Let’s Not Argue Like The Antis

Please, I really beg some of the people on our side to learn how to debate and to do so with some decorum.  Yeah, I know I shouldn’t expect much from an FB discussion group…..but the number of people who actually argue like the antis is quite small. There has been some great points raised about the two recent laws but in a discussion about Campus Carry; it’s obvious some people never were taught how to debate or logic.
The question came up as to why the implementation of Campus Carry has been scheduled for Fall of 2016 for Universities and major Colleges – 2017 for Junior Colleges.
My answer was simple – colleges need time to do it right and do it in such a way so the gun control advocates will not be able to overturn it in the courts.

Example #1

  • Person T  I think its fair that they gave this time. To train campus security and police to handle everything and develop systems and practices and teach their officers how to handle it.
  • Person M —  There’s nothing to train… It’s legal.

Right….140 something years (I think) of Campus Carry being illegal and someone is saying there is no reason to train campus security or police otherwise. I think the vast majority of people recognize how simply inane that is.

Example #2  Person J

So, putting aside the vitriol, your answer is that colleges need time to enforce the law properly, communicate to students and train professionals. Aren’t those all the role of the State? Aren’t all these time-consuming tasks already being handled by the rest of us? Colleges think they are their own little empires and can interpret the First and Second Amendment however their little liberal minds choose.


The first line fails to distinguish between developing procedures and policies in accordance with the law and “enforcing the law” — I thought  police and the courts enforced the law. And yes, continuing with the first line, administrations do need time to communicate with the students. In fact, it is required by the law !!

(d-1) After consulting with students, staff, and faculty of  the institution regarding the nature of the student population, specific safety considerations, and the uniqueness of the campus environment, the president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of
the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may amend the provisions as necessary for campus safety. The provisions take effect as determined by the president or officer unless subsequently amended
by the board of regents or other governing board under Subsection  (d-2). The institution must give effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry.

Yes, the legislative actually requires the administrations to at least talk to the students. Not follow their advice (which can be good or bad) but talking to a couple thousand people or at least setting it up to do so is going to take some time. Acting on the information given isn’t going to happen over night.  And yes, making sure that campus security and the campus police are aware of and can properly interpret the requirements and restrictions of the new policies takes time. Again – we are overturning decades of previous habits and training. Change takes time in some cases.

And let’s continue – with the next line and talk about lessons we should have learned in civics class in high school. No, developing policies and procedures for universities and colleges is not the role of the state.


This is the one that got my goat. Example #3 – Person J

I simply asked you to defend your position that colleges should be allowed to each make up their own laws regarding campus carry.


That is such a straw man argument I was shocked it didn’t come from the mind of a gun control advocate. Seriously. For those of you who know me in real life, I’ll give you the link to the FB argument if you want it. I’d advise against looking; it might make your brain pop. Regardless anyone who knows me, knows that I would never argue that colleges ‘should be allowed to make up their own laws’. Nothing in my statements could be remotely twisted to mean that. I asked three times for him to quote my words
Again this is about not making our side indistinguishable from the antis — that type of attack is beneath us. We can discuss if 14 months is too long. We can discuss why it is reasonable to make sure the rules the schools come up with can withstand a court challenge in a reasonable debate.


I just want to close and make sure I say this. I am not saying it is wrong to think the legislative made a bad decision. I’m not saying it is wrong to think the law should be enacted quicker. I’m not saying you have to agree with campus carry or not. — Those are all valid opinions; just don’t argue like the antis is all.

Please join the discussion.

Total Disbelief

If you could only see my face right now; I’m sure the stunned expression has to be seen to be believed.

AUSTIN – Sen. Wendy Davis said in a Monday interview with the Express-News that she opposes allowing the open carry of handguns and that she wishes she had a do-over on the support she expressed for the idea in her ill-fated run for governor.

“I don’t live in the world of regret,” Davis said in the exclusive interview – her first sit-down interview since the election – when asked whether she had any regrets about her campaign.

But she added, “There is one thing that I would do differently in that campaign, and it relates to the position that I took on open carry. I made a quick decision on that with a very short conversation with my team and it wasn’t really in keeping with what I think is the correct position on that issue.”

Gee, a far left/liberal changing her stance on Firearm Related rights after the election; I’m absolutely shocked !!!

“What I do know is that as an elected public servant, I’ve always been true to my core beliefs. Always. And I’m so proud of that,” she said. “And this was the only time I felt like I’d strayed a bit from that.”


And if you believe that; I have a bridge for sale also.
I am so glad I can refer to this person as “Former State Senator and Failed Gubernatorial” Candidate Wendy Davis.

Listen, Do You Hear That?

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis insists “we’re going to win” despite her Republican opponent’s sizeable advantage in campaign cash and opinion polls.

The state senator from Fort Worth suggested Tuesday that long disillusioned voters will turn out to cast November ballots in stronger-than-expected numbers – enough to push her underdog bid over the top.

It sounds like — denial. Like Desperation. And sorry Ms. Davis but I will work to upset your plans. Consistently you’ve voted against individual rights as my Senator; I really don’t want to see you in the governor’s office.


Abbott has a 12 point lead over Davis and since the state legislature isn’t in session for her to pull any more grandstanding stunts; I don’t see that changing. Those who support Abbott need to make sure to spread the word and have people show up at the polls.

Any other state races we should be talking about?


News That Makes Me Smile

Yeah, I know I’m way late in posting this but I have a really good reason

House District 94

State Sen. Diane Patrick, R-Arlington, trailed in election results all of Tuesday night — and final results showed she lost her re-election bid, claiming only 44 percent of the vote.

The tally for her challenger, Tony Tinderholt, a former military man making his first bid for public office, steadily climbed Tuesday night and ultimatley reached 55 percent of the vote.

Tinderholt said he was running for this office because he was worried about “the future of the nation and the future of Texas.”

Patrick, a former schoolteacher and professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, said she was seeking a fifth term in office because she wanted to help address key issues such as water, transportation and education.

It made me smile every time I read it. Once I post it, I might not look at it again. Oh well, I’ll just have to get used to calling Rep. Tinderholt come November.

Another Reason Not To Vote for Wendy Davis

I might cover the embellishment of her ‘life story’ later but for now, this should give another reason to vote for someone else.

She also said Friday that she believes universal background checks are “a good idea.”

Sorry Ms. Davis but I shouldn’t have to get a background check when I inherit firearms from my father or buy a gun from a friend.

State and Local Voting – Nov. 5th.

The fact that early voting opened yesterday convinced me I needed to get off my duff and talk about the issues on the ballot. For me at least, there are no officials to elect but there are 9 Constitutional Amendments and one local Proposition.


Local first

“The legal sale of all alcoholic beverages including mixed beverages.”

For the uninformed (be you out of town visitors or not), Arlington is a mostly “dry” town. You can purchase beer and wine in many locations but liquor is limited to a few “non-Arlington” locations within the city. Confusing isn’t it. There are places in Arlington, like Pantego or Dalworthington Gardens, where liquor stores can be established but for the most part, they are forbidden.

This proposal would make the entire city open for the sale of liquor.

I’m voting For.

On the state level, here are the proposed changes to the state Constitution. Texas has a very system of very limited legislative power; most things that would be a matter of law require changing the Constitution. That is why we have one of the most amended Constitutions in the country.

Proposition 1
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a member of the armed services of the United States who is killed in action.”

A exemption of on property taxes for a spouse of someone killed in action — what’s not to like about that. Even if it didn’t have the benefit of reducing how much money governmental entities received.

I’m voting For.

Proposition 2The constitutional amendment eliminating an obsolete requirement for a State Medical Education Board and a State Medical Education Fund, neither of which is operational.

Removing outdated requirements — enough said.

I’m voting For.

Proposition 3
The constitutional amendment to authorize a political subdivision of this state to extend the number of days that aircraft parts that are exempt from ad valorem taxation due to their location in this state for a temporary period may be located in this state for purposes of qualifying for the tax exemption.

This one is tougher to call. I don’t think the state should be granting one industry an advantage over another. Why should Aircraft parts be exempt more than watercraft parts or blender parts?
On the other hand, it also makes Texas more attractive to businesses and denies the state additional revenue.

And that is a good thing.

I’m voting For.

Proposition 4
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization.

There are more and more charitable organizations stepping up and providing for our disabled veterans. Sad that it  has to be that way but I think it is a good thing not to put them on the hook for taxes they might not be able to afford after getting such largess.

I’m voting For.

Proposition 5
The constitutional amendment to authorize the making of a reverse mortgage loan for the purchase of homestead property and to amend lender disclosures and other requirements in connection with a reverse mortgage loan.

Another case where I don’t think the government should be involved but they already are. This amendment makes it legal for seniors (62+) to sell a house through a ‘reverse mortgage’ and buy a smaller / less expensive home in a single transaction. I can’t see a down side to this except some unsuspecting seniors may be taken advantage of……and that would already happen regardless of this amendment.

I’m voting For.


Proposition 6
The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas and the State Water Implementation Revenue Fund for Texas to assist in the financing of priority projects in the state water plan to ensure the availability of adequate water resources.

While I support the state’s efforts at water conservation and planning, I can’t really get behind this amendment. Basically the idea is to take $2,000,000,000 from the ‘rainy day fund’ and put it into water planing and funding. I think it is a bad idea to pull money out of the emergency fund and definitely a worse way to finance for water resources projects. Let’s put those projects into the general revenue fund and see how many people support them….or want to support other projects over water resources.

I’m voting Against.

Proposition 7
The constitutional amendment authorizing a home-rule municipality to provide in its charter the procedure to fill a vacancy on its governing body for which the unexpired term is 12 months or less.

This is another I’m mixed about. I like the idea of finding a less expensive way of filling vacancies that will be up for election again soon. On the other hand, do we really want the established politicians giving one of their cronies the advantage of the incumbency so easily and so soon before the election.
I think in the long run, it is better to leave a position vacant if the city doesn’t want to pay for a special election ( population can have a say in that or not ) then to have someone appointed and all the advantages that entails.

I’m voting Against.

Proposition 8 The constitutional amendment repealing Section 7, Article IX, Texas Constitution, which relates to the creation of a hospital district in Hidalgo County

This is how silly the Constitutional Amendments can be. The original requirement creating the hospital district was voting into existence in 1960. This is a single jurisdiction issue that doesn’t belong in the Constitution. Let’s repeal it and threaten to tar and feather any politicians who brings up another vote like it.

I’m voting For.


Proposition 9
The constitutional amendment relating to expanding the types of sanctions that may be assessed against a judge or justice following a formal proceeding instituted by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

I had to look at this one carefully because the proposition doesn’t disclose what type of sanctions that may be assessed. Here is the wording from the Senate Joint Resolution the proposition came from:


If, after formal hearing, or after considering the   record and report of a Master, the Commission finds good cause   therefor, it shall issue an order of public admonition, warning,   reprimand, censure, or requirement that the person holding an   office or position specified in Subsection (6) of this Section   obtain additional training or education, or it shall recommend to a   review tribunal the removal or retirement, as the case may be, of   the person [in question holding an office or position specified in   Subsection (6) of this Section] and shall thereupon file with the   tribunal the entire record before the Commission.

Okay…good and bad possibilities in this one. The idea that a judge could get off with a ‘warning’ or ‘admonition’ for a serious issue is troubling. But prior to this, it looks like it was an ‘either/or’ vote; either they were removed from the bench or they were cleared. Having more options open and having the results known is what tips the scale for me. Judges in Texas are elected; let the people decide after hearing the facts.

I’m voting For.
Please join the discussion.



Busting the Trope

Remember how anti-rights cultists and the media (but as always I repeat myself) like to type cast gun owners as conservatives; bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.
(Hey, Obama just came up with a catchy way of phrasing it; the media was pushing it much longer). Somehow not all the people got the message.

Today was an unfortunate mistake, coupled with poor judgment. The gun was located in a book that was in his attache case. He forgot the gun was there and inadvertently took it into the courthouse.”

Leonard said she didn’t know if Conover had a concealed handgun permit.

Conover is a past assistant state attorney general and well-regarded attorney. His family has long roots in the area. A local high school football field is named after his grandfather.

The sheriff’s office says Conover will be charged with public intoxication and bringing a firearm into a prohibited place.

In all fairness to the local news station; they rightly identified the villain upfront as a Democrat!
Gasp in HORROR !!! as it is revealed that firearms are owned by politicians from both major parties.

A well-known Cleburne attorney and chairman for the Johnson County Democratic Party was taken into custody Monday morning after trying to bring a handgun into a courthouse.

Not just a member of the Democrat party but the Chairman for the Johnson County Party.

It will be interesting to follow this case and see what else he gets charged with (Carrying while Intoxicated if he has a license, illegally carrying a firearm without a license if he doesn’t) — and exactly how many of those charges he’ll be tried on.
And that doesn’t even get into the much larger issue of exactly who was harmed by his actions,.

Anyone want to take a bet it will only be one charge that he’ll plead to?

Please join the discussion.