Monday, September 21, 2009

Chuck Wilson Responds to Gun Rights Questionnaire

Reader reaction to what they perceived as non-responsiveness did not appear to help Mr. Curnock's cause. But he's not the only candidate in the 17th. I also approached Chuck Wilson...[More]
Today's second Gun Rights Examiner column continues exploring Republican alternatives for a Texas congressional race I've been following.

Also get the latest from my fellow GREs.

Tell a friend?

6 comments:

idahobob said...

I wonder why it is that these people (politicians) do not want to answer specific questions, but feel that a general, tepid, and un-committal like paragraph will suffice. Do they really believe that this mamby pamby bullshit will placate us?

Bob
III

Kent McManigal said...

idahobob-"Plausible deniability". They can fool gun owners into thinking they are a friend, but they can vote for more violations of our rights and say it doesn't violate what they stated as their position.

If I still had any faith in the political process it would infuriate me. As it is, I am only disgusted when people fall for it.

Unknown said...

Politicians have their answers - with their intended buzz words, catch phrases, and pre-polled opinions - prepared or prepared for them in advance.

Part of what it means to be a politician it seems is the ability to turn any question into the question that they want to answer. Its sometimes seems like its 90% BS and 10% actual content (and that might be a generous statement).

Unknown said...

OK, after reading THIS politicians response:

While it does not well address the specifics of the list of question presented (instead boiling the list into one of those prepared for questions a la the 2A in general), it does do better than some we've seen at making a more concrete statement, rather than a just game of words. Still no mention though of what he would do in response to, or how he would define as, "common sense" regulation.

Oh exactly how does one regulate "shall not be infringed" anyway... Oh yeah, but ignoring the wording exists in the first place it seems. The price paid for over generalizing one's position seems to be the ability to compromise away the Freedoms laid out in all the detail...

David Codrea said...

These comments would spur more discussion if they were being conducted over at the article instead of here at the announcement for it...

Longbow said...

He's a damned coward. That is why he doesn't want to answer your questions.