TexasCHLforum.com

Take a peek into the liberal gun culture. Yes, there is one.

This group was founded as the liberal version of the NRA. Many of their goals are similar to those of the NRA in that they oppose gun control legislation.

I found this to be a very interesting article.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2014/01/02/l ... bscriber=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

Good to see. If gunowners limit themselves to one political persuasion, they become limited to that one group. No portion of the Bill of Rights should be limited to one party or viewpoint.

Quoting the article:

The club praised Gov. Jerry Brown when he vetoed seven gun-control bills in the last legislative session, including one by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, that would have required gun owners to register their low-capacity rifles as assault weapons if they had detachable magazines. New sales of such weapons would have been banned.

Do they cheer all the gun restrictions that Brown DID sign into law?

What do they think of libertarians, who are even more pro-gun than they are, who don't care who you sleep with, and who can't stand EITHER party?

These people are all talk. There hasn't existed a large national government since the 1920s that supported gun rights without restrictions. It was (mostly) democrats who put an end that that......although some republicans have certainly played their part too. What do they think of Jack Kennedy, life member of the NRA, social conservative, and democrat icon?

I'm very much off-put by homosexuality, its attractions, its practices, and its politics; but the bottom line is that, other than a truly heart-felt Christian concern for their spiritual health, I don't give a rat's patootie what any of them do behind closed doors........so long as they keep it behind closed doors. That goes for my heterosexual friends as well. They are human beings, with rights, who deserve to be treated like human beings with rights. But the sad fact is that San Francisco gays are going to keep electing democrats, as are all San Franciscans generally, and those democrats elected by bay area voters are going to be universally anti-gun, no matter what a very few gun-owning gays want them to do. Who do they vote for? Nancy Pelosi, Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, people like that. That would be like me voting for Wendy Davis for governor because I am pro-life and pro-small-government. That dog won't hunt.

What are they going to do on the day that democrats in Congress pass bills like the ones passed in California, and a democrat president signs them? Do they just really dig guns, or do they really dig the 2nd Amendment? Is the 2nd Amendment a "line in the sand" issue for them? If it is, then why do they vote democrat? If it isn't, then intellectual integrity means acknowledging that they're not really 2nd Amendment absolutists..... they just really like guns. There's a difference. Really liking them means that you'll really miss them when they've all be confiscated, but you'll find some other way to feel powerful. Being a 2nd Amendment absolutist means that on the day the goobermint tries to take them, you'll use them to protect your civil liberties. If you keep voting for democrats, the first scenario becomes a possibility. If you vote for libertarians or conservative republicans, the second scenario will likely never happen.

My collection (which sounds a lot bigger than her's [his???]) includes a M1 Carbine and a .44 magnum also. That isn't what makes me pro-2nd Amendment. How I vote is what makes me pro-2nd Amendment. If I vote for people who make their bones trying to crush the 2nd, then all the words in the world won't make me pro-2nd Amendment.

Go to their website. A cursory review of the forum is pretty hardcore Second Amendment. I think the article overdoes the California connection. It looks like a nationwide board (just at a glance. I followed it from the same San Francisco article).

Lost me in the first sentence of the first paragraph. What a sicko... transgendered my tail end! Where is the Duck Dynasty guy when you need him?

03Lightningrocks wrote:Lost me in the first sentence of the first paragraph. What a sicko... transgendered my tail end! Where is the Duck Dynasty guy when you need him?

I didn't make it much further.

I was in the Boy Scouts, Explorer Scouts and we did a lot of great things. I have some very good memories of camping trips, summer camp and hiking.

If my son were still young enough and in Scouting I would pull him out. The scouts are looking for a lot of trouble and lawsuits with their decision. The boys tease each other and occasionally hurt each other’s feelings. What is it going to be like for the one “gay” boy? The scouts will be constantly having “tolerance” training.

I read an article recently that said people in the U.S. believe that about 20 to 25% of the population is homosexual. Actually it is more like 2 to 3%.

The main stream media and Hollywood are responsible for people believing the 25%, but then in Hollywood it is higher than 25%.

VoiceofReason wrote:I was in the Boy Scouts, Explorer Scouts and we did a lot of great things. I have some very good memories of camping trips, summer camp and hiking.

If my son were still young enough and in Scouting I would pull him out. The scouts are looking for a lot of trouble and lawsuits with their decision. The boys tease each other and occasionally hurt each other’s feelings. What is it going to be like for the one “gay” boy? The scouts will be constantly having “tolerance” training.

I read an article recently that said people in the U.S. believe that about 20 to 25% of the population is homosexual. Actually it is more like 2 to 3%.

