TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:I was a funeral for an extended family member on Wednesday, and my son's brother in law - a currently serving LEO - and I were talking about potential loss of the 2nd Amendment. He said that, on the day he gets orders to stack up outside someone's home to confiscate their guns is the day he realizes that he no longer has an interest in law enforcement and retires. He would refuse to carry out such orders. That's the problem (and the blessing) - a problem for the statists, and a blessing for freedom loving americans. SOMEbody is going to have to stack up outside a home, kick the door down, and storm the place, NOBODY wants to be the first in the stack, and almost nobody wants to even be last in the stack. In the end, the fascists have to get somebody to do their dirty work for them......and most of the people who are trained and equipped for that kind of thing are not so inclined.

The day when 2ndA is annulled by whatever tools other than another constitutional amendment, is the day when the 2nd Revolution would start.

BTW, if this ruling is not enough reason to vote AGAINST Hilary, I do not know what to say. Why stepping out of your home is reason to lose your constitutional rights? So, if this is logical, How about gays and lesbians rights do not extend outside their bedrooms?
What a stupid world we are coming to?

Anyways, Hillary can go blow at some volcanic coals.

Don't just vote against Hillary, vote for the candidate most likely to beat her -- not a third party.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I was a funeral for an extended family member on Wednesday, and my son's brother in law - a currently serving LEO - and I were talking about potential loss of the 2nd Amendment. He said that, on the day he gets orders to stack up outside someone's home to confiscate their guns is the day he realizes that he no longer has an interest in law enforcement and retires. He would refuse to carry out such orders. That's the problem (and the blessing) - a problem for the statists, and a blessing for freedom loving americans. SOMEbody is going to have to stack up outside a home, kick the door down, and storm the place, NOBODY wants to be the first in the stack, and almost nobody wants to even be last in the stack. In the end, the fascists have to get somebody to do their dirty work for them......and most of the people who are trained and equipped for that kind of thing are not so inclined.

Hopefully, your son's BIL and all other LE will recognize the order if and when they receive it. It won't be so plain as to just go and confiscate someone's firearms because. The politicians will likely create some seemingly reasonable public safety reason to do so.

I was a funeral for an extended family member on Wednesday, and my son's brother in law - a currently serving LEO - and I were talking about potential loss of the 2nd Amendment. He said that, on the day he gets orders to stack up outside someone's home to confiscate their guns is the day he realizes that he no longer has an interest in law enforcement and retires. He would refuse to carry out such orders. That's the problem (and the blessing) - a problem for the statists, and a blessing for freedom loving americans. SOMEbody is going to have to stack up outside a home, kick the door down, and storm the place, NOBODY wants to be the first in the stack, and almost nobody wants to even be last in the stack. In the end, the fascists have to get somebody to do their dirty work for them......and most of the people who are trained and equipped for that kind of thing are not so inclined.

I hope you are correct in this, Chris. With divisiveness and partisan politics rampant in the public square, I fear that storm clouds are looming.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

rotor wrote:Maybe I don't understand something. This is California law that was just upheld. We have screwy things in Texas law too. I understand the need to keep Clinton out of office. California legislature voted this in. California population voted their legislators in. They need to live with it.

Yes, it is California, but the issue for us is what happens if Clinton gets elected president and packs the SCOTUS with her anti-gun judicial picks.

I have an opinion in the matter (I can't stand her any more than anybody else on this forum, and I am as worried as anyone else about what she might do to the court), but it won't be the popular one, so I'll just keep it to myself.

I agree with you 100% and will be voting for Trump. But as far as I am concerned, Commiefornians are bringing this on themselves by the way they vote.

If any firearm(s) is(are) rendered unlawful to possess, it won't be necessary to send troops to confiscate those guns. Gun owners won't be able to use them, including for self-defense, without facing prosecution. Use your handgun in self-defense, become a felon and go to prison, lose your job, lose your family and lose your constitutional rights. Take your AR-15 to a range to shoot, become a felon, go to prison, lose your job, lose your family and lose your constitutional rights. Mass confiscation will not be necessary to bring firearm utility, and ultimately ownership, to an end. People will be made examples by the media and the population will simply give in. It happened in Australia, it's happening in California, and it will happen throughout the country.

The idea that there will be some mass resistance short of a revolution or civil war is wishful thinking. It could happen, it might happen, but odds are the public will cave in. It's not a pretty picture, but that's what we face of Heller is overturned. It won't be overnight, but that's the future without a Second Amendment.

Chas.

Would it be appropriate to compare something like that to prohibition? That lasted 13 years with organized crime and underground commerce spiking, along with that, a lot of people died.

