TX - Lt. Gov. Patrick Defies NRA to Support UBCs

I won't be surprised to see other RINOS cave on gun control, Trump himself banned bump stocks because one may have been used in a crime.
 
Mostly oil barons, real estate and big business. He is a functional moron. A while back he claimed the school shootings happen because schools have too many doors.

DAN GOEB PATRICK CAMPAIGN CMTE $1,050,632.94
BORDER HEALTH PAC $525,000.00
RYAN LLC $400,000.00
ROWLING JR, ROBERT BRIAN $400,000.00
WARREN, KELCY LEE $400,000.00
ANWAR, SYED JAVAID $393,626.29
BOENKER III, ALVIN HENRY (AL)
$370,000.00
HUNT, RAYMOND LEE (RAY)
$350,000.00
ALVIS, STEVEN D (STEVE)
$344,418.82
HORNER, TIMOTHY ANDREW (TIM)
$300,000.00
ANDREWS, BARRY G
$281,809.89
HUNT, WOODY L (W L)
$277,821.99
WEISMAN, JOHN R
$250,000.00
SCOTT, RICHARD R
$247,200.00
DEASON, DARWIN A
$225,000.00
STALLINGS, KYLE L
$212,299.35
FERTITTA, TILMAN J
$201,723.04
TEXAS REALTORS
$200,000.00
PEROT, HENRY ROSS
$200,000.00
WALTON, ALICE LOUISE
$200,000.00
FRIEDKIN, THOMAS DAN (TOM)
$200,000.00
MCGILL, DONALD
$200,000.00
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF TEXAS
$176,300.00
FOSTER, PAUL L
$175,000.00
TROUTT, KENNETH A (KENNY)
$175,000.00
FRIEDKIN BUSINESS SERVICES / GULF STATE TOYOTA
$160,756.00
MCLANE JR, ROBERT DRAYTON
$160,000.00
LANHAM JR, ROBERT C
$160,000.00
BENNETT, MONTGOMERY J (MONTY)
$160,000.00
PICKENS JR, THOMAS BOONE (T)
$155,000.00
PLANK, MICHAEL J
$155,000.00
AT&T
$150,000.00
MORIAN, STANLEY REED
$150,000.00
FRIEDKIN, DAN
$150,000.00
MCLANE, DRAYTON
$150,000.00
PITCOCK, JAMES
$150,000.00
TEXANS FOR LAWSUIT REFORM
$138,000.00
Q INVESTMENTS
$135,000.00
TEXAS DENTAL ASSOCIATION
$125,000.00
FORD, GERALD J
$125,000.00
WILKS, FARRIS C
$125,000.00
ALLEN BOONE HUMPHRIES ROBINSON
$113,492.90
DANNENBAUM, JAMES D (JIM)
$112,500.00
HILDEBRAND, JEFFERY D
$110,000.00
SAFE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE TRANSPORTATION PAC
$105,000.00
VIOLET VERBENA LLC
$105,000.00
TEXAS APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
$100,000.00
TEXAS HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION
$100,000.00
ANSARY, HUSHANG
$100,000.00
PITCOCK JR, JAMES DOUGLASS (DOUG)
$100,000.00
HASSENFLU, K ALAN
$100,000.00
KICKAPOO TRADITIONAL TRIBE OF TEXAS
$100,000.00
ALBRITTON, ROBERT L
$100,000.00
WILDER, CHARLES JOHN
$100,000.00
MARSHALL JR, E PIERCE
$100,000.00
CROW, TRAMMELL
$100,000.00
PITCOCK, JAMES
$100,000.00
MCLANE, DRAYTON
$100,000.00
CROW, TRAMMELL
$100,000.00
MCGILL, DONALD
$100,000.00
PITCOCK, JAMES
$100,000.00
BASS BROTHERS ENTERPRISES
$97,500.00
GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND OF FORT WORTH
$97,500.00
MOAYEDI, MEHRDAD
$92,500.00
ANDREWS & KURTH
$90,000.00
WALL, KATHALEEN
$90,000.00
MCLANE, DRAYTON
$90,000.00
HILLCO PARTNERS
$89,004.48
EMPOWER TEXANS
$88,975.50
HERNANDEZ III, MICHAEL A
$87,500.00
TEXAS FARM BUREAU
$86,184.58
DUNN, TIMOTHY M (TIM)
$85,450.00
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE AGENTS OF TEXAS
$85,000.00
GREEHEY, WILLIAM E (BILL)
$85,000.00
HEAVIN, HOWARD (GARY)
$83,290.00
REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING CO
$80,000.00
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP
$75,000.00
WALKER, JOHN B
$75,000.00
LANIER LAW FIRM
$75,000.00
BUTT, CHARLES C
$75,000.00
WILKS, DANIEL H (DAN)
$75,000.00


https://votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/57986/dan-patrick#.XXPoQG5FxPY
 
A while back he claimed the school shootings happen because schools have too many doors.
Click to expand...

If elected, I will resist the Big Door Lobby and reduce the number of doors in our schools.

Since the legislature is adjourned until 2021, he won’t have much chance to do it anytime soon; but he has the power and ability to push it through in 2021.
Click to expand...

Convenient timing, huh? He can collect his Woke Points and accolades from the gun-control lobby and look like he's doing something. By the time 2021 rolls around, either the voters support it and he can keep pushing, or they've rejected it and he can keep quiet with the expectation that everyone forgot about it.
 
I think PPS are going to be the next freedom to fall. Once we have defacto registration we will soon after have real registration.
 
Convenient timing, huh? He can collect his Woke Points and accolades from the gun-control lobby and look like he's doing something. By the time 2021 rolls around, either the voters support it and he can keep pushing, or they've rejected it and he can keep quiet with the expectation that everyone forgot about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that strategy crossed my mind too. It does go to show that many of our stalwart pro-Second defenders won’t hesitate to sell us out the minute a Beto-like candidate makes them worry they might have to back their snout out of the trough a few inches.
 
At the very least, he ought to be required to explain on television how UBCs work in the absence of full firearms registration at the state or federal level.
 
Doc Intrepid said:
At the very least, he ought to be required to explain on television how UBCs work in the absence of full firearms registration at the state or federal level.
Click to expand...
UBC even w/o registration, at the federal level, isn't going to happen anyway..And even if registration was included, it wouldn't apply to the 360million ++ guns now held in private hands..
 
USNRet93 said:
And even if registration was included, it wouldn't apply to the 360million ++ guns now held in private hands
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t it? Because it isn’t politically feasible? Background checks for private sales weren’t even on the table in 1994 and weren’t politically feasible as recently as 2013.

Because it is impractical and unenforceable? We all know that hasn’t made any difference in gun laws since before many of us were born.
 
Why wouldn’t it? Because it isn’t politically feasible?
Click to expand...

Because it's not feasible considering the system now nor the YUGE $ it would require plus the 'success rate' would be tiny, plus not all on the left want this. Remember that more than a few on the right are yelling for UBC AND RedFlag laws..

How would that happen at the federal level..registering 387MILLION guns?

Of the guns I own, only a small portion were acquired via a BGC..others family gifts..

I know, I know, "registration=confiscation"..that not on the table either particularly considering the SCOTUS rulings..A few on one side of the isle yelling doesn't =legislation.
 
Right now, you can make a solid argument that allowing you to keep a six-shot .22 revolver only in your home after you obtain a firearms license, training, and register the handgun for several hundred dollars in fees and a few days of your time is perfectly in keeping.

So, while I would agree with the interpretation that Heller forbids confiscation of wide categories of firearms, that is far from a done deal. Not a single circuit court or SCOTUS has yet said that bans on classes of firearms violates Heller.

And while you characterize it as “a few on one side of the aisle”, it is actually every single Presidential candidate and 100% of the Congressional leadership of the Democratic party supporting gun control even beyond what YOU personally support. And as you point out, there are several Republicans willing to join them, not the least of whom may be our mercurial President.

The fact that it isn’t feasible or realistic means nothing. Both the states and feds have passed laws that aren’t feasible or realistic to comply with. Go look at the Calguns flow chart for banned weapons to see an example.

You are willfully ignoring many danger signs; but you’re probably right that at least in the short term you’ll just have those family heirlooms declared illegal without any real effort to confiscate them. You’ll just lose the life you know if you get caught with them.
 
And while you characterize it as “a few on one side of the aisle”, it is actually every single Presidential candidate and 100% of the Congressional leadership of the Democratic party supporting gun control even beyond what YOU personally support.
Click to expand...
First, you have no idea what I 'personally support'..I make note of the absolutes often offered up by 'some' and point out that statements by any politician are just that, words, from either side of the isle.
AND, as I pointed out, more than a few GOP have mentioned support for UBC and RFL..like the guy in the big chair, trump, altho that really means little.

BTW-A quote from Chuck Schumer
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) said on Sunday that when entering the gun control debate, the left must “admit there is a Second Amendment.”

“We’ve been gridlocked,” he said on CBS’s Face The Nation. “We need a new paradigm because both sides are in the corner and they could come to the middle. Those of who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms... once we establish that there is a constitutional right to bear arms we should have the right admit, and maybe they’ll be more willing to admit, that no amendment is absolute after all.”
Click to expand...