The main stream media and Hollywood are responsible for people believing the 25%, but then in Hollywood it is higher than 25%.

I could not believe why 2% of population (i.e. so called IGBT community) would like to spread their un-natural culture on all of us.
1) Divorce is more that 50%,
2) Single mom with more than 10-kids by the age of 30 who is yelling "Someone in the government has to pay to feed my kids!", is out of more than 40 millions on the $169 groceries swipe card.
3) Now add Gay marriage, and I go like when a "soft" man start telling me about his husband
4) More than $20,000,000,000,000 of federal public debt.

I feel that US won the cold war in 1991 and we lost ourselves in 2014.

Beiruty wrote: I could not believe why 2% of population (i.e. so called IGBT community) would like to spread their un-natural culture on all of us.

2% is a very conservative number. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx.
I know a people of that "persuasion". One of 'em wears a cowboy hat and votes Republican. It took me a while to figure that one out. Another really helped me get my professional start.
Of all the people of that "persuasion" that I know or have met, I've never met one that wanted to "spread" their lifestyle on the rest of us. Pretty much all of them wanted the same rights and some are a little more flamboyant than others. Most recognized it as a disadvantage and hardship in one way or another. Take away their ability to cry "discrimination" and they'll have a lot less to be public about.

Divorce is another epidemic. As is gluttony. Are these lesser evils?
Between the 3 of those things, you're probably looking at 75% of the population. :-)

There were gay scouts before gay scouts were allowed. It pretty much changes nothing in my mind.

Liberal gun club... Yea, It's not a black and white issue. I'd take the support where we can get it as the more the media sensationalizes firearm incidents, the more "afraid" the sheeple become..

Wow, they have a whole thousand members! Be skered, be very, very skered!
Oh, and another dozen in North Korea, uhh, I mean North California.

Sheesh.

Gun advocacy has always been seen as the right wing conservatives stand for the most part. I was listening to Gun Talk Radio one day and Tom Gresham brought up the fact there are liberal groups and even gay groups that are for gun rights and more conservative organizations should think about that because there is some common ground there even if there isn't on many other things. On gun rights there is a lot of agreement that can be found.

pcgizzmo wrote:.... and more conservative organizations should think about that because there is some common ground there even if there isn't on many other things. On gun rights there is a lot of agreement that can be found.

And the more agreement that can be found, the better the chances are that reasonable legislation can be past... 03Lightningrocks, sorry if you don't like what I'm saying, but please try to remain respectful, please..

cb1000rider wrote:

Beiruty wrote: I could not believe why 2% of population (i.e. so called IGBT community) would like to spread their un-natural culture on all of us.

2% is a very conservative number. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx.
I know a people of that "persuasion". One of 'em wears a cowboy hat and votes Republican. It took me a while to figure that one out. Another really helped me get my professional start.
Of all the people of that "persuasion" that I know or have met, I've never met one that wanted to "spread" their lifestyle on the rest of us. Pretty much all of them wanted the same rights and some are a little more flamboyant than others. Most recognized it as a disadvantage and hardship in one way or another. Take away their ability to cry "discrimination" and they'll have a lot less to be public about.

Divorce is another epidemic. As is gluttony. Are these lesser evils?
Between the 3 of those things, you're probably looking at 75% of the population. :-)

There were gay scouts before gay scouts were allowed. It pretty much changes nothing in my mind.

Liberal gun club... Yea, It's not a black and white issue. I'd take the support where we can get it as the more the media sensationalizes firearm incidents, the more "afraid" the sheeple become..

2% is a very conservative number. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-pe ... n-gay.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

That states pretty much what I wrote.

There were gay scouts before gay scouts were allowed. It pretty much changes nothing in my mind.

But the gay scouts kept it to themselves which was a real good idea.

We had a guy at work, everyone thought he was gay. I didn’t know and I didn’t care. Everyone but a black lady and I made fun of him behind his back. I can’t understand that. I have too many more important things in my life than to care about someone’s sexual orientation.

Now having said that, I have had no problem working with someone I knew was gay but don’t expect us to be friends.

I have read recently that courts have ruled that a photographer had to take pictures for two men getting married and a bakery had to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage. I don’t know what to say to that.

VoiceofReason wrote:But the gay scouts kept it to themselves which was a real good idea.

It's still a real good idea generally speaking.

VoiceofReason wrote: I have read recently that courts have ruled that a photographer had to take pictures for two men getting married and a bakery had to provide a wedding cake for a same sex marriage. I don’t know what to say to that.

Have any cites? That's just ridiculous. Private businesses should get to decide who they want their clients to be period... *shakes head*
Any private business. Any reason. Period.