TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:Frankie, you really are not worth the trouble. You are an annoyance.

Use the "Ignore user" feature by adding him as a foe in your profile. Then the problem goes away.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Well, I don't think that is what the thread is intended to be about.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And be it noted that I have posted

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I will now use the thread to point out

frankie_the_yankee wrote:And furthermore, I will also state that it is my opinion

frankie_the_yankee wrote:So there you have it.

I guess that does it. Take this to the bank. The over-riding opinion.

Anygunanywhere

drw wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Frankie, you really are not worth the trouble. You are an annoyance.

Use the "Ignore user" feature by adding him as a foe in your profile. Then the problem goes away.

Thanks. I had noticed that feature.

Anygunanywhere

centex aggie wrote:

centex aggie wrote: I know that the last time American's 2nd Amendment rights were taken away was during Katrina in New Orleans, but do any of you know how many times that this has been done by our Govt? I have looked but having a hard time finding anything.

that's all I was wanting to know.

It was the underlined part of your post quoted above that led me to believe that you were looking for info about government actions taken in the aftermath of natural disasters and/or periods of civil unrest.

This is because if you had been referring to things like the gun laws of Chicago, NYC, or laws banning open carry, etc., your statement about "the last time" our rights were taken away being Katrina wouldn't have made sense, since the laws of Chicago, NYC, etc. have been effect 24/7 both pre and post Katrina, and are still in effect today.

That's why I posted references to the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew (where our rights were not taken away) and the situation during the Rodney King riots in LA, where they were.

I saw the original request for information in exactly the same light as Frankie. Obviously, anyone with even minimal experience concerning firearms and the current politicization of gun ownership and constitutional rights has an understanding of the daily infringement of individual rights. It was my understanding that the original question was directed more at the attack on collective rights of an entire community by an overzealous government action, similar to Katrina or the LA riots as mentioned.

I have been trying to remember what little bit I learned about the uprising of WWI Veterans (in the 1930's???) concerning overdue benefits. I was thinking that also led to some serious action leading to martial law and firearms confiscation?

Just my take though!

surv

frankie_the_yankee wrote: But in case you are right, I will now use the thread to point out that all those absolutist assertions about the 2A are a mass of legal and constitutional baloney. That they are supported by no court , constitutional scholars, or case law. Nor will they ever be supported by any court, constitutional scholar or case law. And the reason for that is that, like all other "unlimited" rights, they lead to absurd conclusions that society would never want and would never support. (I'm just waiting for the 2A to reach its "correct" status. I want to set up a string of vending machines selling MP-5's at the loading gates of our major airports.

Thank you for being the voice of reason and saying why we need stronger controls on assault weapons.

amber wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: But in case you are right, I will now use the thread to point out that all those absolutist assertions about the 2A are a mass of legal and constitutional baloney. That they are supported by no court , constitutional scholars, or case law. Nor will they ever be supported by any court, constitutional scholar or case law. And the reason for that is that, like all other "unlimited" rights, they lead to absurd conclusions that society would never want and would never support. (I'm just waiting for the 2A to reach its "correct" status. I want to set up a string of vending machines selling MP-5's at the loading gates of our major airports.

Thank you for being the voice of reason and saying why we need stronger controls on assault weapons.

What exactly is an assault weapon? I've never seen one of those.

amber wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: But in case you are right, I will now use the thread to point out that all those absolutist assertions about the 2A are a mass of legal and constitutional baloney. That they are supported by no court , constitutional scholars, or case law. Nor will they ever be supported by any court, constitutional scholar or case law. And the reason for that is that, like all other "unlimited" rights, they lead to absurd conclusions that society would never want and would never support. (I'm just waiting for the 2A to reach its "correct" status. I want to set up a string of vending machines selling MP-5's at the loading gates of our major airports.

Thank you for being the voice of reason and saying why we need stronger controls on assault weapons.

Maam,
your thoughts on "assault weapons" are light years away from frankie's.
Re read the part of his post concerning the 2As "correct" status.

(I'm just waiting for the 2A to reach its "correct" status. I want to set up a string of vending machines selling MP-5's at the loading gates of our major airports.

drw wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Frankie, you really are not worth the trouble. You are an annoyance.

Use the "Ignore user" feature by adding him as a foe in your profile. Then the problem goes away.

Then you're left trying to make sense of threads with posts missing.

I really don't want to think of anyone here as a 'foe'.

But I am still waiting for him and me to agree on anything.

Probably never happen!

Your probably right Mike.

Amber posted:

Thank you for being the voice of reason and saying why we need stronger controls on assault weapons.

Why do we need stronger controls? What is your definition of "stronger controls"?

KC5AV wrote:

amber wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: But in case you are right, I will now use the thread to point out that all those absolutist assertions about the 2A are a mass of legal and constitutional baloney. That they are supported by no court , constitutional scholars, or case law. Nor will they ever be supported by any court, constitutional scholar or case law. And the reason for that is that, like all other "unlimited" rights, they lead to absurd conclusions that society would never want and would never support. (I'm just waiting for the 2A to reach its "correct" status. I want to set up a string of vending machines selling MP-5's at the loading gates of our major airports.

Thank you for being the voice of reason and saying why we need stronger controls on assault weapons.

What exactly is an assault weapon? I've never seen one of those.

plus one what is that exactly
and im all for owning a B52 like one of you said but i think thats a little out of my price range

and i dont mind covering my gin but i dont want to be told i have to

so i guess nukes would be included in "arm" but again a little out of my price range
i think if there was real threat of phisical harm and being removed from a position our politions would stay in line and do whats right and if we could just get the loud mouths to shut up a minute they may see why everyone having guns would help keep crime down and keep the special interest groups at bay my 1911 speaks louder than a wad of cash

thats my 2 cents call me an extreemist i dont care

lunchbox wrote:and i dont mind covering my gin but i dont want to be told i have to

Just make sure you don't have too much of that gin.

lunchbox wrote:and i dont mind covering my gin but i dont want to be told i have to

so i guess nukes would be included in "arm" but again a little out of my price range

Your personal inability to afford an H-bomb isn't really the useful yardstick you seem to think it is. Such things are not out of everyone's price range. I can think of at least one or two groups who are resident in the U.S. and who not only have the financial means to acquire nukes (were it legal to buy them or their major componants), but who would then not hesitate to use them against large U.S. population centers.

There's some truth to the notion that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.