Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Oklahoma Bills Introducted
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1446180" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>Easy, killer. Didn't mean to get your panties in a wad.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Just because he's got an "R" by his name doesn't mean a thing. Go look at his voting record.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Are gun owners not a "special interest group"? That term is so abused, almost as bad a "politically correct". People only use it to say that a politician doesn't agree with their views.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's all fine and dandy in a utopia, but it's not that easy in the real world. That prohibition was put in the law specifically to attract professional sports to OKC and Tulsa. A lot of very influential people control or work to attract those tourist attractions.</p><p></p><p>It's like the bill for attracting a grand prix: good luck getting them to remove the "with populations of 300,000 or more" provision so that cities other than Oklahoma City or Tulsa could have sanctioned street races.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What's your point? Is she some how superior to a male governor?</p><p></p><p>Following her public speeches versus her voting record, she sure has a good history of contradicting herself and disregarding the Constitution.</p><p></p><p>By the way, have you ever tried to do an interview with her? Don't ask a question that wasn't submitted at least 24 hours in advance.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not as good a thing as one might think. There is no check on the agenda by another party.</p><p></p><p>Even then, didn't the Republicans campaign on lower taxes? Have you looked at the tax-related bills? Most of the proposed tax increases are coming from Republicans, while the boldest tax cuts are coming from Democrats.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"We the people" asked for an efficient government. We're going to regret it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've never said that we can't.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Too bad there was such overwhelming support by "2A Supporters" for the decisions in <em>Heller</em> and <em>McDonald</em>. If someone tells me that those decisions are victories and that they support the Second Amendment, then I know that they don't truly understand what they are fighting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't sit on the sidelines. Far from it. I've got a lot of my own skin in the game. I am very politically involved, and certainly one of the ten or so people that actually contact my Representative and Senator, even though I don't agree with either of them on many issues, and I felt shut out by my Rep last year. I also keep in touch with Executive officials.</p><p></p><p>Why did I take a month-long break from blogging after the election? Part of it was that my brain was feeling fried from researching so many candidates and issues before making my endorsements. The other part was sitting back and gaining some perspective to decide if some of the letters, emails, and public comments I received (specifically about SQ755) were worth the fight.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's fine and dandy in a utopia. But if you really believe that is the case with a single-party legislative and executive branch, you're going to get a rude awakening over the next two years.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I choose to pick my battles wisely. If you actually follow legislation, you'll see that usually at least four people file identical bills. Most of those will not make it out of committee, as a small group of individuals in the legislature controls what is heard on the floor in each chamber. Your legislator can say all he wants about his support or opposition to a bill that will never make it to the floor because he doesn't have to vote on it. Even then, most bills are introduced symbolically so that the legislator can go home and say "I introduced a bill to do such and such" even if they did no politicking for support by their fellow members.</p><p></p><p>Take, for example, open carry last year. There were numerous bills that were hung up because Sue Tibbs refused to hear them in committee. Then, late in the second session, she introduced her own bill that got railroaded onto the floor. Anybody who follows politics knew exactly what was happening. It became apparent that open carry or gun legislation might be a major issue in some districts, and a few people needed anything they could get to secure the last few votes. It was a given Brad Henry would veto it and the override would likely fail in the House.</p><p></p><p>I don't see many people complaining about the super-Obamacaresque bills on healthcare reform. But they also shouldn't complain about them, as there's a 95% chance those bills won't make it to the floor. Even if they did, they won't pass.</p><p></p><p>Look at who is running the committees this year. Once again, it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." In fact, Tibbs has NOTHING to lose this year and therefore no reason to let an open carry bill out of committee, even at the last minute. I'm pretty certain that our only real hope will be bypassing the committee, but I'm unsure of any previously successful efforts in doing so.