TexasCHLforum.com

On the heals of taking Kory Watkins to task for his inappropriate conduct in Rep. Pancho Nevarez's office, C.J. Grisham/OCT now attacks former Texas Governor Perry for Perry's position on unlicensed open-carry. Perry made comments on the subject essentially stating that 1) he feels the background checks that are part of the CHL application process are beneficial; and 2) he doesn't personally like open-carry for tactical reasons.

I'm not going to debate the unlicensed v. licensed open-carry issue; I want to call attention to statesmanlike activism v. childish insults. No mature, rational person truly believes one can successfully promote a concept or legislative goal by insulting or intimidating those who hold a different view. This is especially true when the person or organization you are attacking has a history of supporting your issue (gun rights) on a global scale, but differs with you on a single point.

In response to Gov. Perry's comments, C.J. Grisham, founder and President of Open Carry Texas, Incorporated had the following comments about our extremely pro-gun former Governor: "I wouldn't want that hair to get messed up. And, if your body guards aren't there, we'll stand between you . . . so you can run and hide." Do you really think that helps your cause C.J.? The only difference between Grisham and Watkins is a matter of degree.

Chas.

Well, while Rick Perry's hair is indeed legendary*, its not exactly the best rebuttal. They're just jealous.






*It is whispered that, when Rita threatened Houston, he stood guard at the Galveston Seawall. The strength of his untouchable locks alone was sufficient to knock Rita off course, and save the fair city. Such is the greatness of Aggies.

Here's another direct quote of Perry from the same article:

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be "appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained."

"We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”


Sounds like talking points right out of the liberal handbook.

I'm finding it much harder to be civil towards the OCT and OCTC idiots. (oops!)

I am optimistic we will have more success this legislative session. Being civil towards those that have the ability to help or hurt our cause is definitely key. Once the session is over and it comes time for elections, we can rehire them or fire them via our vote and campaign efforts.

I stopped engaging with OCT/OCTC advocates on Facebook because they are SO deliberately rude, and frequently so obtuse that it's like talking to a wall. You can't have a discussion. If I voice concerns, even if I preface those concerns by stating that I support unlicensed carry, I'm automatically an anti-gun liberal who hates the Constitution. It's like trying to debate a scientologist over mental health. They say things, and the only appropriate response is "wait....... whaaaaaaaaaaat?"

My consolation is that many of them, because they wouldn't know humility if it bit them on the butt and they lack ANY consequent social filters, will end up with a felony conviction on some charge or other which will terminate their gun rights. They share a character trait more commonly found in hardcore leftist politicians, and that is a complete inability to admit that they might have been wrong on some point or other.

in every discussion in which I bring facts to the table which cannot be disputed, I get accused of aligning myself with moneyed interests, etc., etc., yada yada yada. Well I can spend a dollar or two and get higher quality manure than that by the sack-full over at Home Depot, so.......

TXBO wrote:Here's another direct quote of Perry from the same article:

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be "appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained."

"We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”


Sounds like talking points right out of the liberal handbook.

Following this logic here we should also register guns, after all cars are registered. There is also no "right to drive" enumerated in the constitution.

.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No mature, rational person truly believes one can successfully promote a concept or legislative goal by insulting or intimidating those who hold a different view.

I wish this was observed more frequently on this forum. Maybe Chas only meas it to apply to the legislative process - but there are way too many examples of castigation on this forum because a person or group doesn't follow exactly the same lines as someone else. I point it out on this forum because my expectations are higher with this group.

What is the definition for fascism: Those (in this particular instance...) who are seemingly incapable of civil discourse and debate.

Their way or the highway simply doesn't work, legislatively or otherwise.

When might they learn?

Or, are they all so dreadfully unsophisticated, they're incapable of learning?

Or barring that, so recalcitrant, they're their own unrealized worst enemies?

steveincowtown wrote:

TXBO wrote:Here's another direct quote of Perry from the same article:

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be "appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained."

