TexasCHLforum.com

lawrnk wrote:

boomerang wrote:

lawrnk wrote:Boomerang,

Curious. You still an Obama fan?

I gave that up the week before you stopped beating your wife.

Seriously. Are you still pushing the "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" nonsense?

Not sure hy you are a wife beater but you should try ginko biloba?

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/complexquestions.html

lawrnk wrote:

boomerang wrote:My first choice is Paul.

My second choice is Obama. If I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.

This doesn't sound like he's saying that he's an "Obama fan". It sounds like he's a Ron Paul fan.

In any event...while I'm definitely not an Obama fan myself, I think much of the apprehension about federal gun-grabbing happening if he's elected is unwarranted. Not because I don't think he's fundamentally an anti (I harbor no illusions on that matter), but because I recognize the limitations on executive authority on issues like that. Any effective gun banning at the federal level is going to require both initiative and majority support in Congress, and most Congress critters learned a couple of election cycles ago what a suicide mission that is. Couple that with what I expect will be a favorable ruling on Heller by SCOTUS this month and...well, I'm not saying that it can't happen...just that I think the "woe is us if Obama becomes President" stuff is overblown, at least on the 2A issue.

lunchbox wrote:

DParker wrote:

lunchbox wrote:so is part of marshal law taking away gun rights?????????

Who's this Marshal Law guy?

yeah i cant spell im adding a lin to my sig so everyone will know

Well, I was just giving you a little ribbing. It's very common to see "martial" misspelled as "marshal" on boards like this one, and the response I gave is equally common. I just wanted to beat everyone else to it

lunchbox wrote:so is part of marshal law taking away gun rights?????????

Who's this Marshal Law guy?

KBCraig wrote:

DParker wrote: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.

For such groups, legality is no more a concern than gun control is a concern to the strong-arm robber.

If t hey have the means and the desire, they will acquire whatever they wish. Laws prohibit, but they never prevent.

I wasn't suggesting that the hypothetical purchasers are controlled by the law, but the prospect of long-term imprisonment (or execution) is likely something of a deterrant for those who would otherwise be free to legally sell such materials. If it weren't then Al Qaeda (et al) would already be a nuclear power, with predictable results.

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.

RiverRat wrote:Understand there is more to all of it..........I'm typing with a stylus......I'm about pecked out

Thanks the Texas Constituton link. 431.010. Organization Prohibited
Goliad battle flag link http://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/flags/us-txhs.html

The point surrounds the reference to "arms". My recall of history is not important.

Understood...though I'd argue that in these sorts of discussions the recall of history is ALWAYS important.

RiverRat wrote:My two bits.........If you read the 2nd amendment, it refers to "arms" not guns......at the point we were (disallowed) not allowed any type of arms....baseball bats to swords to cannons to sub machine guns to hand grenades, our 2nd amendment rights were originally infringed.

The 2nd amendment was written because the British tried to confiscate cannons and other arms, including guns from local militias.......non-government militia forces of colonists.

Well...not really (though those actions no doubt bolstered support for the 2A.) The history of the 2A is more complex than that, and is actually based on principles of English common law.

I believe it is illegal in the state Texas to form a local militia by law not commanded by the governor of the state. I don't recall the exact details. I think I had read it as a state constitutional amendment. My memory isn't quotable.........sorry.

Technically you're correct, but it doesn't appear to be enforcable in any real way. Here's an interesting (albeit brief) analysis of the issue:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm

This fact seems to be disregarded in all 2nd amendment discussion.

Really? I've seen it brought up in a great many 2A discussions.

Santa Anna was on the same inforcement mission at Goliad, to take away their cannon.

Uh...Goliad wasn't about taking away cannons.

I honestly don't know when the earliest infringments of the 2nd amendment took place. Probably legislative examples prior to the Civil War.

Well, if we acknowledge that the slaves were actually "people" then the 2A (along with all of the other rights in the original 10) were being infringed before the ink was even dry on them.