The era of the Shooteasies?? Hunting outlawed but by bow only? I guess ill invest in Boker, Gerber, SOG, Kershaw, etc soon.

The people Donald Trump will hire will be more important than Donald himself. I think he would be a lousy President if he tried to run the whole show himself, but I don't think that's what he'll do.

If you can't stand voting for Trump, vote for the staff he's sure to have.

Like Charles said, please vote for nobody but Trump. Hold off for an honest horse race to find an ideal candidate to vote for. This time around, vote Trump, keep your firearms rights secure, and by extension all your other rights will be safe.

I would really hate to stop carrying. Peace on Earth, good will toward Man, don't fence me in, and don't fret about my pistol. Let me walk my days in harmony with my community and let me live in the company of armed fellow citizens. That's my safe place.

I absolutely agree about Hillary - no way, no how! I would be lying if I said that I wasn't worried about the jurists that DT would nominate. I believe they would be better than her nominations but by how much is my concern. Would we see an effectual end to the 2nd Amendment under either of them? I just wish that I could believe that he won't change his position - again.

Now hear this you statist drones. Pass whatever laws you desire, decide any decision that you can dredge up from your posterior region, revoke carry licenses if you dare: God the almighty himself has granted me the right to keep and bear arms, and I shall do so.

You are dismissed.

C-dub wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I was a funeral for an extended family member on Wednesday, and my son's brother in law - a currently serving LEO - and I were talking about potential loss of the 2nd Amendment. He said that, on the day he gets orders to stack up outside someone's home to confiscate their guns is the day he realizes that he no longer has an interest in law enforcement and retires. He would refuse to carry out such orders. That's the problem (and the blessing) - a problem for the statists, and a blessing for freedom loving americans. SOMEbody is going to have to stack up outside a home, kick the door down, and storm the place, NOBODY wants to be the first in the stack, and almost nobody wants to even be last in the stack. In the end, the fascists have to get somebody to do their dirty work for them......and most of the people who are trained and equipped for that kind of thing are not so inclined.

Hopefully, your son's BIL and all other LE will recognize the order if and when they receive it. It won't be so plain as to just go and confiscate someone's firearms because. The politicians will likely create some seemingly reasonable public safety reason to do so.

Good points. Property confiscation without due process is just as egregious in my mind. However, I know quite a few cops that get a real charge out of seizing what they consider ill gotten gains and property from those think are participating in the drug trade. Many Love to brag about the cool stuff they seize.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

That is a seriously bitter, bitter pill. Hil! is truly detestable. Trump simply disgusts me.

This video shows that Trump has been consistent for decades in what he has said and his self identification as a moderate Republican. It seems that he has displayed a desire to have someone else be the leader to rescue the country, but now has come to believe there is no one else who will do it.

Compare it to the video of Hillary throughout the years. Find the time to watch both and see who you feel that you can trust with our rights. See who you feel really cares about regular people. I know my opinions have changed over the last few years as I have more closely examined who people are versus who they project themselves to be.

One other point I would like to make. The Supreme Court on previous occasion rule that police have no legal responsibility to respond to or protect citizens. Since border protection has allowed so many foreign born gang members to exist in California, I believe concealed carry becomes more than a matter of just self defense, rising to a need to protect fellow citizens and the freedom of our country and its constitution and laws.

If the police do not have to come per the Supreme Court, who do they expect to protect the public? The public has over 300 million firearms. The US military has around 5 million firearms and cannot be policing the world and simultaneously protecting our domestic populace if local and state police will not or cannot. I see no way for any California sheriff to legitimately claim that there are no reasonable needs beyond self defense.

They can do and say whatever they please, but at some point they all become aggrandizers, viewed as such, and the respect, support, and protection of the civil populace is lost.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

That is a seriously bitter, bitter pill. Hil! is truly detestable. Trump simply disgusts me.

Bitter pill to swallow.jpg

Absent a constitutional amendment that invalidates the second, it will not end, although the corrupt politicians the majority continually puts into power are working hard to "interpret" it into meaninglessness, as the 9th Circuit has done here.

Even if such an amendment were to pass, only the words would cease to have effect. The God given right would not.

If the globalists, thugs, precious snowflakes and entitlement mobs succeed in eroding the linchpin of freedom into oblivion, the question will be: will patriots who know the sacrifices that have gone into preserving liberty meekly surrender their priceless heritage and agree by default to live as slaves, or do whatever it takes to restore the rule of the law that made this country a beacon of light in a world of darkness?

I hope not to see that decision point come to pass, but I fear it may - and sooner than we might think.