TexasCHLforum.com

texas1234 wrote:Why are yall defending Kagan?

I don't think they are defending her as much as holding onto the hope that there may be a change of mind. I doubt that it will be soon, or even sweeping, but there could be some movement there.

Here's a story I saw not long ago. It isn't apples-to-apples, but I think it applies a bit:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/ ... index.html

I'm not willing to write off any anti-gun person as long as s/he still listens to me, or will actually go to the range with me. As long as the lines of communication are open, there's a chance. I admit it is a very slim chance in Kagan's case, but a chance is all you can hope for.

UpTheIrons wrote:

texas1234 wrote:Why are yall defending Kagan?

I don't think they are defending her as much as holding onto the hope that there may be a change of mind. I doubt that it will be soon, or even sweeping, but there could be some movement there.

Here's a story I saw not long ago. It isn't apples-to-apples, but I think it applies a bit:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/ ... index.html

I'm not willing to write off any anti-gun person as long as s/he still listens to me, or will actually go to the range with me. As long as the lines of communication are open, there's a chance. I admit it is a very slim chance in Kagan's case, but a chance is all you can hope for.

You are correct and that was a great article you posted. My beef with the last few posts is that they suggested I need to be her BFF and a card reader to know how she is going to rule from the bench. That is naive and wishful thinking. Obama the most liberal Senator in recent history did not appoint her to the bench so pro-gun people could have a "teachable moment". I have an aquaintence that is anti-gun, he has gone to the range with me, but he is wired so that no matter what I say he still doesnt get it. There is nothing i can do, and I can guarantee if it were up for a vote he would vote against pro-gun legislation. Its okay for him to own a weapon, but its not okay for there not to be sweeping legislation that restricts everyone else. That was my point in my first post. If its an everyday citizen we have the time to sway and teach them about firearms and if we dont no big deal. If they are Supreme Court justice we dont have the luxury of them reaching their 90's and saying, "yep I now understand the 2nd Ammendment and I wish I had never voted the way I did"