The battle...

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Locked
User avatar

Topic author
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

The battle...

#1

Post by stevie_d_64 » Sat Feb 24, 2007 1:20 pm

"The battle between those who support an inalienable right and those that support the gun-control agenda."

Obviously, a clearly defined difference of opinion...

One opinion based upon the precidence that an inalienable right is an absolute and a founding or unwaivering core interpretation...

And the other based upon the idea that the United States Constitution is a living document that lends its interpretation of that document to apply to the direct issues facing us today, and not 200 some odd years ago...

So, in the interest of not getting bogged down in a bill that has been filed that "may" end up abridging (permanently) our original "inalienable right" to keep and bear arms...

What do you believe would be some of the options we have or battle we can wage if this bill were to become "law"?

I have a small book that I received as a Christmas present from my Dad a few years ago, its called the 2nd Amendment Primer...I have looked through it from cover to cover...And one of the things I plan to do is note where the word "inalienable" comes into play in regards to this issue...

History being a great lesson to be learned and reviewed as often as one can stomach, but I feel this is a hinge point where the near future will be determined by people who may, or may not be as politically or philisophically aligned with some of us as we are in regards to this particular issue/battle...

I believe history is on our side, but those who do not apply that knowledge as well as they should, appear to be trending against it...

In the end I feel we may prevail, but its almost too close to call...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

Topic author
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#2

Post by stevie_d_64 » Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:01 am

What was I thinking...This even put me to :sleep ...

I need to switch to decaf...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

Mithras61
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:43 pm
Location: Somewhere in Texas

#3

Post by Mithras61 » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:54 am

Actually, Stevie, I believe the thinking behind the two sides is even simpler than you suggest.

One side wants to be responsible for itself and to be able to protect itself.

The other side wants to tell the first what to do, how to do it and when they are allowed to do it.



In case you aren't sure, most of us belong to the first group and the anti-gunners belong to the second. It has to do with your basic philosophy - are you responsible for you & your loved ones safety, or is that the responsibility of someone else (e.g. - the government or some anonymous LEO). We support the second amendment because we believe that the government is not going to take care of us and because we want to be able to defend ourselves (even from that same government, should it become necessary) and because we LIKE guns. They support restrictions on anything & everything to do with gun ownership because they are generally scared and want the world to be (as Dr. Phil puts it) their soft place to land, and guns have no place in that soft and protected world.

I keep thinking about the trial scene in "A Few Good Men" when Lt. Kaffee confronts Lt. Col. Jessep about his actions & Jessep tells him that people like Kaffee sleep peacefully because of the hard men like Jessep who are willing to make the hard decision and do the hard thing.

They see the world as civilized and safe and want to tell us to put up our "toys" as if we were children playing at a dangerous game. What they don't see is that it is neither a civilized nor a safe world because many people cannot be tamed and domesticated. As long as those untameable people exist, we will need our weapons. Since it is, IMHO, that same feature (that is, the willingness to fight for what we believe is right) that allows the human race to exist, i believe we will need our weapons so long as there are men and women.

User avatar

Topic author
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#4

Post by stevie_d_64 » Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:41 am

Mithras61 wrote:Actually, Stevie, I believe the thinking behind the two sides is even simpler than you suggest.

One side wants to be responsible for itself and to be able to protect itself.

The other side wants to tell the first what to do, how to do it and when they are allowed to do it.
I've got an even simpler take...

Our side values life...

Their side does not value life...

Interesting how the dynamics of this all whittle down to this lowest common denominator...It also illustrates the irony of it all...And that is something beyond "their" sides comprehension...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”