Return to “Greg Abbott and OC”
I made the assumption (possibly incorrectly) that you were/are an OCT member.paxton25 wrote:What leadership am I under? I am my own man.RoyGBiv wrote:I'll fight along side you, but not under the same leadership. Not until the tactics stop scaring my neighbors.
Thanks for saying this better than I did.srothstein wrote:Paxton25,
I think you are asking for something that is not how politics in general works. I think when any politician makes a statement on an issue, they are telling people what their policy will be. When the governor makes a statement that he will sign a bill, he has just told all of the legislators that he expects to see the bill passed. This is especially true when the statement is made in public and to the media. Abbott just told all of the legislators that this bill is important to him, and did it in a manner that keeps them working with him on other issues also.
Think about how things could go if Abbott went to someone and said I expect this bill to be passed. He could get it done, but it would cost him some other bill. If he did like you proposed and said in public that he wants this bill passed, it would set up a situation where someone would oppose it just to set up a confrontation with him for other purposes.
This statement lets everyone know that the bill is one of his priorities while avoiding the outright costs. It also removes one argument against it, which is that it would never get signed anyway. Good politicians are rarely as blunt as you or I would be, and whether you support him or oppose him, no one can say Abbott is not a good politician.
I read the tone of what you wrote above (full throated advocate) and lastly below (simply saying these are my priorities) as being very different. If you intended something different, I'll chalk it up to the nuances of communicating in this format... but.. to me... "full throated" would require spending chips.paxton25 wrote:OK here's a quote below. It will take some time to get used to it so please go easy until it is habit! No, the chips points didn't sail over my head. I just don't agree with the analogy, the only time politics is a zero sum game is at election time. When simply coming out and saying "these are my priorities this legislative session and I urge the legislature to pass bills in support of these priorities" he doesn't have to cash in a lot of chips. Yes there was the whole "we the people" platform when he was running but most of that was just do nothing fluff.RoyGBiv wrote:Apparently my "limited number of chips" points sailed over your head.paxton25 wrote:And that's precisely where his leadership needs to come in. To be a full throated advocate for gun rights instead of just indicating that if it happens it happens. It's easy to do the right thing when no one is looking. Harder so when the spotlight is on you. I have great hope for Abbott as well as great concerns considering his vacillations and tendency to fence ride.
RoyGBiv wrote:If you take a look at all the things Abbott wants to accomplish, then look at how the process works, then consider how many political "chips" a first-term Governor has to work with, then prioritize and distribute those "chips" among the various priorities... The thing that makes me sad is that a year ago, before Starbucks, Chipotle and Target, Open Carry needed fewer "Chips" to get through the legislature. Now, a Governor Abbott will need to consider how many chips he can spend on OC in light of the more difficult path it's on, vs. other priorities that will have a less-contentious path through the legislature.paxton25 wrote:As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.
I am also optimistic in this regard.anygunanywhere wrote:I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.
(aside: we generally add new comments below quoted comments here. I'm with you on commenting above as a habit, but, following local conventions makes it easier to follow along sometimes... )
Apparently my "limited number of chips" points sailed over your head.paxton25 wrote:And that's precisely where his leadership needs to come in. To be a full throated advocate for gun rights instead of just indicating that if it happens it happens. It's easy to do the right thing when no one is looking. Harder so when the spotlight is on you. I have great hope for Abbott as well as great concerns considering his vacillations and tendency to fence ride.
RoyGBiv wrote:If you take a look at all the things Abbott wants to accomplish, then look at how the process works, then consider how many political "chips" a first-term Governor has to work with, then prioritize and distribute those "chips" among the various priorities... The thing that makes me sad is that a year ago, before Starbucks, Chipotle and Target, Open Carry needed fewer "Chips" to get through the legislature. Now, a Governor Abbott will need to consider how many chips he can spend on OC in light of the more difficult path it's on, vs. other priorities that will have a less-contentious path through the legislature.paxton25 wrote:As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.
I am also optimistic in this regard.anygunanywhere wrote:I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.
If you take a look at all the things Abbott wants to accomplish, then look at how the process works, then consider how many political "chips" a first-term Governor has to work with, then prioritize and distribute those "chips" among the various priorities... The thing that makes me sad is that a year ago, before Starbucks, Chipotle and Target, Open Carry needed fewer "Chips" to get through the legislature. Now, a Governor Abbott will need to consider how many chips he can spend on OC in light of the more difficult path it's on, vs. other priorities that will have a less-contentious path through the legislature.paxton25 wrote:As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.
I am also optimistic in this regard.anygunanywhere wrote:I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.
I also subscribe to this line of reasoning. It may not be legislatively possible to enact it, but if Whole Foods can ban me for Concealed Carry, I want to put up a sign on my business banning all Whole Foods employees. And Progressives. Unless they have a CHL.Charlies.Contingency wrote:That's exactly how I see it. Why am I gettin barred from a place because they don't like something about me, when I have done no wrong. Should we bar people from places because of the type of shoes they wear, or they carry a legally possesed item that the owner dislikes, no. The only exeption to me is private property such as a habitation, or other non "publicly accessable" property, which can bar you anyway, unless you are a peace officer.ralewis wrote:Seems to me this is where the debate ought to be. 2 Kinds of Private property. The concept of a "Public Accommodation" is different than your house. My opinion (as a small business owner subject to various laws/regulations) is it's a very different thing excluding certain kinds of people from a "Public Accommodation" vs. personal private property. I can exclude people from my house with green ears, but perhaps not my business...txglock21 wrote:Dragonfighter wrote:And THAT is the ONLY argument that can be made, and I agree if there's limited access (controlled entry, non-commercial property). But when you allow anybody and everybody to enter and exit your "private property" with absolutely no access control (read as: any thug that wants to come in, can) then THOSE types of public "private property" should have there ability to forbid the law abiding access curtailed.srothstein wrote:This is actually easy to explain. If it is my property, it is mine and I get to decide what I want on it or not. I do not have to explain to anyone why I want to bar CHLs, just the mere fact that it is my right to control my property. This is the same as the state not asking you why you want to carry a gun, just the mere fact that it is your right.Charlies.Contingency wrote:I'm talking about the barring of CHL holders.
As long as we have private property and property rights, we will need to allow business owners to control their property. And yes, I do have problems with many of our zoning laws that already do infringe on that right.
Yes, I know I am in the minority, but that's the way I see it.You may be in the minority, but I'm right there with you. To me, there is a BIG difference between "private property" and private property open to the public, ie. movie theaters, stores, etc...
The defense to the argument seems pourous to me, therefor I do not see it as a good reason either. I hope businesses don't start banning legally owned tobacco products in their stores because they're against smoking. I'd hate to go to jail because I have a can of copenhagen in my back pocket. Though I've done nothing wrong, it's violating the business owners rights. (Note: SARCASM)
