81ce0e8c22ea9444112351a953b3f94e

Reader DH writes,

So I was watching the Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee hearing yesterday morning and yet a new tactic on the part of the Manic Moms emerged. The representative from Texas Gunsense, Frances Schenkkan, testifying against Rep Pickett’s HB 2298, started her routine by explaining that they are not associated with Bloomberg or any of his organizations…they are a local organization . . .

Local control has been a focus of a couple of issues this session, and open carry has been drawn into it by the antis trying to assert that it should be a local issue. Bloomberg and things New York and DC don’t play well to the legislators, and thus distancing themselves plays to that.

HB 2445 by Rep J. White was also heard, to better define what is an unlawful display of a firearm. This follows on to Rep. Dutton’s amendment to the HB910 yesterday, which was not motivated by his concern for the carrying public at large.

What strikes me as funny on the testimony taken is that there is this strange concern on the part of the manic moms and LEOs that OC is going to lead to rampant chaos with groups of people running around waving guns in air. I’m not sure where this has happened outside of the Middle East and Africa, but I’m kind of skeptical it’s going to happen in Austin. The bill was left pending and it didn’t seem to have a lot of traction with Chairman Phillips.

Recommended For You

38 Responses to Texas Gun Sense: Bloomberg? Who’s Bloomberg?

  1. “. . . testifying against Rep Pickett’s HB 2298, started her routine by explaining that they are not associated with Bloomberg or any of his organizations…”

    Sounds like something that could be investigated. If the testimony was under oath it’s purgery; if not under oath then it’s what is known in the vernacular as “BS”. Either way, it reflects on the veracity of the organization she represents.

    • You mean “perjury”, right? I would like to exercise some “purgery” on the Texas branch of the “moms”, tho, now that I think about it–purge them right out of the state.

      • Send the veracity challenged, evasive, deceptive ‘moms’ to ‘purgetory’… 😮

        Maybe they’ll be given some HONEST work there.

        • More like I want the state of Texas to vomit them out–maybe into the Gulf, whence they can float down to Mexico and enjoy living in a common-sensically gun-controlled country.

        • “perjury”; yes, of course. Sometimes I don’t check my spell-checker carefully enough.

    • I’m making 86 dolar an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging 64 dolar but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do…
      Rᴇᴀᴅ Mᴏʀᴇ info ►œ►œ►œ►
      ­T­r­a­c­k-r­e­p­o­r­t.­Ⅽ­O­Ⅿ
      ►œ►œ►œ► ►œ►œ►œ►

  2. There was much concern that concealed carry in Chicago was going to be so horrible, and that there would be blood in the streets….

    Too bad there’s been many more instances of good guys with guns stopping something than somebody with a permit doing something wrong.

    • Oh please! They _always_ claim “blood in the streets” when concealed carry is allowed. Remember Florida in the 90s when they legalized concealed carry? The antis called it the “Gunshine State”.

      I’d write more, but the blood is up to my knees, and I need to climb higher up.

  3. They will never stop repeating the same tired old claims of blood in the streets, whether the law in question is concealed carry, open carry, college carry, constitutional carry, NFA item legalization etc.

    Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?

    • No you have never told us what it means. Tell us again……….
      maybe it will be different
      THIS time around.

      /sarc.

  4. The PotG need to start recording individuals and statements they make about the impending dangers. For each one, set a tickler in Outlook to check back with them 6 months after the law passes and see how things are going. What would they say when confronted with the lack of pandemonium? Is there no opportunity to permanently besmirch these folks’ credibility and brand them as chicken littles?

    • I still run into asshat leftists online who take Paul Ehrlich seriously, in spite of the fact that every prediction of doom he has made since the 1970s has failed spectacularly. They seem totally unaware of his record.

    • ” Is there no opportunity to permanently besmirch these folks’ credibility and brand them as chicken littles?”

      I think not. When confronted with results diametrically opposed to what they screamed to the heavens would happen, we regularly hear the refrain that “other factors were involved”, causing them to appear wrong even though they were the only ones with sense enough to predict the results so accurately (ie, not at all). They NEVER admit they were just wrong, at least not since “wild west shootouts” and “blood in the streets” failed to appear in FL after 1987, closing in on 30 years ago. And it REALLY gets my goat that even the terminology remains the same, after being proven wrong 2-3 dozen times since then.

      • Ignore the anti’s! It makes them crazier. The crazier they get, the less people will take them serious. It’s a death spiral at it’s finest!

        • Interesting strategy. What do the PR pros have to contribute on such a strategy?

          Seems to me that if we speak to the issues (what might work; what wouldn’t work and why) then we won’t find ourselves disparaging our debate opponents. We aren’t going to gain any converts with ad hominem attacks.

          We can generally allude to billionaire support for astroturf organizations; billionaires who can, and do, afford the considerable expense of enticing experienced police officers to retire on pension and work as their private bodyguards. It isn’t really essential to name names. Likewise, we can refer to the foundations of the extremely wealth that serve to disguise the source of their funding; i.e., billionaires.

          We can point out how few individuals appear at demonstrations to promote gun control. The most numerous advocates of gun control seem to be journalists and politicians.

          We don’t see journalists or politicians arguing for improving security at our children’s schools. Simple provisions such as re-inforced glass in exterior doors; locking exterior doors between opening/closing of the day’s session. Buzzing-in visitors based on CCTV visual identification. These economical procedures would buy a few minutes of additional time for the police to respond.

          If journalists, politicians, et. al, won’t advocate for simple security improvements (that need not require guns other than those of the police) then what is their real objective? If they won’t advocate for improved mental-health screening and services, then what is their real objective? If they won’t advocate for civilizing young men in the inner-city, then what is their real objective?

        • Mark, with both Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent posting comments to the same post and both with ambiguous motivations behind said comments, I think ‘grain of salt’ applies.

        • JR, I’m waiting for a comment from ‘Marvin the Paranoid Android’…

          Or Trillian.

  5. “…they are a local organization…”

    And maybe they are. It’s not like Bloomberg is the only source of anti-gun funding and organizing in the US. Or am I being too naive?

    • Could be they are. But their web page references “Everytown” and features a photo of a lady waving a “Moms Demand Action” sign. I’m thinking astroturf. OTOH, their site is pretty lame, maybe they are really winging it on their own.

    • Let’s see … You have the Bradys, the Giffords (or are they a subsidiary of Bloomberg Anti-Gun Inc.?) and … um … Well, I still have some fingers left so there must be a few more, but I can’t think of any off the top that aren’t BAG Inc affiliates or supportees.

      • At least for a while, the Giffords’ effort was yielding a lot of $$, they had no interest in sharing, but they may have started drawing from li’l Mikey by now.

  6. What strikes me as funny on the testimony taken is that there is this strange concern on the part of the manic moms and LEOs that OC is going to lead to rampant chaos with groups of people running around waving guns in air

    And yet just to the North, Oklahoma has had OC since 2012 with zero issues.

  7. Frances Schenkkan is doing her best impression of Sgt. Schultz — “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!”

    And yet, somewhere in the background, Bloomberg the master puppeteer is pulling the strings that she dances to.

    • There is a look of pure evil in those eyes.

      Hooded eyes, I believe they’re called. Something about the lower lids.

      NOT to be trusted.

      • Are you kidding? She’s a “poet” living in Austin, Tx–what’s not to trust?? Other than her attachment to objective reality…

  8. Washington State has open carry W/O a license and is still here. Oklahoma had open carry for those with CCL’s and hasn’t destroyed itself. Guess they can’t see anything North of the Red River

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *