TexasCHLforum.com

The constitution didn't stop them from registering and taxing real assault rifles, and banning new manufacture for citizens after 1986. Why would it stop similar measures for look alikes? Why should it?

The second amendment is not about hunting or other sporting purposes. It's about citizens being able to own and carry the same arms as government employees. If real militia guns like M16 rifles and M4 carbines can be restricted for you and me, M4geries and other fake look alikes have even less constitutional protection then the real thing.

It's time to pay the piper for decades of compromise.

bayouhazard wrote:The constitution didn't stop them from registering and taxing real assault rifles, and banning new manufacture for citizens after 1986. Why would it stop similar measures for look alikes? Why should it?

The second amendment is not about hunting or other sporting purposes. It's about citizens being able to own and carry the same arms as government employees. If real militia guns like M16 rifles and M4 carbines can be restricted for you and me, M4geries and other fake look alikes have even less constitutional protection then the real thing.

It's time to pay the piper for decades of compromise.

The Constitution does but the law doesn't. The 2nd Amendment the way it is written means an American can own any weapon that the military uses, if he can afford to purchase and maintain it. During the time the Constitution was being written most of the cannon and rifles were owned by individuals and used by the community.

It is worth noting that the colonists during the war for independence from Great Britain did in fact possess a semblance of "semi-auto" firearms.

The King of England never got around to limiting the number of muskets, or the number of reloaders a colonial militiaman might have at his disposal.

That could be construed as constituting at the very least SEMI- "automatic" military style weaponry.
_________________________

When the powers of government LIMIT magazine capacity - are they not thereby consigning the people to their deaths ?

chasfm11 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: I keep hearing this "repeal the second amendment" stuff.

The Constitution and BOR enumerate rights that pre-existed the document. These rights are God given and cannot be taken away. Even if the second amendment were repealed the right to keep and bear arms will still exist. It will just be more improtant to exercise the RKBA before it gets this far.

Anygunanywhere

I would much rather see them try to appeal the 2nd Amendment. It would never pass. They don't have enough blue States to do it and they know it. Instead, they will do what they always do - end run the Constitution and, just like Chicago, pass something that they know isn't Constitutional. The question will be as to whether SCOTUS would sell us out again or not.

I don't think it matters any more. If they don't, the left will just ignore the ruling anyway, just like in Illinois now. The Constitution is a dead letter.

If...............the U.S. Constitution is "moot" as the progressives prefer......

Then I ask .......under what pretense then ...... do these 50 " United States of America" even exist ???

That having been said I am glad that I reside in the Republic of Texas.

SherwoodForest wrote:If...............the U.S. Constitution is "moot" as the progressives prefer......

Then I ask .......under what pretense then ...... do these 50 " United States of America" even exist ???

That having been said I am glad that I reside in the Republic of Texas.

I would say that your error here is to assume either logic or honesty on the part of the left. For them the Constitution is merely a tool to wield in its own destruction.

VMI77 wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: I keep hearing this "repeal the second amendment" stuff.

The Constitution and BOR enumerate rights that pre-existed the document. These rights are God given and cannot be taken away. Even if the second amendment were repealed the right to keep and bear arms will still exist. It will just be more improtant to exercise the RKBA before it gets this far.

Anygunanywhere

I would much rather see them try to appeal the 2nd Amendment. It would never pass. They don't have enough blue States to do it and they know it. Instead, they will do what they always do - end run the Constitution and, just like Chicago, pass something that they know isn't Constitutional. The question will be as to whether SCOTUS would sell us out again or not.

I don't think it matters any more. If they don't, the left will just ignore the ruling anyway, just like in Illinois now. The Constitution is a dead letter.

As well as the Bible. The right to privacy, going back to Adam and Eve and the fig leaf was taken away with the unconstitutional Patriot Act as well as TSA naked body scanners.

SherwoodForest wrote:If...............the U.S. Constitution is "moot" as the progressives prefer......

Then I ask .......under what pretense then ...... do these 50 " United States of America" even exist ???

That is the pretense but the reality is right of conquest dating to the imperial war 150 years ago.

SherwoodForest wrote:under what pretense then ...... do these 50 " United States of America" even exist ???

