HCR 77 - Texas is just about "FED UP".

[SherwoodForest]

This is a very interesting step in the right direction that I haven't seen mentioned yet on the forum.

http://www.texnat.org/news/tnm-news/191 ... -on-hcr-77" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Every Texas House representative needs to be incouraged to support this resolution of the House.

Its's a polite reminder to the U.S. Congress, the White House, the SCOTUS, and any other interested parties that Texas reserves the right to go it alone if push comes to shove.

I love it. This resolution passes and is tendered to the U.S. Congress, patriots from all over the country may be heading to Texas.

[The Annoyed Man]

For better or for worse, whatever terms were in effect in 1845 when Texas entered the Union were likely forever buried by the outcome of events just 20 years later, which pretty much put paid to any notions of independent sovereign states. Not saying it couldn't happen again, but whatever existed in the mid 19th century is pretty much irrelevant to whatever might happen in the early 21st century.

[LSUTiger]

Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

[John75]

Thanks for that link. I signed up for updates. Hopefully this catches on! Maybe one day when things get bad enough. Like when California and other socialist states go bankrupt and look to others for hand outs.

[RX8er]

Maybe one day when things get bad enough.

If we aren't there yet, we are pretty darn close to it.

[RX8er]

Does anyone think the US would let Texas leave?

IMHO, I think Texas brings way too much to the US as a whole and they would fight to keep us from leaving. I'll have to go find the numbers on what Texas brings to the US.

[wil]

Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion.

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Why do you consider the illegal use of violence on the part of government as making the legal grounds for seccession as moot? The legal grounds for secession are specifically yours and everyone else's rights, and the freedom to engage in said rights. The legal grounds for doing so are specifically spelled out in the underlined portion above, which is from the founding legal document of this country. Any action on the part of government which restricts any individuals ability to engage in thier right to do this, is illegal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action.

I put the entire text in the first quote so that this portion of it will show it's not taken out of context. Here is the question:
Is the above quote a true statement? The answer to that is either yes or no.
If your answer is that it's not a true statement of natural law, then what is the legal basis for the existence of this country and the government which rests upon it?
As if that statement of natural law is false, then the rest of the declaration of indepence is also a false statement, the DOC being a bonafide statement of natural law and the legal basis for the founders of this country seccession from the government of england as well as the legal basis for the existence of this country.

The use of violence does not confer legitimate authority, it only confers power. Legitimate authority is derived from consent, specifically agreement to whatever contract of government is being created and offered.
Again from the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[LSUTiger]

Tyranny and oppression do no not care about legality. Those who would abuse their authority to gain power do so in the with complete disregard for the Constitution and laws.

The federal government has become corrupted an many of our laws have become so convoluted and ridiculous that they are no longer consistant with serving the people, with freedom or liberty. Instead they serve the growing police state.

There is the law, and then there is right and wrong. Sometimes the law is right, sometimes it is wrong. "They" are trying to subvert and corrupt all of our laws. When whats wrong is right and whats right is wrong, they will say "but thats the law!"

I agree when that line is crossed its time to start over.

My point is, we can have all the legal standing and moral high ground to do something but it is not a defense against tyranny.

Should Texas try to sucede, legal standing and moral high ground will not be enough to defend against armed federal troops sent here to squash the rebellion.

Today is no different than the first revolution, they did not look to legal precedent,but to the desire to have freedom and liberty, and the reality that enough is enough.

[suthdj]

Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion.

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Why do you consider the illegal use of violence on the part of government as making the legal grounds for seccession as moot? The legal grounds for secession are specifically yours and everyone else's rights, and the freedom to engage in said rights. The legal grounds for doing so are specifically spelled out in the underlined portion above, which is from the founding legal document of this country. Any action on the part of government which restricts any individuals ability to engage in thier right to do this, is illegal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action.

I put the entire text in the first quote so that this portion of it will show it's not taken out of context. Here is the question:
Is the above quote a true statement? The answer to that is either yes or no.
If your answer is that it's not a true statement of natural law, then what is the legal basis for the existence of this country and the government which rests upon it?
As if that statement of natural law is false, then the rest of the declaration of indepence is also a false statement, the DOC being a bonafide statement of natural law and the legal basis for the founders of this country seccession from the government of england as well as the legal basis for the existence of this country.

