TexasCHLforum.com

Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.

I understand and acknowledge that. I suppose they can make their decision based on whatever works for them. I'm asking for honesty in their position, though, and not for them to hold an opinion based on an opinion from someone else. The NRA isn't the only source of information on gun issues, and may not even be the most reliable (especially since in at least three of the instances cited they have a dog in the fight so to speak, with Wayne LaPierre being at or near the heart of the issue).

Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:

HR4635: Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. NRA position YEA

Defazio Amendment to HR4635: NRA position YEA

HR2356: Campaign Finance Reform Act (Hailed by Sen. McCain on the Senate Floor as the "get the NRA bill!" Didn't work John) NRA position NO

Shays-Pickering Amendment to HR2356 that would have exempted political speech dealing with matters pertaining to the Second Amendment. NRA position YEA

HR2500: Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - Would have prohibited the use of federal funds to destroy national instant criminal background check system records within 90 days as required by federal law. [i.e. would have made NICS records permanent!] NRA position NO.

These were all brought to the floor and passed or defeated before Bell took office. Perhaps he didn't cast his vote for or against because he was elected in November of 2002 and took office in 2003. These were all passed in 2001 or 2002.

HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO

Actually, this amendment was to prevent BLM from using Federal funds for baiting bears onto Federal lands for hunting purposes. Maybe the bears should be hunted on their natural ranges...

Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.

Actually, it would allow suits brought specifically on the basis of the manufacturers or sellers of firearms negligently allowing the firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. That usually means that a seller or manufacturer must take reasonable measures to ensure that the firearms they sell or make are not sold to or stolen by criminals. The bill as it was written would have prevented lawsuits against sellers or manufacturers even when they were negligent in their storage or selling practices.

Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO

The Sanchez amendment would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective." Perhaps the specific language of the amendment could have been modified to change "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." to language that was more appropriate, but I really don't feel that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives is such a bad thing.

I will agree however that he voted to not revoke the gun ban in D.C., so I'll give you one of those votes. The others (voting against blanket immunity to gun manufacturers, against bear baiting and against druggies & mental defectives having guns).

But my count is quite different than yours, even giving you the votes as cast being "against gun owners." The count as you posted was actually only four (4) times "against," not six, and it doesn't really look to me like four against. More realistically from my viewpoint it was one for gun owners, one against gun owners, one against bear baiting using Federal funds, one against blanket immunity to lawsuits, and one for not allowing lawsuit immunity to people selling guns to those forbidden by Federal law from owning guns.

Using your logic, I guess the NRA is in favor of blanket immunity for gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits, using Federal funds to enhance personal enjoyment of bear hunting on Federal lands, and in favor of putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives.

shootthesheet wrote:I said I was going to stick to CHL and gun related issues only. So, I will try to relate this to guns as much as I can.

I remember not long ago when the Democrats ran to other states to try to avoid votes on conservative issues. They made a big deal out of it and the media ate it up. I think if we elect a Democrat for Governor we will see that form of radical governing in Austin. We will see attacks on CHL and Texans civil rights relating to firearms in general. Mr. Bell would be a radical change not only in what we are accustom to from the Governors office. But, also the Legislature, from the Democrats aggressive pursuit of a liberal agenda. I think they would be convinced Texas had gone to the left and oppose every conservative issue to include CHL and self-defense. Also, we would see a vast difference in how the Texas AG interprets laws. Something that has been very favorable under Gov. Perry because of his requests to clarify issues. I don't believe we would see that under Mr. Bell. On top of that, a Democrat Governor in Texas would signal a shift national politics that could elect radical leftists in today's more moderate states. I don't believe we should risk our gains for the purpose of change. And if Mr. Bell is almost as good as Governor Perry we still lose in the "almost".

That's your choice. I wanted to provide information, not opinion. From many of the posts here, many here oppose Chris Bell because he is a Democrat, not because of any actual position he takes or supports, and that's your choice, but please don't try to convince me that it's because of gun issues.

After all, it's easier to bash "liberals" and "radical leftists" than to understand them, teach them or convert them (but I think you'd be amazed at how many "radical leftists" support gun rights).

As to "running to other states to prevent a vote on conservative issues," let us not kid ourselves. Their leaving the state had NOTHING to do with any gun legislation. It had to do with a pretty radical reinterpretation of laws concerning redistricting.

The fact is, you don 't really have any clue as to what the Chris Bell's agenda might be other than what you have heard from your conservative leadership & friends. The overwhelming majority of Democrats running for elected office in Texas support the rights of people to keep & bear arms. Interestingly enough, they see this as a Homeland Security issue as much as a Contitutional Rights issue (armed people are FAR harder to terrorize, after all).

As to "states swinging left and opposing conservative issues to include CHL and self-defense" you make assumptions that are unfounded. At the present time, only two states don't have some form of carry laws. Some of those states are controlled by Democrats. Not all Democrats are from New York, or want to take away your guns (although you may have some very nice guns - but I'll be buying my own, thank you very much ).

I've noticed that quite a number of you dismiss Chris Bell as being a rabid anti-gunner. You might want to check out his voting record on that before you decide that he is, because his voting record is pretty good on gun ownership and gun owners' rights.

I won't argue that he's a Democrat (he is), or that he's liberal on some issues (also guilty as charged) but he's pretty strong supporter of gun rights (he voted for the bill to prevent lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for making "defective" products, among other things). In fact, he's a moderate liberal. Perry is only a little to the right of Bell on most issues.

From the Chris Bell campaign (with permission):

From: Adrienne Fischer [mailto:adrienne@chrisbell.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:12 PM
To: (address removed)
Subject: Re: What is your position on the 2nd amendment



Chris Bell believes firmly in the privileges guaranteed by the Second Amendment and supports the right of every Texan to own and carry guns legally. However, he feels that it is equally important that existing laws are properly enforced.


...


Adrienne Fischer
Grassroots Coordinator
Chris Bell for Governor
4032 South Lamar, Suite 700
Austin, TX 78704
(512)482-0216 office
(512)444-0216 fax
(713)504-4336 cell

John wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:As to it being a "gateway drug," that argument pre-supposes that it is illegal. When it was NOT illegal, use didn't lead to stronger drugs. Now that it IS illegal, it DOES lead to stronger drugs. Perhaps it is a gateway drug BECAUSE it is illegal. Perhaps the simple use of it makes users less sensitive to illegal drug use and that is WHY it acts as a gateway drug.

Where did you get this information? When it was not illegal, cocaine could be picked up at the store and was used in coca cola. I really don't see your statement as an honest argument.

If you legalize it, they'll be a hell of a lot more users and more bad consequences. Driving under the influence, minors, children, idiots.... you name it.

anyhoo... kinky doesn't get my vote.

How about here: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/media/schaffer1.htm

txinvestigator wrote:

Russell wrote: what's the difference? all of them are drugs, and cigarettes are proven to be more harmful for you than marijuana is.

That is just not true. I love these facts without proof.

Hard facts are almost impossible to obtain on this topic. Those who want it decriminalized claim it is less harmful, those who don't claim it is more harmful. Both sides cite "studies" conducted to specifically support their claims.

Personally, I think it ought to be legalized, controlled like alcohol & cigarettes and taxed twice as heavily as either one of those.

As to it being a "gateway drug," that argument pre-supposes that it is illegal. When it was NOT illegal, use didn't lead to stronger drugs. Now that it IS illegal, it DOES lead to stronger drugs. Perhaps it is a gateway drug BECAUSE it is illegal. Perhaps the simple use of it makes users less sensitive to illegal drug use and that is WHY it acts as a gateway drug.