TexasCHLforum.com

Didn't see another thread on this - Senate tosses gun rule change for Corps lands http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/se ... n-control/.

I saw that as well. Disappointing.

I believe that the anti's voted against it out of spite.

Jeff B.

Jeff B. wrote:I saw that as well. Disappointing.

I believe that the anti's voted against it out of spite.

Jeff B.

Yep. Hard to imagine that they could claim with a straight face that maintaining the ban on lawfully carried firearms on ACOE lands is 'for the children'.

The senate makes me want to toss.

RHenriksen wrote:

Jeff B. wrote:I saw that as well. Disappointing.

I believe that the anti's voted against it out of spite.

Jeff B.

Yep. Hard to imagine that they could claim with a straight face that maintaining the ban on lawfully carried firearms on ACOE lands is 'for the children'.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.

"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/se ... z2SwiJnaSg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So now law abiding gun owners are terrorists and we create a national security threat. Parading the parents of the dead children around did not work so idiots like Boxer have just dropped back to insulting a large percentage of the American population - the ones that own guns.

Can't you hear her talking to Pelosi " ...and you should have heard me - I told them that the bitter clingers were a danger to dams. He,he, he, he."

whoops
we always have firearms in our rv at coe rv parks
just dont carry concealed or otherwise


i better not got o ca

chasfm11 wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:

Jeff B. wrote:I saw that as well. Disappointing.

I believe that the anti's voted against it out of spite.

Jeff B.

Yep. Hard to imagine that they could claim with a straight face that maintaining the ban on lawfully carried firearms on ACOE lands is 'for the children'.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.

"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/08/se ... z2SwiJnaSg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So now law abiding gun owners are terrorists and we create a national security threat. Parading the parents of the dead children around did not work so idiots like Boxer have just dropped back to insulting a large percentage of the American population - the ones that own guns.

Can't you hear her talking to Pelosi " ...and you should have heard me - I told them that the bitter clingers were a danger to dams. He,he, he, he."

Hmm...I haven't seen evidence of drastically increased security at the COE lakes I have been around. It also sounds like she thinks that true terrorists will follow / respect the gun ban...

Perhaps she thinks that the small arms carried by law abiding citizens could be used to physically shoot the various COE dams and critically damage them. I wouldn't put that train of thought past some of those idiots in Washington.

This is a pretty tough session for a Senator in some states to vote to expand gun rights. Political reality.

I'll be grateful and relieved if we last through the next election without further limitations being passed. I would be happy to hold our ground this session, and advance in the next.

They can pass Obama care with 51 votes, but we can't pass this bill with 56 votes. Only in the US congress!

puma guy wrote:They can pass Obama care with 51 votes, but we can't pass this bill with 56 votes. Only in the US congress!

Like the situation in Austin, it's a question of motivation and desire.

puma guy wrote:They can pass Obama care with 51 votes, but we can't pass this bill with 56 votes. Only in the US congress!

Having the Senate Majority made the difference between 51 passing and 56 failing.