The use of violence does not confer legitimate authority, it only confers power. Legitimate authority is derived from consent, specifically agreement to whatever contract of government is being created and offered.
Again from the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The D of I is just that a declaration it holds no power of law, the constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Now we could reuse it to do the same but that won't go over to well.

[The Annoyed Man]

Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

That better not be aimed at me for my previous post. Texas' record of adhering strictly to the Constitution is not perfect either. It's better than most, but it isn't purist. If it were, there would be no explanation for recent pronouncements about an AWB from the mayors of our largest cities. When I say that Texas' admission to the union as a sovereign state which, apocryphally anyway, alleges the right to succeed if it doesn't like the way things are going is constitutionally, legally, and historically irrelevant, it is because that is an actual fact. When the Union won the "war of northern aggression" as some are wont to call it, the southern states were re-assimilated into the Union under the same terms of unification as existed for all of the northern states.........ALL of the southern states, including Texas, were so re-assimilated. The idea of Texan political independence from the national body politic has been nothing more than theory and speculation since April of 1965 when Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse, bringing an end to the war. The federal government asserted, uncontested, the same degree of control over Texas as it did over Alabama and Georgia........and New York and Connecticut, for that matter.

Those are the facts which make Texas' previous status as a sovereign nation irrelevant today, other than as an interesting time in history, and facts are stubborn things. You don't have to like it, but it is true, and no rational discussion can ignore the truth. That previous sovereignty has no particular legal relevance, and today, Texas has no more or no less "right" to succeed than does Vermont or Ohio. I wasn't stating a personal opinion one way or the other about the desirability of succession.

By the way, TexasCHLForum management generally frowns on discussions of advocacy for succession, so as a piece of friendly advice I would be discreet about what is said and not let it cross over from speculation into advocacy. I love Texas. I love living here. I admire it in every way. But this Texan (by choice) is an American (by birth), and any patriotic American ought to always defend and promote the United States of America. You cannot advocate for succession without equally renouncing being an American. If you are prepared to do that, you may claim to be a Texas patriot, but you can no longer claim to be an American patriot. And by the way, you can't promote and defend the "Constitution of the United States" (the document's actual title) by advocating for succession from the nation on which it is founded.

In terms of general speculation, and applicable to any state, not just Texas, I think that the idea of succession ought to be nothing less than a last desperate measure to preserve liberty. We're not there yet, and while the idea has a certain romantic appeal, vocal advocacy simply relegates the advocate to the same fever swamp of political ideology as any hardcore leftist.....just another part of the swamp. You think that liberals—particularly liberal gun-grabbers—don't read these kinds of posts and conclude that "those gun nuts are not only crazy and dangerous, but they're unpatriotic too?" When you put this stuff out there, it contributes to the further marginalization of liberty, gun rights, and the Constitution, because those very same liberals own and control the national media.....and that media has a huge impact on public opinion. Don't believe it? Just look at who is our president right now.

[wil]

Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion.

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Why do you consider the illegal use of violence on the part of government as making the legal grounds for seccession as moot? The legal grounds for secession are specifically yours and everyone else's rights, and the freedom to engage in said rights. The legal grounds for doing so are specifically spelled out in the underlined portion above, which is from the founding legal document of this country. Any action on the part of government which restricts any individuals ability to engage in thier right to do this, is illegal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action.

I put the entire text in the first quote so that this portion of it will show it's not taken out of context. Here is the question:
Is the above quote a true statement? The answer to that is either yes or no.
If your answer is that it's not a true statement of natural law, then what is the legal basis for the existence of this country and the government which rests upon it?
As if that statement of natural law is false, then the rest of the declaration of indepence is also a false statement, the DOC being a bonafide statement of natural law and the legal basis for the founders of this country seccession from the government of england as well as the legal basis for the existence of this country.

