TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yep, they are irrational morons.

I wonder how long it took for them to call John Smith a hoplophobe?
It's as if it's the only >2-syllable word these mouth breathers have in their vocabulary.

He actually hasn't been attacked very aggressively and has received several likes. Hopefully, some within the group are figuring it out and will start putting some pressure on their leaders.

I don't think that he hasn't been attacked. The problem is that they remove anything they don't like from the postings.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, this could get very interesting.

Especially if PC §46.035(c) and (i) get brought into play . . .

I'm waiting to see if the Senate gallery or floor has a 30.06 sign. That would cause quite a political stir, as it did several sessions ago when someone decided to post them on both the Senate and House entrances.

Chas.

Charles, was it posted with intent to enforce, or was it just a political stunt and someone was trying to make appoint?

louisf1 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Yep, they are irrational morons.

I wonder how long it took for them to call John Smith a hoplophobe?
It's as if it's the only >2-syllable word these mouth breathers have in their vocabulary.

He actually hasn't been attacked very aggressively and has received several likes. Hopefully, some within the group are figuring it out and will start putting some pressure on their leaders.

I don't think that he hasn't been attacked. The problem is that they remove anything they don't like from the postings.

At least CATI hasn't yet. They've actually responded and some seem to agree with him.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, this could get very interesting.

Especially if PC §46.035(c) and (i) get brought into play . . .

I'm waiting to see if the Senate gallery or floor has a 30.06 sign. That would cause quite a political stir, as it did several sessions ago when someone decided to post them on both the Senate and House entrances.

Chas.

Charles, was it posted with intent to enforce, or was it just a political stunt and someone was trying to make appoint?

I don't recall any troopers guarding the entrances, but the signs were huge! The intent was to keep guns out of the galleries. If I recall correctly, they were there for only one session, two at the most. It was a political hot potato and the signs never went back up. Watkins may change that for this hearing.

Chas.

My concern is what additional damage they will do to all of the pro-firearms Bills that we want this session. At what point is enough just enough and becomes toxic for any elected officials to touch?

Salty1 wrote:My concern is what additional damage they will do to all of the pro-firearms Bills that we want this session. At what point is enough just enough and becomes toxic for any elected officials to touch?

In their nonsensical zeal, these guys have long since thrown the concealed carry group under the bus.

Seems this is not being broadcast online... ??

Anyone find it?

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senat ... 0/c570.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No media to display at this time.

RoyGBiv wrote:Seems this is not being broadcast online... ??

Anyone find it?

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senat ... 0/c570.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No media to display at this time.

It is, refresh your browser. Here's a link, not sure if it will work directly:

http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=938

Salty1 wrote:My concern is what additional damage they will do to all of the pro-firearms Bills that we want this session. At what point is enough just enough and becomes toxic for any elected officials to touch?

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=76208" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Looks like the damage has already been done. Seems like any news on gun bills will now permanently feature krazy Kory and recount the OCTC shenanigans. And that narrative seems to be creating waves in other legislation.

Kory Watkins WAS at the meeting and did testify. He supported both bills.

And, while he did get a bit ...errr... can't think of the right word, but he was very enthusiastic about gun rights being protected constitutionally and God-given, but didn't get too emotional and didn't threaten anyone except in the voting booth.