TexasCHLforum.com

http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2017/ ... -test.html

The Second Amendment, I would argue, has always been incorrectly argued in the sense that it is argued in court on the phrase "shall not be infringed" and "a well-regulated militia," but the more important clause, the one that gets to the heart of the matter is really the phrase "necessary to the security of a free state."

It is proper to use our First Amendment right against politicians or government goons who try to restrict it. The same is true for our Second Amendment right.

ninjabread wrote:It is proper to use our First Amendment right against politicians or government goons who try to restrict it. The same is true for our Second Amendment right.

It may be right, but the consequences are hard, and not in your favor. I believe this is why so many go along with a gradual, incremental forfeiture of rights... they/we don't like it but in the end, you can only choose 1 hill to die on. (maybe 2 if you are lucky)

The object of RKBA is not to die defending your rights but to make the other b die for violating them.

flechero wrote:

ninjabread wrote:It is proper to use our First Amendment right against politicians or government goons who try to restrict it. The same is true for our Second Amendment right.

It may be right, but the consequences are hard, and not in your favor. I believe this is why so many go along with a gradual, incremental forfeiture of rights... they/we don't like it but in the end, you can only choose 1 hill to die on. (maybe 2 if you are lucky)

Some people think it's better to die fighting back and others will dig their own grave without a fight.

bblhd672 wrote:http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2017/ ... -test.html

If the Second Amendment is a test, John Cornyn failed.