TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:Reading this thread reminds me of a self-flagellation ritual.

Folks it is not the end of the world and we are not going to give up our guns. To repeat part of my post on page 3, we have come too far and have the majority of public opinion on our side, "I don’t think Hillary, Michael Bloomberg or anyone else can do anything to institute “meaningful gun control” except get the U.S. public “up in arms”.

No matter who is elected president, if they go too far there are provisions in the constitution for impeachment.

Whoever is elected president, we must now look a little further than gun rights to what is good for the country. The country got this screwed up because good, hard working, law abiding people kept silent and let the loudest voices and those with the most money “drive the wagon”. We need to get more involved, but we also need to be well informed about what we are getting involved with.

The country will survive no matter who is elected president. I believe there are some rough times ahead but if we love our country we all need to work together to save it.

I could not disagree more with the red portion quoted above. They do not have the ability to do much legislatively (right now), but replace a staunch conservitive justice (Scalia) on SCOTUS with a flaming, gun grabbing, liberal and it's over. Imagine a world where the Heller and McDonald cases went the other way. Draconian gun control measures would spread through urban centers faster than you can down a 44 ounce soda. Once those Draconian laws are upheld by a leftist SCOTUS, the "new norm" would be devastating to the second amendment.

The pro gun lobby (NRA) is extremely effective at curbing top down gun control at the federal level. In order to prevent bottom up gun control, the second amendment being upheld as intended by the founders is crucial. NRA lobbyist don't have much sway over a city council member in Detroit, Chicago, Miami, Denver, San Francisco, ect.

Your statement of "the country will survive no matter who is elected president" assumes that the person will only be in control for 4-8 years. Given the fact that the balance of power in the Supreme Court is at stake, the next president will shape our future for a generation. If I thought that the next president would only replace Ginsburg, then I would regret losing the opportunity to swing the court more solidly in our favor, but it wouldn't affect the current balance of power. Allowing Hillary to replace Scalia would be an unmitigated disaster.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

flowrie wrote:I believe it will come down to who does not vote. How many Republicans will not vote vs. how many Democrats will not vote. I voted for Cruz and had great hope that he would prevail. I will now vote for Trump. I may not know what he will or will not do, but I know exactly what Hillary will do. What Hillary will do is unacceptable. It's that simple. If you do not vote, then you indirectly vote for Hillary, at least you can feel good about yourself when she confiscates your firearms. It's that simple.

Cruz was my guy too. I can't get who I want, but I'll do everything in my power to prevent Clinton from completing the destruction of my country. That can be done only by supporting and voting for Trump.

Chas.

THIS!! Now that he is the presumptive nominee, I will not publicly say any negative words about Trump. Cruz was my guy, I supported his campaign financially, then the voters spoke and Cruz is headed back to the Senate.

Unless you want to see Scalia replaced by someone who is to the left of Kagen and Sotomayor, you may want to do everything you can to deny Shrillary the WH.

ETA: I could see a protest movement if all we had to deal with is another 4 years of a feckless president, but the number of SCOTUS nominees that the next president will probably put forward will impact our rights for a generation.