LUBY'S REVISTED.....

One of the victims; the woman in the clip I posted (Dr. Suzanna Gratia) was instrumental in lobbying Austin to get the CHL legislation approved.......She was the leading activist in the CHL movement in Texas...she went on to the Austin legislature, serving for 5 terms !

Luby's had EVERYTHING to do with Bush signing the CHL legislation.

You don't know what you are talking about......you embarass yourself with most of your own posts. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I dont care if she passed out free pussy ... the basic reason concealed was passed is because after Richards said she would veto the legislation, Bush said he would pass it if he was elected .. pure politics, nothing more nothing less .. Lubys be damned

Helloooooooooooo ANN RICHARDS ... this is TEXAS

And the legislation grew in popularity and couldn't be ignored because of the Luby's tragedy......the tragedy accelerated the public demand for the legislation...


Quit with the stupidity CJ....

"Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (Texas's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed sadness for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person.

Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to carry concealed firearms. Those that were killed and wounded were not the only causalities. Survivors and several of the numerous law enforcement officers who responded to the shooting have continued to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder to this day."

http://www.texasgunpros.com/article.asp?Id=28

popular my ass, Bush would have passed it regardless based on his campaign promise.

believe anything you want, the vast majority of Texans are and were pro gun before and after Lubys

I think Whirly has clearly handed CBJ7 his ass, with CBJ7's help.

Here you go, CBJ7 >>>

Hands on ass... A familiar scenario, Unawhiner?

Keep looking for "lies", Assup. It keeps you busy.

I think Whirly has clearly handed CBJ7 his ass, with CBJ7's help.

Here you go, CBJ7 >>> Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

yeah, one woman stumping for concealed carry all over the country had a big part in the Bush decision to pass it in TEXAS ... LMAO

Im a TEXAN, I was here, I remember the political aspect of the Richards/Bush campaign scenario ... I DO NOT REMEMBER ONE SINGLE TIME WHEN LUBYS WAS BROUGHT INTO THE SCENARIO ... Lubys was 5 years earlier could have been the reason.

Absolutely; the Texas response was the correct one.....expand the rights of individuals to protect themselves, not regulate those rights away.

Thanks for asking. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So the question that has to be asked is why you are bringing up this subject at this time? Ancient history. A law was passed which I happen to support. I commend Hupp for her diligence in getting the law passed but I see no reason to bring up the subject at this time. Just my opinion.

He's bringing it up because he's afraid that people won't advocate for expanded gun ownership in America. We all know that the laws on the books don't provide enough firepower for the average elementary school teacher, housewife or cashier at Jack in the Box.

They're fighting for flame throwers now and will trample anybody who infringes upon their rights to burn others in the name of self protection!

I don't think of 1990 - 1996 as ancient history; in my mind ancient history is sometime before/during the Hellenistic Period..........

Go back and re-read the legislator's speeches and testimonies debating the merits of the legislation; Luby's is mentioned many many many times..re-read the editorial pages and comments............and the History Channel credits the Luby's tragedy with the CHL legislation passage:

"...Another outcome of the Luby’s massacre was that in 1995 the Texas legislature passed a law allowing residents with gun permits to carry concealed weapons...."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...xas-restaurant

yeah, one woman stumping for concealed carry all over the country had a big part in the Bush decision to pass it in TEXAS ... LMAO

Im a TEXAN, I was here, I remember the political aspect of the Richards/Bush campaign scenario ... I DO NOT REMEMBER ONE SINGLE TIME WHEN LUBYS WAS BROUGHT INTO THE SCENARIO ... Lubys was 5 years earlier could have been the reason. Originally Posted by CJ7

I don't think of 1990 - 1996 as ancient history; in my mind ancient history is sometime before/during the Hellenistic Period.......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

To me ancient history is something that happened in the past that bringing up today won't change anything.

With that said, if you and others want to discuss it, go for it.

Go back and re-read the legislator's speeches and testimonies debating the merits of the legislation; Luby's is mentioned many many many times..re-read the editorial pages and comments............and the History Channel credits the Luby's tragedy with the CHL legislation passage:

"...Another outcome of the Luby’s massacre was that in 1995 the Texas legislature passed a law allowing residents with gun permits to carry concealed weapons...."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...xas-restaurant Originally Posted by Whirlaway

you whirlie, and crazy ole fart are preaching th the choir when youre talking about gun control ... either one of you would be hard pressed to find anyone more pro gun than I am.

Lubys and Texas in 1995 has no effect in todays world as a whole. Period.

The End

You act as if the whole handgun situation is so cut and dried. It is not. Reasonable people can have very different ideas of what should be done, but the majority of people on here do not wish to be reasonable. Originally Posted by TGBeldin

I suspect your "reasonable people" include those who carelessly throw away their liberties and freedoms in exchange for a more secure nanny state......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What a shock! One of the Wackos defines "reasonable" as those who agree with him. No, if you DON'T understand that we need a serious national discussion about HOW MUCH freedom vs HOW MUCH security, then you are even stupider that I gave you credit for. I--and I assume TGB--are not in favor of "carelessly throwing away" our liberties, but I also do not equate your right to own whatever you want as the obvious right answer. This is no the 1700s any more, in a rural America. I don't know the right ballance, but closed minded folks (of both ends of the spectrum) who refuse to reasonably discuss tough issues certainly don't advance a reasoned solution. Your definition of "discussion" seems to be "Agree with me or shut up!"