Now that SB17 is scheduled for after tomorrow, different Senators and police state supporters will try to add amendments. What kind of amendments? Here are some of the dirty tricks: allow cities to opt out of the law; require not only the license, but also extra training, mandate high level retention holsters like some officers carry..... Call politely and ask Senators to resist amendments. I would post important reminders for some others: like getting in Senators faces, calling them names, or losing patience with them will absolutely hurt the cause! Luckily on this site is not necessary so I won't......
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Call your senator and ask them to support sb17 with no amendments
- Thread starter Count
- Start date
Ian
Lone Star Veteran
Is anyone else watching this debate live right now? It's quite worrying that Estes doesn't seem to be a very good/prepared debater. Just the first two democrats seem to be raking him over the coals and his responses are just terrible. Most of these arguments are the same anti-gun arguments we hear all the time on OCDO that I'm sure most of us could easily refute. Whole lot of "uhhh's" and stuttering.
Last edited:
Yes, have been watching and do kinda have a lot of the same feelings. Right now for example, being told that the Senator asking the question would never feel comfortable in any location with anyone open carrying. But he is right now sort of addressing the phobia of someone who fears seeing a gun and that they need to "get help." That was fun.
Ian
Lone Star Veteran
I gotta admit, that little quip made air move a little faster out of my nose than usual.
Ian
Lone Star Veteran
Seriously! A democratic senator just said, "are you saying that more guns will make us safer?"
He should have said something along the line of, "this bill will not add more guns. This bill is for the people that are already carrying weapons to this day."
Instead, Senator Estes just skirts around these questions and doesn't fight back with these aggressive anti-gun democrats. He needs to ask them questions that make them stumble or stutter or say they don't have that information. It's freaking ridiculous.
He should have said something along the line of, "this bill will not add more guns. This bill is for the people that are already carrying weapons to this day."
Instead, Senator Estes just skirts around these questions and doesn't fight back with these aggressive anti-gun democrats. He needs to ask them questions that make them stumble or stutter or say they don't have that information. It's freaking ridiculous.
Dan Patrick's rule change made today's debate possible! Great job Dan!!!!!
If Dan Patrick left the Dewhurst era rules in (requiring 21 votes to bring a bill to the floor) this whole debate would have never reached the floor! The rules are changed to 19 being required which is 3/5th versus 3/4th! Great job Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Dan Patrick left the Dewhurst era rules in (requiring 21 votes to bring a bill to the floor) this whole debate would have never reached the floor! The rules are changed to 19 being required which is 3/5th versus 3/4th! Great job Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ian
Lone Star Veteran
There sure is a whole bunch of amendments being presented on this bill.
Ian
Lone Star Veteran
It's amazing how many amendments and arguments from opposition to this bill involve them claiming that openly carried firearms will be grabbed by unstable people. Why is nobody asking all these people to present an instance of this happening at all in their arguments?
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
My suggestion to that was to simply recommend an amendment making "gun grabs" unlawful and providing penalties.
The dissenters must either accept this as a reasonable remedy or admit that prohibitions aren't effective.
The dissenters must either accept this as a reasonable remedy or admit that prohibitions aren't effective.