TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

atxgun wrote:We supposedly have laws against illegal immigration, you've seen how well they've been able to effectively enforce that.

They have not attempted to enforce immigration laws.

If the ICE enforced immigration laws the way BATFE enforces firearms laws you would hear an uproar from the left like you have never heard.

We are the evil.

Anygunanywhere

Recreational drugs are illegal. The Government has actually declared war against it. Drug use not only has not been eliminated, but the drug culture thrives. It exist because the culture is bigger than the government itself. Untill we st start a goulag system we can't begin to lock up all the drug users. I suspect that there are a lot of good honest law abiding gun owners who would be a part of an underground community if the freedoms they expect were taken away.

It gets ugly when feds go after church going folks like they did in Waco. I don't believe even the leftist have the stomach for it.

anygunanywhere wrote:If the ICE enforced immigration laws the way BATFE enforces firearms laws you would hear an uproar from the left like you have never heard.

I think there should be an uproar if they got the FBI to burn down a spanish speaking church because an illegal immigrant parishioner inside didn't pay $200 in taxes.

Weg wrote:When the conversation comes to confiscation, you have to consider the enormity of the process. The U.S. Government does not have enough " willing " participants to confiscate enough guns to even make a dent in the gun density per citizen, nor will they in the near future. The fact that you are a CHL only tells them ( State, Feds, ect. ) that you own a gun, not how many or what type. In my opinion, it will not happen in my lifetime, ( i'm 40 ) and if it does I will be a dead man. Nuff said.

If times get very tough and people have to turn in their guns for food to feed their families... the choice is to keep your guns or feed your family?

I could see the Feds getting a lot of guns if the economy gets that tough.

-CT

Cutter wrote:

Weg wrote:When the conversation comes to confiscation, you have to consider the enormity of the process. The U.S. Government does not have enough " willing " participants to confiscate enough guns to even make a dent in the gun density per citizen, nor will they in the near future. The fact that you are a CHL only tells them ( State, Feds, ect. ) that you own a gun, not how many or what type. In my opinion, it will not happen in my lifetime, ( i'm 40 ) and if it does I will be a dead man. Nuff said.

If times get very tough and people have to turn in their guns for food to feed their families... the choice is to keep your guns or feed your family?

I could see the Feds getting a lot of guns if the economy gets that tough.

-CT

Sorry Cutter, but I would use my gun to feed my family!

Taxman wrote:
Sorry Cutter, but I would use my gun to feed my family!

Yeah, me too. Guess we could start BBQ'ing the bad guys we have to shoot. Ever see the movie Fried Green Tomatoes?

Taxman wrote:

Cutter wrote:

Weg wrote:When the conversation comes to confiscation, you have to consider the enormity of the process. The U.S. Government does not have enough " willing " participants to confiscate enough guns to even make a dent in the gun density per citizen, nor will they in the near future. The fact that you are a CHL only tells them ( State, Feds, ect. ) that you own a gun, not how many or what type. In my opinion, it will not happen in my lifetime, ( i'm 40 ) and if it does I will be a dead man. Nuff said.

If times get very tough and people have to turn in their guns for food to feed their families... the choice is to keep your guns or feed your family?

I could see the Feds getting a lot of guns if the economy gets that tough.

-CT

Sorry Cutter, but I would use my gun to feed my family!

Well........ I would too, and I have plenty of ammo and the means to hunt for food even in tough times. I was not referring to me specifically. I just meant that they might use "soup lines" or government aid of any sort during really tough times -- Great Depression-like times -- to get people to comply with some of their less popular ideas like gun control. Heck, people get hungry, and a ton of them would rat on their neighbors if it benefit them in some way. Example: A free case of Twinkies for each neighbor with a gun that you turn in. ;)

Like Rahm Emanuel, the new Obama Administration Chief of Staff said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before".

That is the mentality that makes the bureaucrat an opportunist, and makes sufficiency very important.

-CT

So you guys don't think that if the Federal Gov't turns against the people, that some states might secede from the union? After all, Montana did warn SCOTUS on their brief that if they ruled on the 2nd Amend as a collective right, that they would secede from the U.S. claiming breach of contract (Treaty).
I have been reading "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" and it did one hell of a good job showing parts of history I never read about. Granted, I can't verify or assure its accuracy. It starts from the beginning of the rebellion, to the creation of the 2nd Amend, and why our Founders' went as far as they did. I was taught in school that the reason for the Revolutionary War was because of taxes, they never mentioned that the first shots fired were because the Brit's were marching to confiscate the Colony's firearms. I've even read some thesis's on guncite.com about the creation and reasons for the 2nd amendment. Isn't their a part of the Constitution that states Congress can not override the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

There is, but Congress does it all the time.

bdickens wrote:There is, but Congress does it all the time.

So true.

We live in an age of sophistry when any group can simply redefine the meaning of a few words and create the result they want. Witness the farce of saying the "people" in the second amendment are not the same individuals found in the first.

But I think some in this thread are missing the point/impact of what registration or confiscation laws would do. The idiots who want this ultimate goal are not so foolish to think it would be easy or quick -but they know the impact would go more in their desired direction. For sure many would fearfully dissarm themselves and the rest would not longer be able to say they were "law abiding citizens". Life gets kinda complicated when you live outside that group.

Keith B wrote:

Taxman wrote:
Sorry Cutter, but I would use my gun to feed my family!

Yeah, me too. Guess we could start BBQ'ing the bad guys we have to shoot. Ever see the movie Fried Green Tomatoes?

I was thinking of "long pig" in the islands.

Keith B wrote:

Taxman wrote:
Sorry Cutter, but I would use my gun to feed my family!

Yeah, me too. Guess we could start BBQ'ing the bad guys we have to shoot. Ever see the movie Fried Green Tomatoes?

Fried Green Tomatoes was, and still is, a great movie.

bdickens wrote:There is, but Congress does it all the time.

Sad but true. At least 90% of Federal laws de facto violate the Tenth Amendment.

Oldgringo wrote:Fried Green Tomatoes was, and still is, a great movie.

The book is even better and doesn't gloss over the relationship between Idgie and Ruth.

boomerang wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Fried Green Tomatoes was, and still is, a great movie.

The book is even better and doesn't gloss over the relationship between Idgie and Ruth.

Yes, that relationship has been a hanging question every time that we 've watched the movie.

Wasn't Fried Green Tomatoes a chick flick? I've never seen it, so I judged it based on the trailers. Is that something that needs to be on my viewing list? For some reason I got the impression that my estrogen level would skyrocket if I saw that movie.

-CT