TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting article.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-sch ... -hampshire" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw this somewhere else yesterday. Crazy isn't it? In one state they want open carry and are fighting concealed carry and then just the opposite in another.

C-dub wrote:I saw this somewhere else yesterday. Crazy isn't it? In one state they want open carry and are fighting concealed carry and then just the opposite in another.

Yea, it's really amusing for anyone with reasonable intelligence. 20 years ago, all the testimony was that not knowing who had the guns was dangerous.

In each case, Bloomberg / "Moms Demand" is simply doing all they can to prevent the passing of laws which expand the rights of gun owners. They are consistent, but the opportunities presented in each state were different. This is really no different than the NRA supporting expanded rights for gun owners across the board. Where NRA would have no impediments to citizens keeping and bearing (fire)arms, Bloomberg / "Moms Demand" would have absolute prohibition on individual ownership and usage of (fire)arms. Each works to their desired ends incrementally, and tries to focus their resources on best opportunities. The real difference in methodology comes down to whether their arguments/reasoning are supported by facts/truth, or fabrication/falsehoods -- i.e. emotional pleas over substance. When inanimate objects are demonized to support an agenda, statistics are cherry-picked and exaggerated, and talking points are incessantly repeated despite known falsehoods, serving the truth and solving society's problems are NOT central components of their mission.

Except, that I'm aware of, the NRA hasn't promoted one thing in one state and been against it in another.

Middle Age Russ wrote:In each case, Bloomberg / "Moms Demand" is simply doing all they can to prevent the passing of laws which expand the rights of gun owners. They are consistent, but the opportunities presented in each state were different. ...

This. The consistency comes in opposing individual rights where ever possible and aggregating power to the government. All else is tactics, which can be changed 180 degrees on as the situation dictates. Thus integrity must be dispensed with, and you can say whatever you want at the time to advance your case, regardless of the truth and regardless of what you said yesterday (or in the next state over).

And it very often works.

Thanks for posting this article - I face booked it.

Liked the closing paragraph:

Representatives in each state voted to pass legislation that was backed by the majority of their constituents. Score one for Texans for having a governor who understands the concept of representing the will of the people.

It should also note, "Score one for Texans for having the common sense to select a governor who is representative of the will of the people."

Jumping Frog wrote:Liked the closing paragraph:

Representatives in each state voted to pass legislation that was backed by the majority of their constituents. Score one for Texans for having a governor who understands the concept of representing the will of the people.

It should also note, "Score one for Texans for having the common sense to select a governor that is representative of the will of the people."