TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:It's interesting.

On their Facebook page, some people posted comments calling the group, "pretty slick," then accusing them of trying to strip citizens of their rights to own weapons.

VS

"We're definitely a pro-gun organization. We're all fellow gun owners. I mean, I myself am a concealed handgun carrier here in the state of Texas. We absolutely want our gun rights protected. We are not a pro-gun control organization," Gelinas says.

Anyone have actual facts?

I take this from the opposite view point. This is NOT court of law. In order to gain my support, any organization had better come with THEIR specifics, not generalized statements.

1. Where do they stand on the NY gun laws? If they are against them, what would "common sense" gun laws have done differently?
2. Where are they on OC?
3. Where are they on Constitutional carry?
4. Where are they on educating the the public that guns aren't bad?
5. Where are they on self-defense, especially SYG?
6. Since they are in Texas, where are they on less than stellar record of the last two Texas Legislative sessions regarding gun bills. Thankfully, nothing bad was passed but many good bills like the removal of many of the currently prohibited CHL locations that Charles tried to get adapted didn't see much daylight. How would their approach work better?
7. How do they plan to get the Federal obstacles removed for COE and the Post Office?

Every politician has the glib words at a high level. As someone said, the devil is in the details. I won't support anyone, gun rights organization or politician that doesn't want to talk about those details. Do you hear that, Mr. Abbot?

chasfm11 wrote: I take this from the opposite view point. This is NOT court of law. In order to gain my support, any organization had better come with THEIR specifics, not generalized statements.

I'm with you there.. And I believe I stated that earlier, to gain my support, I'd need to see behind the curtain.

However, we've got people on this forum actively acting against this person. In at least one case, attempting to cut of means of gainful employment. Perhaps that person knows something that I (or we) don't. I just want to know what the facts are before we crucify a person or organization. Surely there are facts if you're acting to cut off someone else's means to make a living. That doesn't mean, by defacto, that I'm handing over funds... Just the opposite.

My point is, before we make a strong stand, wouldn't it be nice to have facts rather than rumor?

The only "sensible gun control" that works is a firm grip, good stance, maintain sight alignment, and have a nice smooth trigger pull.

cb1000rider wrote:

chasfm11 wrote: I take this from the opposite view point. This is NOT court of law. In order to gain my support, any organization had better come with THEIR specifics, not generalized statements.

I'm with you there.. And I believe I stated that earlier, to gain my support, I'd need to see behind the curtain.

However, we've got people on this forum actively acting against this person. In at least one case, attempting to cut of means of gainful employment. Perhaps that person knows something that I (or we) don't. I just want to know what the facts are before we crucify a person or organization. Surely there are facts if you're acting to cut off someone else's means to make a living. That doesn't mean, by defacto, that I'm handing over funds... Just the opposite.

My point is, before we make a strong stand, wouldn't it be nice to have facts rather than rumor?

It's not up to me to search for facts, the organization that wants my money should be willing to provide them. That you must pay/join to find out who runs/controls the organization, should be telling. That those in control have espoused positions contrary to current should be telling. And on and on and on. It's not one single thing, it's the totality of information that is readily available.
Have you done any digging, what facts have you found that support your stance of straddling the fence? Have you proven that the information the ARPA presents is True? False? Can you prove that my concerns over this purportedly pro-gun group are misplaced? If you can't prove that those concerns are misplaced, should you be criticizing them.
And lastly don't include me in your collective. Speak in the first person, use singular personal pronouns and state your opinion, don't add board members, gun owners, etc as cover. I find your use pronouns such as "we" when referring to crucifixion particularly offensive.

chasfm11 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:It's interesting.

On their Facebook page, some people posted comments calling the group, "pretty slick," then accusing them of trying to strip citizens of their rights to own weapons.

VS

"We're definitely a pro-gun organization. We're all fellow gun owners. I mean, I myself am a concealed handgun carrier here in the state of Texas. We absolutely want our gun rights protected. We are not a pro-gun control organization," Gelinas says.

Anyone have actual facts?

I take this from the opposite view point. This is NOT court of law. In order to gain my support, any organization had better come with THEIR specifics, not generalized statements.

1. Where do they stand on the NY gun laws? If they are against them, what would "common sense" gun laws have done differently?
2. Where are they on OC?
3. Where are they on Constitutional carry?
4. Where are they on educating the the public that guns aren't bad?
5. Where are they on self-defense, especially SYG?
6. Since they are in Texas, where are they on less than stellar record of the last two Texas Legislative sessions regarding gun bills. Thankfully, nothing bad was passed but many good bills like the removal of many of the currently prohibited CHL locations that Charles tried to get adapted didn't see much daylight. How would their approach work better?
7. How do they plan to get the Federal obstacles removed for COE and the Post Office?

Every politician has the glib words at a high level. As someone said, the devil is in the details. I won't support anyone, gun rights organization or politician that doesn't want to talk about those details. Do you hear that, Mr. Abbot?

I think the situation, here, is that most of your questions would be appropriate for an organization that has said it wants to be involved in the politics of gun ownership / use / etc. In their FAQs, they specifically say that, as a corporation, they will not take a stand on any particular laws, proposed or enacted. While I think that's a pretty naieve assertion, it's what they claim.

From what I read, they want to be a social and educational resource, not a political advocacy group like most (I think) of the folks here are looking at them like. In other words, they want you to think of them as the Facebook of gun people, not the Blaze or Huffington Post of gun people.

With that, I'll go back into the woodwork with my popcorn!

Which do y'all like better, the blond or the brunette?

n5wd wrote:From what I read, they want to be a social and educational resource, not a political advocacy group like most (I think) of the folks here are looking at them like. In other words, they want you to think of them as the Facebook of gun people, not the Blaze or Huffington Post of gun people.

With that, I'll go back into the woodwork with my popcorn!

This is a problem for me:

Best Practices Sets the Standards : The types of weapons, ammunition types, and ammunition capacities allowed by law should be established by Best Practices, as exemplified by the standards of local law enforcement, private security, and top competition marksmen and hunters – never by cosmetic attributes. Basically, whatever equipment the experts deem most appropriate and effective should be available to any other citizen potentially facing the same threats

I don't believe a group that supports RKBA would want "experts" to decide what they should be allowed to own or carry. Do you? Aren't "experts" trying to ban hundreds of semi-auto firearms right now?

NRA is good enough for me.

As for having "experts" and "law enforcement" involved in this new organization, that's a flag for me. In states like CA, it is law enforcement that is preventing citizens from getting a CHL.