TexasCHLforum.com

Either the writer of this story was not aware of or did not mention a large number of people that simply walked away, or the tolerance of disarmament and security theater is firmly established even among those who should know better. It makes it even worse that all this was jsut so John McCain could try to convince us he is pro-gun rights.

Just wait till later on this year when we see the obligatory "hunting" trip (photo op) they all will be taking to show their support for the "hunters"...

Both sides of the aisle are evil, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, we (the American public at large) have brought this upon ourselves by letting the same miscreants remain in office for years and years. We (again, the American public at large) are so fraught with selfish consumerism, that we are too lazy to keep these politicians circulating in and out of office at each election.

But, then; I am sure that I am preaching to the choir.

There was no link in the post, so I'm not sure what the article said. However, the Secret Service was in charge of "Hall A" during the 4 hour session, and there was nothing the NRA could do about it. In fact, there was a suggestion that the NRA publish a "rule" that there would be no "open carry" anywhere in the exhibit hall. The NRA flatly refused to do that, so people were able to carry openly or concealed.

As for John McCain, I won't make any excuses for his campaign finance reform bill, or his support for requiring NICS checks on all sales at gun shows. Those votes earned him a C- rating from the NRA. But let's be honest about his voting record. Every other vote he cast was a "pro-gun" vote. He opposes the assault weapons ban, hi-cap mag ban and one-gun-a-month. He supported the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" and he was one of 51 Senators (originally 47) signing the letter demanding that the rules be changed to allow CHLs in National Parks, if they are allowed under state law.

McCain has never been my first choice, but he's hardly "anti-gun." When compared to Obama, there is no question who will be better on our issue.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There was no link in the post, so I'm not sure what the article said. However, the Secret Service was in charge of "Hall A" during the 4 hour session, and there was nothing the NRA could do about it.

Here is the link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _it_a.html

They could have told McCain to go jump in the creek. I am glad to hear the NRA didn't completely fold and that you have some confidence in McCain though. My worry is that more republicans will go along with McCain on "reasonable restrictions" where they would dig in their heels against Obama.

Edited to add: Please don't take that to mean i support Obama.

Frost wrote:They could have told McCain to go jump in the creek.

Then Obama would be President. McCain needs the NRA to win.

Frost wrote:I am glad to hear the NRA didn't completely fold and that you have some confidence in McCain though.

How did the NRA "fold" at all?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:McCain has never been my first choice, but he's hardly "anti-gun." When compared to Obama, there is no question who will be better on our issue.

Amen.

Skiprr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:McCain has never been my first choice, but he's hardly "anti-gun." When compared to Obama, there is no question who will be better on our issue.

Amen.

Amen, and Amen.

Much ado about nothing.

The pocket knife part was a little over the top. But everybody ought to take a chill pill on this one.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Frost wrote:I am glad to hear the NRA didn't completely fold and that you have some confidence in McCain though.

How did the NRA "fold" at all?

Chas.

They could have simply told McCain that they dont need someone to speak at a gun show who will require a disarmed audience. Then McCain could decide how much he really needs the NRA vote, he has the power to tell the SS that he doesnt need the audience screened.

They accepted rules that are not in line with their core beliefs just to have him speak. Its disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:However, the Secret Service was in charge of "Hall A" during the 4 hour session,

Sez who? The Secret Service?

and there was nothing the NRA could do about it.

Of course there was. The NRA had rented the hall: not John McCain, and certainly not the Secret Service.

The SS has no statutory authority to do the vast majority of things they do. They simply do them, and anyone who challenges or questions them is "detained" until the event is over.

In this case, the SS took over a private event on private property because of one of the guest speakers. The NRA had every right to tell the SS to take a hike, and the SS had every right to tell the candidate he would have no protection there. The candidate would be free to ignore the SS, or he could have also told them to take a hike.

It is a sad thing that people are so accepting of the "they're from the government, and they say so" mindset.

Not intended at you, Chas., but at the idea that the SS could dictate anything to a private group meeting.

tallmike wrote:Then McCain could decide how much he really needs the NRA vote, he has the power to tell the SS that he doesnt need the audience screened.

When I first read this, the "SS" first brought visions of jackboots and lightning bolt insignia to my mind. Then it dawned on me that this was for "Secret Service", not "Waffen SS".

My bad.

pedalman wrote: When I first read this, the "SS" first brought visions of jackboots and lightning bolt insignia to my mind. Then it dawned on me that this was for "Secret Service", not "Waffen SS".

My bad.

They sometimes act pretty similar.

I used to deal with them frequently on Presidential or VP visits from the telecommunications side. Most were pretty good people, but they have their agenda and you have to follow it if you want the visit. One of my managers had his first introductions to the White House Comm guys was during Regan's term. We met with the initial team and they were telling us they needed a big amount of work completed on (this and that) within a week. The manager stated 'I don't think we can do that for you.' I looked over at him with an evil eye, and then the lead WHC spokesperson said 'Let me rephrase this; We WILL have all of the items I mentioned by the end of the week.' The manager looked at me, then at the WHC guy and said 'Oh, I misunderstood your original request.'

Sometimes you just have to play the game to make things go smoothly and not make too many enemies.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:How did the NRA "fold" at all?

I guess i can understand why they would want him to come and put up with the security theater for a few hours at a single hall, but McCain showing up and creating his own personal gun and toenail clipper free zone in the middle of a NRA convention still disturbs me.

On the subject of the NRA "folding," did you guys read the interview with McCain in the June issue of American Rifleman? No followup questions regarding his desire to ban private firearm sales. I understand that Obama is much worse, but as it has been pointed out McCain will need the help of the NRA, so why don't they press him more on these issues? At least try to get him to explain completely what he wants to do and why.