74novaman wrote: It has NOTHING to do with how "pro gun" we are. It has EVERYTHING to do with the political realities in Texas.
Texas voters sent 12 democrats to the US house in 2008. Obama got 44% of the vote in this state. The republicans hold a majority here, but it is a slim one. Yes, I understand Texas democrats are probably more likely to be pro gun than say a New York democrat, but to ignore the fact a large part of the Texas population probably wouldn't be so friendly to CHL laws (if they even knew about them) is a mistake.
I KNOW Kommiefornia is not Texas, but if you've visited Austin lately, you'd see they have more in common with Sacramento than say, Amarillo. And the tactics of OC proponents there not only failed to help their cause, but caused the California Assembly to pass a law trying to ban even that slim sliver of their 2A rights they had left. Is that progress to you?
It has taken us years of hard work to get to this point. I simply fail to understand why OC advocates fail to grasp political reality. Mr. Cotton, who's been on the front lines for years, so to speak, has laid out repeatedly the steps needed to be taken in order for OC to become an issue for TSRA. If OC advocates are not willing to take those steps, accusing the concealed carry crowd "not pro gun" is certainly not going to help you. If you're willing to insult those who have the most in common with you, good luck convincing legislators who aren't your friends to back your cause.
This.I detailed, in another thread, how I best thought OC proponents should proceed, taking Mr Cotton's and others' recommendations into consideration.
It can be found here: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=34530&p=413426#p413426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Politics is complicated, and the TSRA only has a certain amount of political capitol to "spend". It would "Cost" More to dig OC out of it's hole that was dug for it last session right now, than it would "Cost" to get 2 very other important laws passed. Parking Lot and Campus Carry.
From it's "financial" perspective, it's all about risk vs reward. You can "Spend" less on multiple lower/mid-risk "funds", and get more in return, granted, at a slower pace, or you can "Spend" everything on one Super-High-Risk "Fund", and possibly lose everything.
I'm sure Dave Ramsey would agree
Enough financial references?