</p><p></p><p>So no, I don't jump on the bandwagon when it's rosy. I'm generally one of the ones driving the bandwagons. But you have to know which battles are worth fighting. If you expend too much energy in a useless battle, you won't be able to fight the real ones.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1446180, member: 5151"] Easy, killer. Didn't mean to get your panties in a wad. Just because he's got an "R" by his name doesn't mean a thing. Go look at his voting record. Are gun owners not a "special interest group"? That term is so abused, almost as bad a "politically correct". People only use it to say that a politician doesn't agree with their views. That's all fine and dandy in a utopia, but it's not that easy in the real world. That prohibition was put in the law specifically to attract professional sports to OKC and Tulsa. A lot of very influential people control or work to attract those tourist attractions. It's like the bill for attracting a grand prix: good luck getting them to remove the "with populations of 300,000 or more" provision so that cities other than Oklahoma City or Tulsa could have sanctioned street races. What's your point? Is she some how superior to a male governor? Following her public speeches versus her voting record, she sure has a good history of contradicting herself and disregarding the Constitution. By the way, have you ever tried to do an interview with her? Don't ask a question that wasn't submitted at least 24 hours in advance. That's not as good a thing as one might think. There is no check on the agenda by another party. Even then, didn't the Republicans campaign on lower taxes? Have you looked at the tax-related bills? Most of the proposed tax increases are coming from Republicans, while the boldest tax cuts are coming from Democrats. "We the people" asked for an efficient government. We're going to regret it. I've never said that we can't. Too bad there was such overwhelming support by "2A Supporters" for the decisions in [I]Heller[/I] and [I]McDonald[/I]. If someone tells me that those decisions are victories and that they support the Second Amendment, then I know that they don't truly understand what they are fighting. I don't sit on the sidelines. Far from it. I've got a lot of my own skin in the game. I am very politically involved, and certainly one of the ten or so people that actually contact my Representative and Senator, even though I don't agree with either of them on many issues, and I felt shut out by my Rep last year. I also keep in touch with Executive officials. Why did I take a month-long break from blogging after the election? Part of it was that my brain was feeling fried from researching so many candidates and issues before making my endorsements. The other part was sitting back and gaining some perspective to decide if some of the letters, emails, and public comments I received (specifically about SQ755) were worth the fight. That's fine and dandy in a utopia. But if you really believe that is the case with a single-party legislative and executive branch, you're going to get a rude awakening over the next two years. I choose to pick my battles wisely. If you actually follow legislation, you'll see that usually at least four people file identical bills. Most of those will not make it out of committee, as a small group of individuals in the legislature controls what is heard on the floor in each chamber. Your legislator can say all he wants about his support or opposition to a bill that will never make it to the floor because he doesn't have to vote on it. Even then, most bills are introduced symbolically so that the legislator can go home and say "I introduced a bill to do such and such" even if they did no politicking for support by their fellow members. Take, for example, open carry last year. There were numerous bills that were hung up because Sue Tibbs refused to hear them in committee. Then, late in the second session, she introduced her own bill that got railroaded onto the floor. Anybody who follows politics knew exactly what was happening. It became apparent that open carry or gun legislation might be a major issue in some districts, and a few people needed anything they could get to secure the last few votes. It was a given Brad Henry would veto it and the override would likely fail in the House. I don't see many people complaining about the super-Obamacaresque bills on healthcare reform. But they also shouldn't complain about them, as there's a 95% chance those bills won't make it to the floor. Even if they did, they won't pass. Look at who is running the committees this year. Once again, it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." In fact, Tibbs has NOTHING to lose this year and therefore no reason to let an open carry bill out of committee, even at the last minute. I'm pretty certain that our only real hope will be bypassing the committee, but I'm unsure of any previously successful efforts in doing so. So no, I don't jump on the bandwagon when it's rosy. I'm generally one of the ones driving the bandwagons. But you have to know which battles are worth fighting. If you expend too much energy in a useless battle, you won't be able to fight the real ones. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Oklahoma Bills Introducted
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom