TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

Strange. It sounds like business as usual to me.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

I hear you, but to me, passing legislation, directive, or action and acting in a manner in direct, visible, and intentional violation of the Constitution should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere

I like the sentiment, but if that were the case, 3/4 of the laws on the books would have ended up with a legislator/congressman in jail.......not to mention most of the SCOTUS justices who upheld things which violate original intent.

Frankly, I don't see ANY way to keep the original intent of the Constitution intact AND to preserve the rights it enshrines, using the ballot box. The reason I say this is NOT that there is anything wrong with the Constitution OR with the rights it protects OR with the ballot box. Rather, I say it because of nothing more than the natural fecklessness of human nature. Even the founders were not convinced that this "experiment" would last more than a couple of hundred years. Human nature is feckless. The rights so enshrined require a moral people, a people who will not succumb to fecklessness. The more moral the people, the fewer laws are required to guide their behavior. The less feckless and apathetic the people, the less likely they are to petition their representatives for new laws. We are no longer a moral people, and we are a feckless people. It's that simple. People largely get the government they deserve. That doesn't mean that there are no righteous citizens, but the fact is that the righteous are vastly outnumbered by the feckless and immoral, and the reason for that is simply that fecklessness and immorality are the path of least resistance. Righteous citizenship requires vigilance and advocacy. It requires critical thinking skills. It requires a refusal to be buffaloed into rash action. It requires an insistence on consequences for political malfeasance. AND, it requires self-discipline, self-administration, self-regulation, self-control, self-motivation, and self-denial—ALL the hallmarks of personal responsibility and statesmanship.

So it really doesn't matter if these proposed laws are constitutional or not; the American people are no longer amenable to the requirements of constitutional government. That's why I no longer have any faith in the ballot box. 'Nuff said.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

I hear you, but to me, passing legislation, directive, or action and acting in a manner in direct, visible, and intentional violation of the Constitution should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere

I like the sentiment, but if that were the case, 3/4 of the laws on the books would have ended up with a legislator/congressman in jail.......not to mention most of the SCOTUS justices who upheld things which violate original intent.

Frankly, I don't see ANY way to keep the original intent of the Constitution intact AND to preserve the rights it enshrines, using the ballot box. The reason I say this is NOT that there is anything wrong with the Constitution OR with the rights it protects OR with the ballot box. Rather, I say it because of nothing more than the natural fecklessness of human nature. Even the founders were not convinced that this "experiment" would last more than a couple of hundred years. Human nature is feckless. The rights so enshrined require a moral people, a people who will not succumb to fecklessness. The more moral the people, the fewer laws are required to guide their behavior. The less feckless and apathetic the people, the less likely they are to petition their representatives for new laws. We are no longer a moral people, and we are a feckless people. It's that simple. People largely get the government they deserve. That doesn't mean that there are no righteous citizens, but the fact is that the righteous are vastly outnumbered by the feckless and immoral, and the reason for that is simply that fecklessness and immorality are the path of least resistance. Righteous citizenship requires vigilance and advocacy. It requires critical thinking skills. It requires a refusal to be buffaloed into rash action. It requires an insistence on consequences for political malfeasance. AND, it requires self-discipline, self-administration, self-regulation, self-control, self-motivation, and self-denial—ALL the hallmarks of personal responsibility and statesmanship.

So it really doesn't matter if these proposed laws are constitutional or not; the American people are no longer amenable to the requirements of constitutional government. That's why I no longer have any faith in the ballot box. 'Nuff said.

Well said...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

I hear you, but to me, passing legislation, directive, or action and acting in a manner in direct, visible, and intentional violation of the Constitution should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere

I like the sentiment, but if that were the case, 3/4 of the laws on the books would have ended up with a legislator/congressman in jail.......not to mention most of the SCOTUS justices who upheld things which violate original intent.

Frankly, I don't see ANY way to keep the original intent of the Constitution intact AND to preserve the rights it enshrines, using the ballot box. The reason I say this is NOT that there is anything wrong with the Constitution OR with the rights it protects OR with the ballot box. Rather, I say it because of nothing more than the natural fecklessness of human nature. Even the founders were not convinced that this "experiment" would last more than a couple of hundred years. Human nature is feckless. The rights so enshrined require a moral people, a people who will not succumb to fecklessness. The more moral the people, the fewer laws are required to guide their behavior. The less feckless and apathetic the people, the less likely they are to petition their representatives for new laws. We are no longer a moral people, and we are a feckless people. It's that simple. People largely get the government they deserve. That doesn't mean that there are no righteous citizens, but the fact is that the righteous are vastly outnumbered by the feckless and immoral, and the reason for that is simply that fecklessness and immorality are the path of least resistance. Righteous citizenship requires vigilance and advocacy. It requires critical thinking skills. It requires a refusal to be buffaloed into rash action. It requires an insistence on consequences for political malfeasance. AND, it requires self-discipline, self-administration, self-regulation, self-control, self-motivation, and self-denial—ALL the hallmarks of personal responsibility and statesmanship.

So it really doesn't matter if these proposed laws are constitutional or not; the American people are no longer amenable to the requirements of constitutional government. That's why I no longer have any faith in the ballot box. 'Nuff said.

All too true.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

I hear you, but to me, passing legislation, directive, or action and acting in a manner in direct, visible, and intentional violation of the Constitution should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere

I like the sentiment, but if that were the case, 3/4 of the laws on the books would have ended up with a legislator/congressman in jail.......not to mention most of the SCOTUS justices who upheld things which violate original intent.

Frankly, I don't see ANY way to keep the original intent of the Constitution intact AND to preserve the rights it enshrines, using the ballot box. The reason I say this is NOT that there is anything wrong with the Constitution OR with the rights it protects OR with the ballot box. Rather, I say it because of nothing more than the natural fecklessness of human nature. Even the founders were not convinced that this "experiment" would last more than a couple of hundred years. Human nature is feckless. The rights so enshrined require a moral people, a people who will not succumb to fecklessness. The more moral the people, the fewer laws are required to guide their behavior. The less feckless and apathetic the people, the less likely they are to petition their representatives for new laws. We are no longer a moral people, and we are a feckless people. It's that simple. People largely get the government they deserve. That doesn't mean that there are no righteous citizens, but the fact is that the righteous are vastly outnumbered by the feckless and immoral, and the reason for that is simply that fecklessness and immorality are the path of least resistance. Righteous citizenship requires vigilance and advocacy. It requires critical thinking skills. It requires a refusal to be buffaloed into rash action. It requires an insistence on consequences for political malfeasance. AND, it requires self-discipline, self-administration, self-regulation, self-control, self-motivation, and self-denial—ALL the hallmarks of personal responsibility and statesmanship.

So it really doesn't matter if these proposed laws are constitutional or not; the American people are no longer amenable to the requirements of constitutional government. That's why I no longer have any faith in the ballot box. 'Nuff said.

Can I not live in my own fantasy world? It would please me to see the legislative, judicial, and executive criminals in the slammer.

I too am weary of relying on the ballot box. It ain't working.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:I too am weary of relying on the ballot box. It ain't working.

Anygunanywhere

Two words: Ted Cruz

AndyC wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I like the sentiment, but if that were the case, 3/4 of the laws on the books would have ended up with a legislator/congressman in jail.......not to mention most of the SCOTUS justices who upheld things which violate original intent.

Must be me, but I'm not seeing any problem with that

You know SOMEONE had to say it

baldeagle wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I too am weary of relying on the ballot box. It ain't working.

Anygunanywhere

Two words: Ted Cruz

Exception to the rule he is.

If the RNC and all the rest of the moderate GOP and RINOs would get out of the way and support Tea Party candidates we just might save something at the ballot box.

The way the Hannities of the world fawn all over the Roves and Christies of the "conservative not" bunch it will never happen.

Anygunanywhere

We conservatives just need a BETTER PUBLIC RELATIONS AGENCY. The Dems figured this out a long time ago. When everything you DO shows that everything you SAY is a lie; you can either admit it or BUY REALLY GOOD SPIN DOCTORS. That's what they've done, to great effect. Historically, RIGHT has been on our side, as the responsible man understands, and supports logic. We are now, OFFICIALLY outnumbered. The fact that we are supporting the nation, or are doing the right things for civilized society matter not. We are outnumbered by those who are voting themselves money, and will continue to do so. SO, we need to hire better "spin doctors" to do a better job explaining why our positions are the only way to continued prosperity for America (note; we are no longer "United States"....). Notice the HUGE, constant attacks against the Tea Party by the establishments of both parties and the media - the TP is CLEARLY pursuing the (correct) agendas that will expose the entrenched DC mob, and lead to its downfall.

I think we can all agree that we have a radical government in place; we need to continue to elect representatives (like Ted Cruz) that will tirelessly defend our liberty. The knuckle-heads quoted are welcome to state their opinions under the 1st amendment, as are we all. On the other hand, when they move to actions (like proposing legislation limiting the 2nd amendment) in which they clearly violate their OATH to UPHOLD AND DEFEND the CONSTITUTION; it's time that they are removed from office and face the charges and consequences of Treason, as outlined in said document.