TexasCHLforum.com

Middle Age Russ wrote:

I wish I had this much faith in the American people but I fear we have crossed the line where a critical mass just doesn't understand or care enough to stand up to it. I would love to be convinced otherwise but I tend to think Mr. Cotton's view is correct. There won't be a "confiscation", the restrictions will continue to be more subtle and gradual and justified as "common sense", and therefore there won't be a mass resistance. And then at the end of the day the public will cave.

I have a great deal of faith in people who identify as Americans first, or at least as much as they identify as any other thing -- particularly in those who have studied American history and the associated western philosophy that made it possible. These folks value the underpinnings of our nation and will not likely "go quietly into the night". But are there enough of them(us) committed to do our part to turn society back toward the principles it was founded on?

I also have faith that there are vast swaths of our society who neither know nor value the precepts that our nation was founded upon. These are the same low-information individuals that see fit to elect un-Americans to office. They are also the ones who will applaud "law enforcement" all day long when the authorities trample individual liberty to "forward the Progressive agenda". The numbers in this camp grow daily due to constant hammering by the progressive propaganda machines -- the press and the education systems.

Without equally consistent messaging and education representing the principles that built this nation, the concepts of individual liberty and individual human rights may soon be lost in favor of "the greater good". The path we are on (Collectivism) inevitably produces neither greater nor good for individuals that are the governed. Remember the three boxes of a free man -- soap, ballot and cartridge. Raise your voices where and when you can, vote your conscience whenever you have a chance, and prepare for both better times and worse.

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

Charles, can I use your part in red as a quote?

The Annoyed Man wrote:I was a funeral for an extended family member on Wednesday, and my son's brother in law - a currently serving LEO - and I were talking about potential loss of the 2nd Amendment. He said that, on the day he gets orders to stack up outside someone's home to confiscate their guns is the day he realizes that he no longer has an interest in law enforcement and retires. He would refuse to carry out such orders. That's the problem (and the blessing) - a problem for the statists, and a blessing for freedom loving americans. SOMEbody is going to have to stack up outside a home, kick the door down, and storm the place, NOBODY wants to be the first in the stack, and almost nobody wants to even be last in the stack. In the end, the fascists have to get somebody to do their dirty work for them......and most of the people who are trained and equipped for that kind of thing are not so inclined.

anygunanywhere wrote:http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2016/ ... e.html?m=1

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2016/ ... e.html?m=1

Great read. I totally agree with him re: seat belt law. It's not about safety, it about another avenue for probable cause. That being said, I wear mine 100% of the time, and I would if there wasn't a law for it.

Abraham wrote:If Hillary wins, goes for a gun grab, they're will civil disobedience on a scale never before seen in the U.S. which could easily escalate...

Vote for Trump.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

Chas.