The use of violence does not confer legitimate authority, it only confers power. Legitimate authority is derived from consent, specifically agreement to whatever contract of government is being created and offered.
Again from the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The D of I is just that a declaration it holds no power of law, the constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Now we could reuse it to do the same but that won't go over to well.

1. why do you believe the DOC has no authority as natural law?
2. If it has no authority as natural law and the legal establishment of this country, then where does the constitution derive its legitimate authority from? You cannot have one without the other.

[wil]

Tyranny and oppression do no not care about legality. Those who would abuse their authority to gain power do so in the with complete disregard for the Constitution and laws.

The federal government has become corrupted an many of our laws have become so convoluted and ridiculous that they are no longer consistant with serving the people, with freedom or liberty. Instead they serve the growing police state.

There is the law, and then there is right and wrong. Sometimes the law is right, sometimes it is wrong. "They" are trying to subvert and corrupt all of our laws. When whats wrong is right and whats right is wrong, they will say "but thats the law!"

I agree when that line is crossed its time to start over.

My point is, we can have all the legal standing and moral high ground to do something but it is not a defense against tyranny.

Should Texas try to sucede, legal standing and moral high ground will not be enough to defend against armed federal troops sent here to squash the rebellion.

Today is no different than the first revolution, they did not look to legal precedent,but to the desire to have freedom and liberty, and the reality that enough is enough.

If my post came off as saying the legal grounds for seccession were sufficient alone for engaging in or defending such a right, my apologies for not being more clear. My point is first you have to have the legal standing and the moral high ground to do so. This does not come without as the founders said "..light or transitory causes.." Then and only then when you have bonafide grounds to do so do you have the moral grounds to engage in what actions, usually use of force (NOT VIOLENCE, there is a big difference between those words...) given the track-record of history, to defend your freedom to engage in said right to secede.
Legal standing to do so being identified via "...a long train of abuses.." In plainer english, continual and repeated deliberate violations of contract of government. In our case the terms of contract we established and agreed upon being the constitution and the bill of rights.
Without that you are engaged in either immoral violence or possibly engaged in insurrection, which is bonafidely illegal, insurrection being defined as revolt against a properly functioning government or a government properly engaging in it's just powers.
The founders didn't look to legal precedent as they didn't need to, they identified the natural rights of the individual via natural law, same concepts they identified in writing the second amendment. Some may say natural law is horsemanure, my answer is then show me the legal precedent the founders cited in writing the second amendment which establishes it's legitimate authority as a right. No such precedent exists as everyone knows the right to bear arms is a natural right of the individual to whatever legitimate end purpose.

[LSUTiger]

Tyranny and oppression do no not care about legality. Those who would abuse their authority to gain power do so in the with complete disregard for the Constitution and laws.

The federal government has become corrupted an many of our laws have become so convoluted and ridiculous that they are no longer consistant with serving the people, with freedom or liberty. Instead they serve the growing police state.

There is the law, and then there is right and wrong. Sometimes the law is right, sometimes it is wrong. "They" are trying to subvert and corrupt all of our laws. When whats wrong is right and whats right is wrong, they will say "but thats the law!"

I agree when that line is crossed its time to start over.

My point is, we can have all the legal standing and moral high ground to do something but it is not a defense against tyranny.

Should Texas try to sucede, legal standing and moral high ground will not be enough to defend against armed federal troops sent here to squash the rebellion.

Today is no different than the first revolution, they did not look to legal precedent,but to the desire to have freedom and liberty, and the reality that enough is enough.

