TexasCHLforum.com

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschl ... page/full/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When you argue for a living, you can tell how an argument is going for you. The evidence and my gut both tell me that the liberals have lost control of the gun control narrative.

Not for lack of trying – it was almost as if they were poised to leap into action across the political, media and cultural spectrum the second the next semi-human creep shot up another “gun free zone.” This was their big opening to shift the debate and now it’s closing. They’ve lost, and they are going nuts.

Oh I don't know. I think they're just throwing their temper tantrum after not getting their way. But they WILL be back. Keep in mind that the Leahy amendment gathered 58 votes. So they were two shy of putting that in place. I'm not familiar with that particular one, but given the sponsor, I'd wager it was pretty close to a Schumer bill.

The other thing is, you can't have an honest debate with Progs. They spout talking points and count them as 'facts'. Heck, the press release (and Obama) said the Toomey-Manchin bill would prevent gun 'registration'. But I've seen more than one analysis that addressed specific language in the bill that not only permitted it, it actually encouraged the database registry. The disapointing thing is, that NO ONE in the press calls them on this. No one does the old Columbo thing "Wait a minute, let me get one thing straight here.."

My bet is, in the coming months, FFLs will be receiving new "instructions" from BATF that will make things more complicated. And I can see the NICS lines repeatedly becoming "overloaded" and shutting down on weekends when there are a lot of major gun shows in progress. It will be death my a thousand cuts.

Long story short, enjoy the celebration in that we didn't suffer a major setback yesterday. But don't get too over joyed. The antis will be back.

XinTX wrote:Keep in mind that the Leahy amendment gathered 58 votes. So they were two shy of putting that in place.

Wrong. They were 2 votes away from sending it to the house where it would not have stood a snowballs chance in hades. They knew from the get go that none of this was going anywhere. This has all been political posturing from the very beginning.

jmra wrote:

XinTX wrote:Keep in mind that the Leahy amendment gathered 58 votes. So they were two shy of putting that in place.

Wrong. They were 2 votes away from sending it to the house where it would not have stood a snowballs chance in hades. They knew from the get go that none of this was going anywhere. This has all been political posturing from the very beginning.

With Boehner as Speaker, I have NO confidence that he wouldn't negotiate a surrender.

Keep a watchful eye. The anti's will try to slip something in on another bill that doesn't even relate to the 2A.

RPBrown wrote:Keep a watchful eye. The anti's will try to slip something in on another bill that doesn't even relate to the 2A.

That's my concern. I believe they are going to try & pull a fast one after their defeat.

The Libs haven't had a new idea since the '60's. They will continue to push for gun control, registration, and confiscation and will use every incident of evil as justification. My guess is that the commie in chief will use executive orders and budget cuts to try and get his way, at least partially. While we may have won these votes at the national level, we lost the battles in several states. The Libs will continue their attacks at the state level and will also use liberal judges to try and restrict the 2nd amendment.

CowboyEngineer wrote:The Libs haven't had a new idea since the '60's. They will continue to push for gun control, registration, and confiscation and will use every incident of evil as justification. My guess is that the commie in chief will use executive orders and budget cuts to try and get his way, at least partially. While we may have won these votes at the national level, we lost the battles in several states. The Libs will continue their attacks at the state level and will also use liberal judges to try and restrict the 2nd amendment.

We may have lost battles in those states but those loses may actually help us win the war. People who were content to sit on the sidelines in those states are now getting involved. We may see a lot of backlash in the voting booths next election.

jmra wrote: We may have lost battles in those states but those loses may actually help us win the war. People who were content to sit on the sidelines in those states are now getting involved. We may see a lot of backlash in the voting booths next election.

JMRA, I hope so. The over riding principle of any politician should be to preseve, protect and expand freedom. Any politician who votes to reduce or limit freedom should not be allowed to remain in office.

jmra wrote:

CowboyEngineer wrote:The Libs haven't had a new idea since the '60's. They will continue to push for gun control, registration, and confiscation and will use every incident of evil as justification. My guess is that the commie in chief will use executive orders and budget cuts to try and get his way, at least partially. While we may have won these votes at the national level, we lost the battles in several states. The Libs will continue their attacks at the state level and will also use liberal judges to try and restrict the 2nd amendment.

We may have lost battles in those states but those loses may actually help us win the war. People who were content to sit on the sidelines in those states are now getting involved. We may see a lot of backlash in the voting booths next election.

I would like to believe this is true, but in states like Colorado, I don't think it is. It's a numbers game. From 1960 to 2000, the population of Colorado nearly tripled. http://www.censusscope.org/us/s8/chart_popl.html

From 1980 to 2000, the racial/ethnic distribution of Colorado's population changed in measurable ways. The primary change has been an offsetting percentage increase in the hispanic population and percentage decrease in the white population: http://www.censusscope.org/us/s8/chart_race.html.

