TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:First time I took my girlfriend (now wife) shooting she out-shot me.
So I married her.

Did she also take out a life insurance policy on you?

Dave2 wrote:Sounds fun... Anyone here wanna start a singles group?

+1 Though I think the female/male ratio is a bit low and the few females I see here are already married

Yeah, I've noticed that too...

Though I suppose we could have a civil, down-to-earth version of The Bachelorette. We might even have a better success rate (not breaking up after the season was over) than the TV show.

I will say that CBS is the only one of the "Big Three" to even attempt to do any reporting on the "Fast and Furious" scandal. Maybe they are attempting to capture a market segment that has been all but lost to them? More likely an aberration than anything else, though. And, of course, I did catch some of what TAM pointed out...not surprising.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I will say that CBS is the only one of the "Big Three" to even attempt to do any reporting on the "Fast and Furious" scandal. Maybe they are attempting to capture a market segment that has been all but lost to them? More likely an aberration than anything else, though. And, of course, I did catch some of what TAM pointed out...not surprising.

I think they learned something after the Dan Rather debacle where they were caught in bold faced biased lying and cover up. While I they are biased and to the left. I believe they have tried to show some right balance. They are the only one of the big three that have asked the hard questions on fast and furious. RKBA is probably the easiest for the mainstream media to embrace because it is the one item on a conservative agenda that has the largest popular support. A piece that has good looking ladies doing something that many believe is a man thing and they have a ratings winner.
I still believe they will turn against us when it comes to black scary guns, but any step forward is still progress.

The earth has shifted on its axis.

Wow, never really expected to see . . .

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ly-syNBE3Ro[/youtube]

Seabear wrote:Charles thanks for posting this. I will spread it around.

TAM I gree, however I will have to also say that however small a victory it is, or however small a chip we knock off it is good to see. I have been promoting All Female CHL Classes, and you would be suprised how many women like the idea.

All in all it's a win . Women can be more influential than men sometimes, so let's get them on our side.

Oh I'm not surprised. I'm an NRA Basic Pistol Instructor, and to date, all of my students have been women. I actually encourage women to get involved in shooting whenever possible. I agree wholeheartedly that getting women involved is a great way to remove the stigma from guns in political discourse. My main "objection" to this article ("objection" being too strong of a word for this context) is simply that the reporter herself was trying to convey "derring-do," "getting away with it," and the titillation of violating conventions with implied danger. It reminded me of articles years ago about women who buy and enjoy cigars—the implication being that they are somehow encroaching on the male world and getting away with it. That's why I mentioned how the reporter presents guns as masculine. It was a shallow approach to the subject and didn't really do it justice......particularly not the real reason for why women should become trained shooters—not because they are encroaching on the male world, but because a gun makes them the physical equal of a rapist or other criminal. She kept mentioning "empowerment." Empowerment for what? She never tells us. We don't know from the article if the gun empowers women to be more religious, to be better mothers, to work harder, to make better shopping decisions, to change their own oil, to figure out how to connect the VCR to the TV, or to defend themselves. It's a nameless empowerment, and we're supposed to think that "empowerment" is good. Nobody can make a determination about the goodness of empowerment unless they are informed what it is that the subject empowers a person to do.

If the article had delved into self-defense and discussed the legal/constitutional implications, it would have been a better and much more informative article. That's all. Even so, given that it is CBS in NYC, I suppose this is the best we could hope for.