TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:Soccerdad1995,

It's fer huntin with single shot black powder and them crazies who want to defend themselves with evil black rifles, shucks they's crazy...

Now, peasant, line up and do as you're told.

Hand over your firearms.

What, you von't?

You are hearby ordered by his majesty...er, local sheriff, to do what we say.

O.K. we'll leave, please don't shoot us....

You and I are on the same page.

I am astonished that so many people think the founders were sitting around deciding on the most fundamental rights that they wanted to protect with the first set of amendments and they said "OK, let's make sure that we protect the right of the people to exercise any religion they choose, and they should have the right to speak out against the government if they wish, and to be free from warrantless searches, or being forced to house soldiers", and then someone chimed in with "oh yeah, let's also make sure they have the right to hunt." By their logic, If it was written today, we would want to preserve the right to play basketball, right?

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:The Declaration of Independence makes a very compelling case for the legitimacy of such an action.

The Declaration of Independence is the founding document most applicable to what the government of today has become. I have read many times that the fatal flaw of the Constitution is that there is no mechanism included to force the government to abide by it, especially when the legislative, judicial and executive branches act in a manner contrary to the Founder's intentions.

The Declaration of Independence is very clear on the obligations of the people whenever any government becomes destructive of the very rights that it has been created to protect. The ability of the people to fulfill this obligation is the ultimate "check" on the power of any government. This is why I have said many times that we are not just fighting for the right to keep and bear arms. We are fighting to preserve the entire notion of self government.

I am sick and tired of people who say "I fully support the second amendment" and then in their next breath demonstrate that they have no notion of why the RKBA exists in the first place.

BBYC wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:One could reasonably argue that the next Civil War has already begun. We have states and localities openly declaring their defiance to the authority of the Federal Government with Sanctuary City / State resolutions. Isn't local defiance of the Federal Government's authority pretty much the definition of a Civil War? Or at least the start of one?

Not necessarily. It could be a legitimate exercise of Tenth Amendment rights. The same for individual defiance of the government. Civil disobedience is not the same as civil war.

So what if a state openly declared that they would not accept the authority of the federal government, and would not allow any state employees to enforce laws that had been passed by the "illegitimate" government in DC? What exactly differentiates the current actions of certain states from what we saw happening in the 1860's? Official declarations of independence / war? We have leaders of state governments openly calling the current U.S. President "illegitimate" and forbidding their employees from cooperating with federal law enforcement agents. The lines between civil disobedience and outright rebellion are not always black and white. We can argue semantics, but in substance, I think we are further down the path than most people would like to admit.

And BTW, I believe that rebellion is also a "legitimate" exercise of a state's rights, on behalf of it's people. The Declaration of Independence makes a very compelling case for the legitimacy of such an action.

chamberc wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:One could reasonably argue that the next Civil War has already begun. We have states and localities openly declaring their defiance to the authority of the Federal Government with Sanctuary City / State resolutions. Isn't local defiance of the Federal Government's authority pretty much the definition of a Civil War? Or at least the start of one?

Now it is coming from the other side, as several rural counties in Illinois have declared their sanctuary status for gun owners. Like the policies of the left on immigration, these counties are barring their employees from enforcing gun laws that they view as wrong.

Like it or not, history does have a way of repeating itself. Keep your powder dry folks.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/05/06/il ... un-owners/

There is a large difference between today's society and an actual, shooting, civil war. In a society with outstanding quality of living such as ours, a great deal of oppression will be tolerated before any significant amount of citizens would pick up arms.

We have states that are officially refusing to recognize the authority of the federal government. I agree that we likely are a ways from a shooting war, and that's a good thing. But we are headed down the path to states openly asserting their right to challenge federal rule, and that is also a good thing IMHO.

One could reasonably argue that the next Civil War has already begun. We have states and localities openly declaring their defiance to the authority of the Federal Government with Sanctuary City / State resolutions. Isn't local defiance of the Federal Government's authority pretty much the definition of a Civil War? Or at least the start of one?

Now it is coming from the other side, as several rural counties in Illinois have declared their sanctuary status for gun owners. Like the policies of the left on immigration, these counties are barring their employees from enforcing gun laws that they view as wrong.

Like it or not, history does have a way of repeating itself. Keep your powder dry folks.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2018/05/06/il ... un-owners/