The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
That's not what he's saying. He is correctly pointing out that the Democrat leadership is anti-gun, and that Obama and his choice for Attorney General are extremely anti-gun, for anyone except themselves and their lackeys.Purplehood wrote:The fellow in the article that is purportedly a 2nd Amendment advocate seems woefully ignorant of political reality (Korwin).
Throughout the article he lambasts the Democrats as being anti-gun, and states that Republicans need all the support they can get. He fails to recognize that the NRA supports many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle precisely because of their pro-gun stances.
What a perfect way to alienate those Democrats that are "pro-gun".
I realllllllly hope you are jokingWe really need to give the Big O's reign a chance. He said outright that lawful gun owners should not be afraid.
. thats one of the administrations first order of business....aside from opening the floodgates on abortion.Way back when the Big O was elected a board member posted that statement. I just keep tossing it out there. The tongue-in-cheek smiley was missing.dewayneward wrote:I realllllllly hope you are jokingWe really need to give the Big O's reign a chance. He said outright that lawful gun owners should not be afraid.
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-91-10....nope, I am not any calmer about this....
We must be reading two entirely different articles.LarryH wrote:That's not what he's saying. He is correctly pointing out that the Democrat leadership is anti-gun, and that Obama and his choice for Attorney General are extremely anti-gun, for anyone except themselves and their lackeys.Purplehood wrote:The fellow in the article that is purportedly a 2nd Amendment advocate seems woefully ignorant of political reality (Korwin).
Throughout the article he lambasts the Democrats as being anti-gun, and states that Republicans need all the support they can get. He fails to recognize that the NRA supports many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle precisely because of their pro-gun stances.
What a perfect way to alienate those Democrats that are "pro-gun".
Yeah, you must have read some completely different article than LarryH and I read. We read the one linked in the OP. I'm curious about your opinion, would you please quote (at least some of) the parts that make you conclude he lambasts the Democrats. Since, according to you, he lambasts Democrats THROUGHOUT the article there must be plenty of text to quote. The article's subjects are H.R. 1022, its backers and the new AG. Can you tell me which pro-gun Democrats are endorsing H.R. 1022? My opinion is that H.R. 1022 is an excellent way to alienate Democrats that are "pro-gun". Thanks.Purplehood wrote:We must be reading two entirely different articles.LarryH wrote:That's not what he's saying. He is correctly pointing out that the Democrat leadership is anti-gun, and that Obama and his choice for Attorney General are extremely anti-gun, for anyone except themselves and their lackeys.Purplehood wrote:The fellow in the article that is purportedly a 2nd Amendment advocate seems woefully ignorant of political reality (Korwin).
Throughout the article he lambasts the Democrats as being anti-gun, and states that Republicans need all the support they can get. He fails to recognize that the NRA supports many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle precisely because of their pro-gun stances.
What a perfect way to alienate those Democrats that are "pro-gun".
but who's to say what gun has a "sporting purpose" and what gun doesn't. :(roberts wrote:Previous bans allowed banning guns at will if the gun has no "sporting purpose" in their opinion.
We allow the government to make all of the rules so they do the defining.MCook806 wrote:but who's to say what gun has a "sporting purpose" and what gun doesn't. :(roberts wrote:Previous bans allowed banning guns at will if the gun has no "sporting purpose" in their opinion.
