TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.kirklandreporter.com/northw ... arassment/

They want your guns, and they intend incrementally to have them.

bblhd672 wrote:https://www.kirklandreporter.com/northw ... arassment/

They want your guns, and they intend incrementally to have them.

They intend incrementally to drive us into CW2.

anygunanywhere wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:https://www.kirklandreporter.com/northw ... arassment/

They want your guns, and they intend incrementally to have them.

They intend incrementally to drive us into CW2.

Not to get picky, but it would be CW3.

For non-Texans, the chronology is CW1 where the colonists fought against the rest of Great Britain, and won; followed by CW2 where the Southerners fought against the Northerners, and lost.

For Texans, it's CW1 where the Texians fought against the rest of Mexico, and won; followed by CW2 where the Southerners fought against the Northerners, and lost.

I guess the next one would be CW2 for the territories that were added post the CW between the colonies and the rest of Great Britain. But for residents of the Republic of Texas, it would be CW3.

And to further complicate matters, it would be CW1 for any territories that were added after the War of Northern Aggression.

Legislation and Regulation of firearms is not the only form of incrementalism that "Progressives" have employed to destroy individual Liberty and redefine the roles of Government and citizen.

I have a real problem with laws that can take away a person's rights based on an accusation and nothing more.

Nearly one in three women experience some sort of domestic abuse, according to a the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I call bull on that.

The same study said homicide is five times more likely when a gun is present during a domestic violence incident.

And double bull on that.
If the defender has a firearm, it isn't homicide it is self defense.
And that is what they should be pushing - arming not disarming.

I'm shocked that is is a Democrat.

Chemist45 wrote:

The same study said homicide is five times more likely when a gun is present during a domestic violence incident.

And double bull on that.
If the defender has a firearm, it isn't homicide it is self defense.
And that is what they should be pushing - arming not disarming.

Oh, but it is homicide, albeit justified homicide.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:https://www.kirklandreporter.com/northw ... arassment/

They want your guns, and they intend incrementally to have them.

They intend incrementally to drive us into CW2.

Not to get picky, but it would be CW3.

For non-Texans, the chronology is CW1 where the colonists fought against the rest of Great Britain, and won; followed by CW2 where the Southerners fought against the Northerners, and lost.

For Texans, it's CW1 where the Texians fought against the rest of Mexico, and won; followed by CW2 where the Southerners fought against the Northerners, and lost.

I guess the next one would be CW2 for the territories that were added post the CW between the colonies and the rest of Great Britain. But for residents of the Republic of Texas, it would be CW3.

And to further complicate matters, it would be CW1 for any territories that were added after the War of Northern Aggression.

To stay with your not to get picky theme.

Whatever.