And now you're grasping the collectivist agenda fully. People have been trained to see the US as a "Hierarchy" with the federal govt at the top. The President is "King" and decrees things to his lords (states).

This has been ingrained in most people now for almost 100 years. Not at all what was intended.

This administration's aim is a central planning model akin to the Soviet Politburo. Romney tapped danced around this during the debates, but never came out and said it.

Bitter_Clinger wrote:This administration's aim is a central planning model akin to the Soviet Politburo. Romney tapped danced around this during the debates, but never came out and said it.

Too bad he didn't have the cajones to come out and call Obama a Socialist/Communist-wannabe when he had the chance. He probably would have garnered a few votes in the process.

cyphur wrote:

Bitter_Clinger wrote:This administration's aim is a central planning model akin to the Soviet Politburo. Romney tapped danced around this during the debates, but never came out and said it.

Too bad he didn't have the cajones to come out and call Obama a Socialist/Communist-wannabe when he had the chance. He probably would have garnered a few votes in the process.

Bitter_Clinger wrote:

cyphur wrote:

Bitter_Clinger wrote:This administration's aim is a central planning model akin to the Soviet Politburo. Romney tapped danced around this during the debates, but never came out and said it.

Too bad he didn't have the cajones to come out and call Obama a Socialist/Communist-wannabe when he had the chance. He probably would have garnered a few votes in the process.

I don't know. Some here think that we should use diplomacy and try to win the antigunners and commies over to our side. We would not want to alienate those that want to take away more of our freedom and rights.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

Bitter_Clinger wrote:

cyphur wrote:

Bitter_Clinger wrote:This administration's aim is a central planning model akin to the Soviet Politburo. Romney tapped danced around this during the debates, but never came out and said it.

Too bad he didn't have the cajones to come out and call Obama a Socialist/Communist-wannabe when he had the chance. He probably would have garnered a few votes in the process.

I don't know. Some here think that we should use diplomacy and try to win the antigunners and commies over to our side. We would not want to alienate those that want to take away more of our freedom and rights.

Anygunanywhere

You are assuming they will listen to reason, which will not happen. There are liberals on this board, they will argue their point over any subject that "could" happen but when something actually does happen because of their party affiliation...they don't have much to add to the topics. Case in point why trying to "win" them over will not work; look at the difference between the Tea Party rallies and the Occupy rallies, look at the difference in the debates on the news, who always is quick to smear someones character and call names? It isn't the right side of the isle. My point is, I believe the very FAR left are like the children that picked up their toys and went home because you didn't do what they said. It seems to be okay for them to make remarks about violent retaliation, but God forbid anyone else does it. It seems to be okay for them to "misremember" if that is even a word; had it been one from the right side that would have been "flip-flopping". It seems to be okay for them to "mis-speak" whereas anyone else would be a liar....sorry, I am tired of playing by their unbalanced rules, I do not wish to win over the hearts and minds of the people who are trying to rob me of what is mine. I think they should all go kick rocks....

jdhz28 wrote: You are assuming they will listen to reason, which will not happen. There are liberals on this board, they will argue their point over any subject that "could" happen but when something actually does happen because of their party affiliation...they don't have much to add to the topics. Case in point why trying to "win" them over will not work; look at the difference between the Tea Party rallies and the Occupy rallies, look at the difference in the debates on the news, who always is quick to smear someones character and call names? It isn't the right side of the isle. My point is, I believe the very FAR left are like the children that picked up their toys and went home because you didn't do what they said. It seems to be okay for them to make remarks about violent retaliation, but God forbid anyone else does it. It seems to be okay for them to "misremember" if that is even a word; had it been one from the right side that would have been "flip-flopping". It seems to be okay for them to "mis-speak" whereas anyone else would be a liar....sorry, I am tired of playing by their unbalanced rules, I do not wish to win over the hearts and minds of the people who are trying to rob me of what is mine. I think they should all go kick rocks....

I forgot to turn the sarcasm on.

I have been cautioned by several individuals that my words will either inflame those on the other side or will open me up for prosecution as a domestic terrorist under the unpatriot act or other recent legislation.

Whatever.