The fact that it isn’t feasible or realistic means nothing. Both the states and feds have passed laws that aren’t feasible or realistic to comply with.
Click to expand...

Why something as pie in the sky like registering ALL guns in the US or 'confiscation' won't happen.
declared illegal without any real effort to confiscate them. You’ll just lose the life you know if you get caught with them.
Click to expand...

It's fine to recognize danger signs and worry about same. It's fine to support those things and people who you identify and agree with but that's an example of an absolute, considering the political complexity we are now living in.
 
B. Roberts said:
... our mercurial President.
Click to expand...
This remains a yuge issue.

For some other office holders, the problem isn't a mercurial nature but that they are weak links. Mike Dewine, Ohio's governor, has been out selling a RFL. Following Parkland, there were some members of the House from Florida who folded pre-emptively.

Greg Abbott and Mike Dewine don't mean there isn't a general pattern. They indicate that a general pattern isn't going to be a guaranty of future performance, and that you shouldn't trust them, and in just the same way you shouldn't really be placing too much trust in any office holder.

USNRet93 said:
...I make note of the absolutes often offered up by 'some' and point out that statements by any politician are just that, words, from either side of the isle.
Click to expand...

I think you've conflated absolutes and generalizations. The meaning of Basketball players are tall is a generalization, not an absolute, because statements about people are typically generalizations rather than categorical statements. You do quote some generalizations by Sen. Schumer without disapproval.

USNRet93 said:
BTW-A quote from Chuck Schumer

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) said on Sunday that when entering the gun control debate, the left must “admit there is a Second Amendment.”

“We’ve been gridlocked,” he said on CBS’s Face The Nation. “We need a new paradigm because both sides are in the corner and they could come to the middle. Those of who are pro-gun control have to admit that there is a Second Amendment right to bear arms... once we establish that there is a constitutional right to bear arms we should have the right admit, and maybe they’ll be more willing to admit, that no amendment is absolute after all.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Who in ordinary jurisprudence or mainstream politics argues that the right described in the 2d Am. is absolute? Scalia didn't. Thomas doesn't. Schumer's call for splitting the difference between you having a right and not having one is a strawman.

What does the Sen. from NY urge other than reduced defense of the 2d Am.?

USNRet93 said:
The fact that it isn’t feasible or realistic means nothing. Both the states and feds have passed laws that aren’t feasible or realistic to comply with.
Click to expand...
Why something as pie in the sky like registering ALL guns in the US or 'confiscation' won't happen.
Click to expand...

It wasn't especially feasible to restructure the relationship between government and the economy, form the TVA, build dams, make atom bombs, or engineer a moon landing. That something would be difficult doesn't mean that the government wouldn't compel people to do it.

USNRet93 said:
declared illegal without any real effort to confiscate them. You’ll just lose the life you know if you get caught with them.
Click to expand...
It's fine to recognize danger signs and worry about same. It's fine to support those things and people who you identify and agree with but that's an example of an absolute, considering the political complexity we are now living in.
Click to expand...

Declaring something illegal, i.e. prohibiting it, isn't an example of an absolute. If you make a machine gun in your basement, you'll court a real problem. Is that why you don't have a machine gun? Apply those same disincentives to every semi-automatic arm (a disincentive that has been proposed in the dem pre-primary race) and you have precisely what Bart describes.
 
Last edited:
https://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/contact/

Too edgy?

Sir:

You need to get your head screwed on straight and repudiate your support for universal background checks. Posthaste.

There were three running for LtGov last time: Rep, Dem, Libertarian. I voted for your mercurial carcass last time around, but if you are going to play the fool and support gun control, the Devil can take you. Most Libertarian candidates are jokes, but you have just beclowned yourself, so the distinction is thinning out.

Clean up your act, Bozo. I'd rather vote Republican, but you support universal background checks or any other form of gun control and I'll vote for the Libertarian Joke over the Republican Clown.
Click to expand...
 
I'd rather vote Republican, but you support universal background checks or any other form of gun control and I'll vote for the Libertarian Joke over the Republican Clown.
Click to expand...

If it were me, I'd trim it to the bolded language. You don't want to confuse a mail reading minion with a lot of extraneous insults.
 
Clean up your act, Bozo. I'd rather vote Republican, but you support universal background checks or any other form of gun control and I'll vote for the Libertarian Joke over the Republican Clown.
Click to expand...

This is a textbook example of how to screw things up not only for yourself, but for everyone else as well. Most politicians are on the fence, or at least within spitting distance of it, on this issue. Using that sort of language while the other side is throwing around (albeit fake) sentiments about compassion and compromise just makes us look like the reactionary and irrational zealots people claim we are. I have heard from state-level congressmen who've changed their minds for the worse after one or two such emails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top