TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:

Saffron wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Do you know why that section was put into the constitution?

Not to reinforce slavery but rather to limit the influence if it. The slave owning states wanted all the slaves to be counted.....why....more people=more representation. The 3/5 compromise was to limit the influence of those states that had huge slave populations. It did not strengthen slavery or legitimize it, it weakened it.

That was the purpose of the 3/5 compromise.

Right. It still permitted slavery which directly violates the 5th Amendment.

Me too. I thought the 13th Amendment was the one that abolished slavery?

mamabearCali wrote:Do you know why that section was put into the constitution?

Not to reinforce slavery but rather to limit the influence if it. The slave owning states wanted all the slaves to be counted.....why....more people=more representation. The 3/5 compromise was to limit the influence of those states that had huge slave populations. It did not strengthen slavery or legitimize it, it weakened it.

That was the purpose of the 3/5 compromise.

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Remember, initially there was no Bill of Rights, and they permitted slavery in the Constitution.

Really? Would you care to quote the section where it does that?

Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes[edit]Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three

Bladed wrote:

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Yes.

chamberc wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
These guys have made me question that.

While I disagree with their tactics, if you're questioning their right, I suggest you go back and read the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is perfectly clear on the matter, and that should reverse any questions you have.

ShootDontTalk wrote:

mamabearCali wrote: Look y'all are going to have to deal with these guys. They are not going to just shut up and go away. So if you stick your fingers in your ears and say "y'all are crazies I'm not listening" then it is only going to get worse. If you engage them, you have a chance to influence them with more caution and wisdom.

I'm not going to get involved in this anymore. Suffice to say you are 100% right. I'm not sure why no one here thinks it worth the effort to meet face-to-face with these folks or do whatever is necessary to avert the coming disaster, but I have some suspicions. I hope I'm wrong. One thing is certain. That light ahead is not the end of the tunnel. Thank you for having the courage to state the obvious.

Chili's and Sonic are just the tip of the iceberg.

canvasbck wrote:

RetNavy wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:
1. Notify police before protests. 2. Ask for reservations at restaurants before OCing. 3. When holding a rally or a protest have large signs describing it as a Open carry rally, so that people see the signs before they see the guns.

All good points... I like #2 the best.... by letting a restaurant know that you are bringing in a large group (i.e. MONEY + tips) hopefully they will see what revenue they could receive instead of losing..

Or, here's an even better idea...........after your rally on public property is over, put the LG's away in your vehicle before going into a private business. If you still want to engage patrons, pass out flyers, and drum up support, switch to an empty holster. Take the ammo (pun not intended) away from Moms demand action. How silly will they look when they claim that employees at Jack in the Box were hiding in the cooler because of a bunch of empty holsters.

On a tactical note, I would wear the empty holster on my weak side to not impede my ability to access whats on the strong side.

RetNavy wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:
1. Notify police before protests. 2. Ask for reservations at restaurants before OCing. 3. When holding a rally or a protest have large signs describing it as a Open carry rally, so that people see the signs before they see the guns.

All good points... I like #2 the best.... by letting a restaurant know that you are bringing in a large group (i.e. MONEY + tips) hopefully they will see what revenue they could receive instead of losing..

gthaustex wrote:Sigh...from the article...

In recent months, gun enthusiasts have held rallies and openly carried firearms, including large automatic weapons, into restaurants

I didn't see pics of the whole scene, but I'm fairly confident that no one was carrying "automatic" weapons.

tomtexan wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]