TexasCHLforum.com

...six states -- Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon and Washington -- have expanded Brady background checks to all gun sales. We are already on the ballot next year in Nevada for a citizen's initiative, and Maine will soon follow. Ballot initiatives, where citizens can vote directly on a new law, illuminate a true path forward. Turns out it's a lot easier for the gun lobby to bully a small number of politicians than to bully millions of voters. After we win in Maine and Nevada, there are 14 more states that have the ballot initiative process that don't have expanded background checks. We will continue our march across this country, one state at a time...

-- Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Rural Americans tend to oppose gun control, with 63 percent saying that gun rights are more important than gun control. The country, however, is becoming less rural and more urban. Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of people living in cities, with big metropolitan areas experiencing double-digit growth.

This shift, like that on race, is a boon for gun control. Urban residents strongly prefer gun control to gun rights (60 percent to 38 percent), for reasons that aren’t hard to understand. When gun violence is on your television news every night and police are commonplace, people may come to view guns more as a threat than a savior.

-- Adam Winkler, UCLA School of Law professor and author of "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

thatguyoverthere wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/opinions/ ... index.html

...six states -- Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Oregon and Washington -- have expanded Brady background checks to all gun sales. We are already on the ballot next year in Nevada for a citizen's initiative, and Maine will soon follow. Ballot initiatives, where citizens can vote directly on a new law, illuminate a true path forward. Turns out it's a lot easier for the gun lobby to bully a small number of politicians than to bully millions of voters. After we win in Maine and Nevada, there are 14 more states that have the ballot initiative process that don't have expanded background checks. We will continue our march across this country, one state at a time...

-- Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... ?tid=sm_fb

Rural Americans tend to oppose gun control, with 63 percent saying that gun rights are more important than gun control. The country, however, is becoming less rural and more urban. Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of people living in cities, with big metropolitan areas experiencing double-digit growth.

This shift, like that on race, is a boon for gun control. Urban residents strongly prefer gun control to gun rights (60 percent to 38 percent), for reasons that aren’t hard to understand. When gun violence is on your television news every night and police are commonplace, people may come to view guns more as a threat than a savior.

-- Adam Winkler, UCLA School of Law professor and author of "Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

Bluster? Maybe. Excessive optimism? Perhaps. But no one can deny that we have "lost" in six states already in regards to "universal background checks." Not to mention other new and existing restrictions put in place by other states and even municipalities.

Where does it end? How do we prevent further losses? Or is the clock simply running down?

MeMelYup wrote:Look at the shaded truths that were published and stated to get background checks passed on Oregon. Also, they claimed that 90% of the people wanted more background checks. When the votes were tallied they only received 60 some percent of the vote.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:Colorado seems to have shifted the past several years, all but thanks to the all the liberals flooding into and infecting the state. Used to be one of my favorite places.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Look at the shaded truths that were published and stated to get background checks passed on Oregon. Also, they claimed that 90% of the people wanted more background checks. When the votes were tallied they only received 60 some percent of the vote.

Very shaded truths. Last time I visited that side of the country, I got to talk to a politician from Washington. I remember arguing with him about guns, and then he made a smug statement. "You see that tower there, from atop of it, I can see every vote I need that matters in this state. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or says, if I can get those right here to agree with me, I have already won."

That would have been the "space needle" of Seattle. Most of Washington was pleasant, except for the majority of everything West of the Cascades. Beautiful country to the West, and a lot of "Texas" like country towns I guess you could say. Too bad they get bullied around by the idiots from Sea-Tac. That's the way politics works over there though.

Dave2 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Look at the shaded truths that were published and stated to get background checks passed on Oregon. Also, they claimed that 90% of the people wanted more background checks. When the votes were tallied they only received 60 some percent of the vote.

Very shaded truths. Last time I visited that side of the country, I got to talk to a politician from Washington. I remember arguing with him about guns, and then he made a smug statement. "You see that tower there, from atop of it, I can see every vote I need that matters in this state. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or says, if I can get those right here to agree with me, I have already won."

That would have been the "space needle" of Seattle. Most of Washington was pleasant, except for the majority of everything West of the Cascades. Beautiful country to the West, and a lot of "Texas" like country towns I guess you could say. Too bad they get bullied around by the idiots from Sea-Tac. That's the way politics works over there though.

Sounds like he was trying to tax the country folk without bothering to represent them.

thatguyoverthere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:Colorado seems to have shifted the past several years, all but thanks to the all the liberals flooding into and infecting the state. Used to be one of my favorite places.

Exactly. And that's the trend that scares me. If it can happen in Colorado, why not Nevada? Arizona? New Mexico? Texas? I certainly would hope not, but who would have thought so of Colorado 20 years ago. Even 10 years ago.

That's why we need to make people aware of our right to bear arms, and of our need to do so, and our desire to do so.

As others have pointed out, we are not going to win over the hard core anti's. But there are a lot of people who can be convinced. We just have to stay in the fight.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Look at the shaded truths that were published and stated to get background checks passed on Oregon. Also, they claimed that 90% of the people wanted more background checks. When the votes were tallied they only received 60 some percent of the vote.

Very shaded truths. Last time I visited that side of the country, I got to talk to a politician from Washington. I remember arguing with him about guns, and then he made a smug statement. "You see that tower there, from atop of it, I can see every vote I need that matters in this state. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or says, if I can get those right here to agree with me, I have already won."

That would have been the "space needle" of Seattle. Most of Washington was pleasant, except for the majority of everything West of the Cascades. Beautiful country to the West, and a lot of "Texas" like country towns I guess you could say. Too bad they get bullied around by the idiots from Sea-Tac. That's the way politics works over there though.

Sounds like he was trying to tax the country folk without bothering to represent them.

Why should he in his world? They are the minority and do not matter.

Dave2 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Look at the shaded truths that were published and stated to get background checks passed on Oregon. Also, they claimed that 90% of the people wanted more background checks. When the votes were tallied they only received 60 some percent of the vote.

Very shaded truths. Last time I visited that side of the country, I got to talk to a politician from Washington. I remember arguing with him about guns, and then he made a smug statement. "You see that tower there, from atop of it, I can see every vote I need that matters in this state. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks or says, if I can get those right here to agree with me, I have already won."

That would have been the "space needle" of Seattle. Most of Washington was pleasant, except for the majority of everything West of the Cascades. Beautiful country to the West, and a lot of "Texas" like country towns I guess you could say. Too bad they get bullied around by the idiots from Sea-Tac. That's the way politics works over there though.

Sounds like he was trying to tax the country folk without bothering to represent them.

Why should he in his world? They are the minority and do not matter.

Because they grow his food, mine the raw materials to build his buildings, and generate the electricity (and other forms of power) required to maintain his lifestyle. The democrats think our economy would suffer if we got rid of the illegal immigrants? Whatever economic impact that would have would be pale in comparison to what would happen if everyone outside the major cities went on strike.

His point of view constitutes what should be (in a politician anyway) a criminal lack of logistical & managerial understanding.