If my post came off as saying the legal grounds for seccession were sufficient alone for engaging in or defending such a right, my apologies for not being more clear. My point is first you have to have the legal standing and the moral high ground to do so. This does not come without as the founders said "..light or transitory causes.." Then and only then when you have bonafide grounds to do so do you have the moral grounds to engage in what actions, usually use of force (NOT VIOLENCE, there is a big difference between those words...) given the track-record of history, to defend your freedom to engage in said right to secede.
Legal standing to do so being identified via "...a long train of abuses.." In plainer english, continual and repeated deliberate violations of contract of government. In our case the terms of contract we established and agreed upon being the constitution and the bill of rights.
Without that you are engaged in either immoral violence or possibly engaged in insurrection, which is bonafidely illegal, insurrection being defined as revolt against a properly functioning government or a government properly engaging in it's just powers.
The founders didn't look to legal precedent as they didn't need to, they identified the natural rights of the individual via natural law, same concepts they identified in writing the second amendment. Some may say natural law is horsemanure, my answer is then show me the legal precedent the founders cited in writing the second amendment which establishes it's legitimate authority as a right. No such precedent exists as everyone knows the right to bear arms is a natural right of the individual to whatever legitimate end purpose.

I am not a legal scholar or historian but I think we agree. Perhaps I could have done better job at explaining myself too.

The point(s) I was trying to make were simply that :
-The Constitution and previous agreements with the states are still relavent, perhaps now more than ever.
-Those who would impose tyranny and oppression upon us don't care. They will just try to pervert and subvert all laws to justify their own agenda while trying to make us believe they have legitamacy.
-If we the people decide they have gone to far and we try to correct it, they will not stand idly by. From that stand point alone , whatever relavancy our Constitution and previous agreements have are in a sense moot because at the point of critical mass, the outcome would be the same, one side vs. the other in armed conflict as history has shown us repeatedly.

[LSUTiger]

Some would have us believe the US Constitution is irrelavant too. But I believe the political climate we live in today makes it as relevant as ever. Perhaps the same with HCR-77, regardless of what happen in the past. Perhaps we need to start fresh. In anycase, the feds are not just going to let states leave the union without a bloody battle, so it makes the legal grounds moot in my opinion. I am sure it was illegal to rebel against the King and Queen when the first revolutionaries organized and took action. If you're looking for legal grounds to fight tyranny then you will always lose, "they" make the rules and can change them or interpret them any way "they" like. Revolutionaries, right or wrong will always be outlaws.

That better not be aimed at me for my previous post. Texas' record of adhering strictly to the Constitution is not perfect either. It's better than most, but it isn't purist. If it were, there would be no explanation for recent pronouncements about an AWB from the mayors of our largest cities. When I say that Texas' admission to the union as a sovereign state which, apocryphally anyway, alleges the right to succeed if it doesn't like the way things are going is constitutionally, legally, and historically irrelevant, it is because that is an actual fact. When the Union won the "war of northern aggression" as some are wont to call it, the southern states were re-assimilated into the Union under the same terms of unification as existed for all of the northern states.........ALL of the southern states, including Texas, were so re-assimilated. The idea of Texan political independence from the national body politic has been nothing more than theory and speculation since April of 1965 when Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse, bringing an end to the war. The federal government asserted, uncontested, the same degree of control over Texas as it did over Alabama and Georgia........and New York and Connecticut, for that matter.

Those are the facts which make Texas' previous status as a sovereign nation irrelevant today, other than as an interesting time in history, and facts are stubborn things. You don't have to like it, but it is true, and no rational discussion can ignore the truth. That previous sovereignty has no particular legal relevance, and today, Texas has no more or no less "right" to succeed than does Vermont or Ohio. I wasn't stating a personal opinion one way or the other about the desirability of succession.

By the way, TexasCHLForum management generally frowns on discussions of advocacy for succession, so as a piece of friendly advice I would be discreet about what is said and not let it cross over from speculation into advocacy. I love Texas. I love living here. I admire it in every way. But this Texan (by choice) is an American (by birth), and any patriotic American ought to always defend and promote the United States of America. You cannot advocate for succession without equally renouncing being an American. If you are prepared to do that, you may claim to be a Texas patriot, but you can no longer claim to be an American patriot. And by the way, you can't promote and defend the "Constitution of the United States" (the document's actual title) by advocating for succession from the nation on which it is founded.