"We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”


Sounds like talking points right out of the liberal handbook.

Following this logic here we should also register guns, after all cars are registered. There is also no "right to drive" enumerated in the constitution.

.

I've never felt that ad hominem is appropriate but these comments deserve to be criticized vehemently and appropriately. That appears to be completely absent in the press.

I had this argument with a family member last weekend. I mentioned not having to take the CHL renewal class and she - a conservative, die-hard Republican, pro-gun, married to LEO, middle-class suburban stay at home mom was AGAINST doing away with the renewal class because she thought the reminder and proof of proficiency is a good thing.

I talked to her about Constitutional rights vs. privileges; I talked to her about how we let everybody vote even though they do great harm when they are uninformed, but we cannot give a literacy test. . . every trick in the bag. She was unwavering.

In general, I feel even many pro-CHL LEOs would want licensed open carry if they stomach any at all. I think the average suburban conservative mom like my relative would too.

The court of public opinion is in session, and Constitutional carry is a long climb from where we are now, and these idiots are setting fire to the map, laying off the guides, and chewing on the compass.

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No mature, rational person truly believes one can successfully promote a concept or legislative goal by insulting or intimidating those who hold a different view.

I wish this was observed more frequently on this forum. Maybe Chas only meas it to apply to the legislative process - but there are way too many examples of castigation on this forum because a person or group doesn't follow exactly the same lines as someone else. I point it out on this forum because my expectations are higher with this group.

And the "anti's" read this forum. Just ask Mr. Cotton. They now have discourse outlined on social media using comments from this site and divisions among us. Not an opinion... pure fact.

fickman wrote: I talked to her about Constitutional rights vs. privileges; I talked to her about how we let everybody vote even though they do great harm when they are uninformed, but we cannot give a literacy test. . ..

IIRC but felons can't vote in Texas.

EDIT: actual requirements:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pa ... pamp.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who can vote in Texas?
To be eligible to register to vote in Texas, a person must be:

•A United States citizen;
•A resident of the Texas county in which application for registration is made;
•At least 18 years old on Election Day;
•Not finally convicted of a felony, or, if so convicted must have (1) fully discharged the sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or (2) been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disability to vote; and
•Not determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be (1) totally mentally incapacitated; or (2) partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.

So there are limits to everything, and everything should be discussed.

steveincowtown wrote:

TXBO wrote:Here's another direct quote of Perry from the same article:

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be "appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained."

"We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”


Sounds like talking points right out of the liberal handbook.

Following this logic here we should also register guns, after all cars are registered. There is also no "right to drive" enumerated in the constitution.

.

The topic of this thread is civil discourse and debate, not the merits of licensed or unlicensed open-carry. I have to admit that I expected some folks to come to the defense of OCT and Grisham.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No mature, rational person truly believes one can successfully promote a concept or legislative goal by insulting or intimidating those who hold a different view.

I wish this was observed more frequently on this forum. Maybe Chas only meas it to apply to the legislative process - but there are way too many examples of castigation on this forum because a person or group doesn't follow exactly the same lines as someone else. I point it out on this forum because my expectations are higher with this group.

While there are exceptions on rare occasions, I couldn't disagree with you more. Nothing we see on the Forum even approaches OCT.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

TXBO wrote:Here's another direct quote of Perry from the same article:

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be "appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained."

"We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”


Sounds like talking points right out of the liberal handbook.

Following this logic here we should also register guns, after all cars are registered. There is also no "right to drive" enumerated in the constitution.

.

The topic of this thread is civil discourse and debate, not the merits of licensed or unlicensed open-carry. I have to admit that I expected some folks to come to the defense of OCT and Grisham.

Chas.

I am in no way defending OCT or Grisham. Perry's remarks, however, deserve criticism through "civil discourse and debate". The absence of that from respected voices is disappointing. It also leaves ad hominem as the only response. Where is the discourse from the civil second amendment proponents?