TexasCHLforum.com

Be interesting to see a followup next year.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/world/ind ... onvention/

Considering her upbringing, I will at least applaud her for being open minded as to why we "keep and bear arms"

Flightmare wrote:Considering her upbringing, I will at least applaud her for being open minded as to why we "keep and bear arms"

Her honesty is to be applauded also. Very refreshing especially comming from CNN.

Liberty wrote:

Flightmare wrote:Considering her upbringing, I will at least applaud her for being open minded as to why we "keep and bear arms"

Her honesty is to be applauded also. Very refreshing especially comming from CNN.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Flightmare wrote:Considering her upbringing, I will at least applaud her for being open minded as to why we "keep and bear arms"

Her honesty is to be applauded also. Very refreshing especially comming from CNN.

Just more liberal pablum. My niece is married to an Indian she met while doing her Ph.D. His father was Indian military and he is very familiar with firearms. We took him to Elm Fork and he can shoot the eye out of a fly.

The paragraph where she states that someone is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US establishes the bias of the article.

India apparently has a systemic process for crime information suppression. When we listen to the gun control advocates extol the virtues of countries with low crime rates, we need to understand the basis for how their data is establsihed.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... rime-rate/

chasfm11 wrote:The paragraph where she states that someone is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US establishes the bias of the article.

India apparently has a systemic process for crime information suppression. When we listen to the gun control advocates extol the virtues of countries with low crime rates, we need to understand the basis for how their data is establsihed.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... rime-rate/

The study that liberals continue to ignore has already been published. Crime in the US correlates DIRECTLY with the increase in liberal politics, liberal voters, liberal politicians, liberal governors, liberal governments and....see a trend?

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Flightmare wrote:Considering her upbringing, I will at least applaud her for being open minded as to why we "keep and bear arms"

Her honesty is to be applauded also. Very refreshing especially comming from CNN.

While she included her own bias, and some liberal talking points, she at least, took the time to understand and list the reasons we hold the 2A so dear. I would also like to see her do more investigation, and actually learn to shoot. Even if she never decides to own guns, or carry them, it will give her more insight into the subject matter. JMHO

chasfm11 wrote:The paragraph where she states that someone is 12 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the US establishes the bias of the article.

India apparently has a systemic process for crime information suppression. When we listen to the gun control advocates extol the virtues of countries with low crime rates, we need to understand the basis for how their data is establsihed.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... rime-rate/

That was the one thing that popped out for me. Even with the data suppression India has 34 murders per million people verses the US's 42[1] so it's not that far apart. Comparing violence using firearms between countries where firearms are allow and where they aren't is apples and oranges.

I'm not sure it's an overt bias on her part though. This is drummed into progressive's heads so much that it can't help but be the first thing that comes to mind. We need to emphasize the correct comparison.

[1]Depending on your source.

...and I should give a hoot what she thinks because?

Abraham wrote:...and I should give a hoot what she thinks because?

Specifically the part that I thought was interesting was how she made the connection that gun control in her country was not originally about safety, but control. That's a lightbulb that I want to go off over everyone's head. (Well, one of many light bulbs)

If we don't care and don't have the debate, then the tide will turn and we'll be in the minority. If we continue to challenge incorrect assumptions, then maybe we can get someone to think twice about being anti gun.

It worked on me. As a college aged kid I was very anti-gun. After having open discussions with people regarding guns, safety, stats, and straight logic (you mean that no guns sign won't stop a bad guy? You mean requiring background checks for private sales won't do jack squat when someone robs a pawn shop or steals from a parked squad car?), I became the pro-gun guy you're reading today.

Oh, that and shooting is fun as heck.

Abraham wrote:...and I should give a hoot what she thinks because?

Because she is honest about her bias and understands and admits where they come from. These are exactly the people we need to communicate with. We need to understand their thought process and morality sources if we are to persuade others to understand our concerns and reasoning. I came away from the article that she understood where these people were coming from and that they had a point. I call it progress.

We have come a long way in moving much of this nation's attitude about firearms and the right to defend ourselves. We have made such gains not just because of our numbers, but because our cause just makes sense and we have made reasonable arguments in reasonable discussions. Typically the mainstream media will present our cause and our people as barbaric extremist. She did not do this. When left to reasonable and non-emotional debate our side almost always wins.

Good points all, but I grow weary of trying to persuade anti-gun people...

There was a time I'd fight the good fight, now, to heck with em.

If they're anti-gun whoever they may be, so be it.

Abraham wrote:Good points all, but I grow weary of trying to persuade anti-gun people...

There was a time I'd fight the good fight, now, to heck with em.

If they're anti-gun whoever they may be, so be it.

I've had pretty good luck with people. There are some that leftist that just can't be talked to others that are just too emotionally disturbed to accept that guns have any business with a civilian population. There is no talking to these people. There is no sense in talking to anyone who won't listen.

Most people who are anti-gun believe so, because they just don't understand guns or the issues. Lady's and young adults are my favorite converts. I think by nature they are wary of guns and can see no purpose to their existence in the civil world. If they have any curiosity and a crack of open-mindedness they will jump at an opportunity to actually fire a weapon. I have yet to see anyone who given proper ear and eye protection that didn't enjoy their first time shooting stuff up.

Yeah, we aren't likely to convert the likes Elizabeth Warrens or Chuck Schumer to the wisdom of the second amendment. But there are a lot of reasonable people who just don't understand the issues. If they don't understand they will tend fall in line with Hollywood and the MSM. It is our job to help them understand. We won't win many converts by hostile confrontation but rather by reason, logic and being a good example.

Liberty wrote:

Abraham wrote:Good points all, but I grow weary of trying to persuade anti-gun people...

There was a time I'd fight the good fight, now, to heck with em.

If they're anti-gun whoever they may be, so be it.

I've had pretty good luck with people. There are some that leftist that just can't be talked to others that are just too emotionally disturbed to accept that guns have any business with a civilian population. There is no talking to these people. There is no sense in talking to anyone who won't listen.

Most people who are anti-gun believe so, because they just don't understand guns or the issues. Lady's and young adults are my favorite converts. I think by nature they are wary of guns and can see no purpose to their existence in the civil world. If they have any curiosity and a crack of open-mindedness they will jump at an opportunity to actually fire a weapon. I have yet to see anyone who given proper ear and eye protection that didn't enjoy their first time shooting stuff up.

Yeah, we aren't likely to convert the likes Elizabeth Warrens or Chuck Schumer to the wisdom of the second amendment. But there are a lot of reasonable people who just don't understand the issues. If they don't understand they will tend fall in line with Hollywood and the MSM. It is our job to help them understand. We won't win many converts by hostile confrontation but rather by reason, logic and being a good example.

Don't know about Pocahontas but pistol license records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an “unrestricted” pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Google this for yourself.