In terms of general speculation, and applicable to any state, not just Texas, I think that the idea of succession ought to be nothing less than a last desperate measure to preserve liberty. We're not there yet, and while the idea has a certain romantic appeal, vocal advocacy simply relegates the advocate to the same fever swamp of political ideology as any hardcore leftist.....just another part of the swamp. You think that liberals—particularly liberal gun-grabbers—don't read these kinds of posts and conclude that "those gun nuts are not only crazy and dangerous, but they're unpatriotic too?" When you put this stuff out there, it contributes to the further marginalization of liberty, gun rights, and the Constitution, because those very same liberals own and control the national media.....and that media has a huge impact on public opinion. Don't believe it? Just look at who is our president right now.

TAM, yes, my response was a direct response to your post.

It was not meant to say that you are any less of a patriot or decent upstanding citizen or whatever people think when they think they are being personally being attacked. It was not a personal attack of anykind.

I apologize for you misinterpreting it as such. It was just my opinion on the subject being discussed.

My intent was to simply illustrate that at the point revolution is necessary, will the legalities of succession really be an issue? Pretty much all bets are off at that point. Any legalities about anything will be sorted out after the fact and he who wins gets to decided what was legal and illegal.

Many people believe thing that things that are "old" and "dated" like our Constituton are no longer relevant. For now its still the law, but its ideology, content and interpretation the way the founding father intended is will always be relevant, no matter how many progressive types wish to see it changed or abolished.

If overnight we became Nazi Germany, would you say "its ok, its the law"? Would you let "legalities" get in the way of doing what is necessary at that point?

At the point revolution is necessary, the legality of the 2A will be called into question by the other side. The attempted disarming of the colonist was the last straw that sparked the first revolution. They took something that was legal and made it illegal. That did not stop the colonist.

We have the 2nd amendment to protect us against tyranny from our own government, it allows individuals and organized militias the right to bear arms to be use armed conflict to defend the constitution. Yet despite its current legal status/challenges the ideology of sucession is no different in my opinion. It's a valid strategy to fight tyranny, even with all the problems associated with it. Its an organized militia of an entire state, sort of.

We can try to save the US as individuals and small groups using armed conflict but not save part of it by allowing entire state to leave? It's no different than the US declaration of independance during the 1st revolutionary war. I think state succession by would be a good first step in taking it all back, not just saving Texas, should it come to that.

If we are justified in using the second amendment for its intended purpose, then wouldnt sucession be also justified at that point? What good is going to come from following the legalities of a corrupt system ? And why would we not implement the US constitution as our own, with out all the current perversions of it (bad interpretations of it, now law)? Is'nt that what we are trying to perserve in the first place, the uncorrupted Constitution? The ultimate goal is not to leave the US but get rid of corrupt and overreaching government.

Succession, revolution, reorg, reboot. If all the states tried to sucede at the same time that would put the feds in a jam.

Is revolution or succession justified at this point? No, I don't think we are there yet. I think we can agree both are a last resort and both would have similiar consequences. How do we know when we are there? What happened the first time and second time?

We have some historical precedence/example for the 2A (revolutionary war) and some for sucession (Civil War) with mixed results. Nobody wants really wants either.

The media is already painting all 2A believers as crazy. We are to the point that the real reason for the 2A is rarely discussed publicly. Why do you think the FUDDS exist, because they believe the all the AWB "you dont need an assault weapon for hunting" baloney, no you need it to defend against tyranny for which the 2A exists. I can't believe we can't even speak about what the real reason the 2A is for, instead we talk about self defense from criminals and hunting. All that does it let them control the conversation.

I don't see how discussion of a this topic on a forum will make us look any more crazy but rather to limit it, serves their purpose not ours.


As a courtesy to the other members, a PM has been sent to you to discuss other matters.

[John75]

You cannot advocate for succession without equally renouncing being an American. If you are prepared to do that, you may claim to be a Texas patriot, but you can no longer claim to be an American patriot. And by the way, you can't promote and defend the "Constitution of the United States" (the document's actual title) by advocating for succession from the nation on which it is founded.

I disagree. To me an American believes in the values that this country was founded on and the Constitution as it was written. It is those set of values that made this country great and defined what America is. It's not in a name or location. When I look at the socialists in this country, I don't see them as true Americans. If land boundaries or a name has to change so that the constitution can work again, then so be it.