightest idea how things work in Austin. This is precisely the type of proof that is virtually impossible for our opposition to counter. It is critically important and it's exactly what we have used used in prior years with great success.

You don't want to hear anything other than "let's repeal all gun laws." When you don't hear that, then you find fault and try to throw stones at anything you consider less than optimum. It's fine for you to feel that way and it's fine for you to give your opinion on what should or should not be done. What I cannot leave unanswered is your clear contempt for the work of others who don't follow your all-or-nothing position. I will not let you minimize the fine work that Allison did for us and for the cause. For 28 years I've heard more than enough complaining about what does and does not get done, with the complaints typically coming from people sitting on the side of the road while the rest of us are marching into the battle. Why is it that those who complain the loudest do so from the rear?

Chas.

HGWC wrote:
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?

You would be surprised! Many are under the impression that a gun in the hand of an honest citizen will cause that person to morph into a violent felon. It may not be a rational thought, but it's one with which we have to contend.

Allison, however, has gathered measurable data to back up the claim we've had for years, and her research strikes down the irrational claims that the antis have used. When an emotional appeal tries to tango with valid information, the valid information will win every time. She should be commended for her work in this area. Her work will be a tremendous asset during the 2009 legislative session.

I do believe that owning a gun is big responsibility. That entails the bearer of guns to be well trained and well versed as if he is LEO. Armed Citizen are in fact civilian Officers or least to say empowered to behave as such. This is how I understand the set of Laws and Penal Code of State of Taxes that do relate to CHL.

Now, if the state or Feds require background checks, mandate training, etc. It is all good and encouraged. The standardization of training and enforcing of the requirements will only make us better Armed Citizens.

B.

Welcome the the forum Beiruty.

This data speaks for itself, and the presentation is well thought out and concise...excellent job. Given this info I don't see how anyone could question the professionalism of a CHL holder or the ability of the law enforcement to make sure that licenses are given out appropriatly.

they don't list this info on the brady web site!

First off, I think y'all might have been trolled earlier.

And second, you'll never see this information anywhere near the Brady website, because it actually portrays CHL holders as law abiding citizens, which goes against their creedo of "all guns are bad, and no one should have them." The only way this will be shown on the Brady website, is if it has been twisted beyond anything resembling the facts that they really are.

barnez wrote:they don't list this info on the brady web site!