Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:04 pm
^
exactly.
exactly.
TexasCHLforum.com
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Page 3 of 3
Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:06 pm
Guessing the decision making has been delayed to garner more anti support and see what the election turned out. That having an impact it may go our way now and require the Chancellor to push new legislation or it may go against us with the chancellor's support.
Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:39 pm
This is the first time I've ever heard of a online poll, survey or opinion that had more Brady support than NRA support. What went wrong?txgho1911 wrote:Guessing the decision making has been delayed to garner more anti support and see what the election turned out. That having an impact it may go our way now and require the Chancellor to push new legislation or it may go against us with the chancellor's support.
Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:41 pm
Liberty, since when do you actually believe what the government tells you?Liberty wrote:This is the first time I've ever heard of a online poll, survey or opinion that had more Brady support than NRA support. What went wrong?txgho1911 wrote:Guessing the decision making has been delayed to garner more anti support and see what the election turned out. That having an impact it may go our way now and require the Chancellor to push new legislation or it may go against us with the chancellor's support.
Anygunanywhere
Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:46 pm
Point taken..anygunanywhere wrote:Liberty, since when do you actually believe what the government tells you?Liberty wrote:This is the first time I've ever heard of a online poll, survey or opinion that had more Brady support than NRA support. What went wrong?txgho1911 wrote:Guessing the decision making has been delayed to garner more anti support and see what the election turned out. That having an impact it may go our way now and require the Chancellor to push new legislation or it may go against us with the chancellor's support.
Anygunanywhere
Re: Change in Nat'l Park Service Rules on CHLs
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:04 pm
Well, let's see. This issue has been around for 10 months now with no conclusion.
Just another example of our government not being too good at finalizing things in a reasonable manner in a reasonable amount of time. Oh, don't get me wrong, they can react quickly as proven by the $700B bailout plan. I was amazed that when it comes to giving away our money, they are quick to respond. When it comes to correcting a wrong, things take a little longer. In this case, long enough to see any hope of resolution ride off into the sunset. I stand by my statement from February that if a politician commits with no actual commitment, don't expect great things.
In this case, they took too long. With $700B to give away, they went too fast. In both cases, they got it wrong!
Looks like 5 months is a pretty good estimate for them to make a reasonable decision. Any less time and they get it wrong. Any more, they simply let it die because the political significance has waned or changed and it might attract too much bad juju.
I would pronounce this opportunity dead, but that would be negative and I promised not to go there back in February.
Just another example of our government not being too good at finalizing things in a reasonable manner in a reasonable amount of time. Oh, don't get me wrong, they can react quickly as proven by the $700B bailout plan. I was amazed that when it comes to giving away our money, they are quick to respond. When it comes to correcting a wrong, things take a little longer. In this case, long enough to see any hope of resolution ride off into the sunset. I stand by my statement from February that if a politician commits with no actual commitment, don't expect great things.
In this case, they took too long. With $700B to give away, they went too fast. In both cases, they got it wrong!
Looks like 5 months is a pretty good estimate for them to make a reasonable decision. Any less time and they get it wrong. Any more, they simply let it die because the political significance has waned or changed and it might attract too much bad juju.
I would pronounce this opportunity dead, but that would be negative and I promised not to go there back in February.