The number of residents who moved into Colorado from another state between 1995 and the 2000 census was almost 50% higher than those who moved into Colorado between 1985 and the 1990 census. The number who moved in from "elsewhere" (besides another state) was 2.5X higher between 1995 and 2000 than it was between 1985 and 1990. Draw your own conclusions, but in my book, I'm guessing that number consists primarily of illegal aliens. http://www.censusscope.org/us/s8/chart_migration.html

In other words, the electoral results and the new gun laws in colorado are a product of significant changes in the makeup of the voter base over the past 20 years. Those changes represent people who are liberal voters. Colorado was never a strongly conservative state. When it had republican majorities, they were close majorities, and their brand of republicanism was never that far right of center. Similarly, Colorado's brand of democrats wasn't that far left of center. In other words, it was a moderate state. It is highly unlikely that the influx of voters into Colorado over the past 20 years are likely to change their view on guns, because they brought their gun politics with them from wherever they came from. They like it there, and they're not going to leave. The state democrat party in Colorado has undergone the same hard left shift that has happened nationally. The sad result is that the portion of the voter base who were steadfastly pro-gun in the past is likely to remain in the political minority for possibly decades into the future. Colorado, like California, has been more or less permanently lost, and it isn't likely to change unless it is in response to some cataclysmic national political event.

There will be no backlash in Colorado. Nor in New York. Nor in Connecticut. Nor in any other states which finally threw out the 2nd Amendment so that they could feel safer.

I would love to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

XinTX wrote:

jmra wrote:

XinTX wrote:Keep in mind that the Leahy amendment gathered 58 votes. So they were two shy of putting that in place.

Wrong. They were 2 votes away from sending it to the house where it would not have stood a snowballs chance in hades. They knew from the get go that none of this was going anywhere. This has all been political posturing from the very beginning.

With Boehner as Speaker, I have NO confidence that he wouldn't negotiate a surrender.

Boehner is a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jmra wrote:

CowboyEngineer wrote:The Libs haven't had a new idea since the '60's. They will continue to push for gun control, registration, and confiscation and will use every incident of evil as justification. My guess is that the commie in chief will use executive orders and budget cuts to try and get his way, at least partially. While we may have won these votes at the national level, we lost the battles in several states. The Libs will continue their attacks at the state level and will also use liberal judges to try and restrict the 2nd amendment.

We may have lost battles in those states but those loses may actually help us win the war. People who were content to sit on the sidelines in those states are now getting involved. We may see a lot of backlash in the voting booths next election.

I would like to believe this is true, but in states like Colorado, I don't think it is. It's a numbers game. From 1960 to 2000, the population of Colorado nearly tripled. http://www.censusscope.org/us/s8/chart_popl.html

From 1980 to 2000, the racial/ethnic distribution of Colorado's population changed in measurable ways. The primary change has been an offsetting percentage increase in the hispanic population and percentage decrease in the white population: http://www.censusscope.org/us/s8/chart_race.html.

The number of residents who moved into Colorado from another state between 1995 and the 2000 census was almost 50% higher than those who moved into Colorado between 1985 and the 1990 census. The number who moved in from "elsewhere" (besides another state) was 2.5X higher between 1995 and 2000 than it was between 1985 and 1990. Draw your own conclusions, but in my book, I'm guessing that number consists primarily of illegal aliens. http://www.censusscope.org/us/s8/chart_migration.html

In other words, the electoral results and the new gun laws in colorado are a product of significant changes in the makeup of the voter base over the past 20 years. Those changes represent people who are liberal voters. Colorado was never a strongly conservative state. When it had republican majorities, they were close majorities, and their brand of republicanism was never that far right of center. Similarly, Colorado's brand of democrats wasn't that far left of center. In other words, it was a moderate state. It is highly unlikely that the influx of voters into Colorado over the past 20 years are likely to change their view on guns, because they brought their gun politics with them from wherever they came from. They like it there, and they're not going to leave. The state democrat party in Colorado has undergone the same hard left shift that has happened nationally. The sad result is that the portion of the voter base who were steadfastly pro-gun in the past is likely to remain in the political minority for possibly decades into the future. Colorado, like California, has been more or less permanently lost, and it isn't likely to change unless it is in response to some cataclysmic national political event.

There will be no backlash in Colorado. Nor in New York. Nor in Connecticut. Nor in any other states which finally threw out the 2nd Amendment so that they could feel safer.

I would love to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

And demographics is what the "immigration" Bill is all about.....shifting votes in favor of the collectivists.

JJVP wrote:

XinTX wrote:

jmra wrote:

XinTX wrote:Keep in mind that the Leahy amendment gathered 58 votes. So they were two shy of putting that in place.

Wrong. They were 2 votes away from sending it to the house where it would not have stood a snowballs chance in hades. They knew from the get go that none of this was going anywhere. This has all been political posturing from the very beginning.

With Boehner as Speaker, I have NO confidence that he wouldn't negotiate a surrender.

Boehner is a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Boehner is a loser at the top of his game.

Anygunanywhere

The Annoyed Man wrote:
There will be no backlash in Colorado. Nor in New York. Nor in Connecticut. Nor in any other states which finally threw out the 2nd Amendment so that they could feel safer.

I would love to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

ummm yep! We have lost Colorado for the forseeable future... California and New York have been long gone and aren't coming back short of some sort of catastrophic sea change.