TexasCHLforum.com

lunchbox wrote:so is part of marshal law taking away gun rights?????????

Who's this Marshal Law guy?

martial law probably entails taking away most, if not all, rights

this reference, among many others, will give some insight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

DParker wrote:

lunchbox wrote:so is part of marshal law taking away gun rights?????????

Who's this Marshal Law guy?

yeah i cant spell im adding a lin to my sig so everyone will know

lunchbox wrote:

DParker wrote:

lunchbox wrote:so is part of marshal law taking away gun rights?????????

Who's this Marshal Law guy?

yeah i cant spell im adding a lin to my sig so everyone will know

Well, I was just giving you a little ribbing. It's very common to see "martial" misspelled as "marshal" on boards like this one, and the response I gave is equally common. I just wanted to beat everyone else to it

mr surveyor wrote:it might be best to just let it go. I don't think that "calling out" someone for confrontation is the proper way to handle the situation. I still believe that the old adage of "never have a battle of wits with the unarmed" fits this case well.

That's why I haven't bothered to reply to those people. The way some of them are trying to pick a fight I don't think the were paying attention when they took the CHL class. If they took the CHL class.

im not offended i realy just cant spell

amber wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:it might be best to just let it go. I don't think that "calling out" someone for confrontation is the proper way to handle the situation. I still believe that the old adage of "never have a battle of wits with the unarmed" fits this case well.

That's why I haven't bothered to reply to those people. The way some of them are trying to pick a fight I don't think the were paying attention when they took the CHL class. If they took the CHL class.

what are you talking about????

amber wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:it might be best to just let it go. I don't think that "calling out" someone for confrontation is the proper way to handle the situation. I still believe that the old adage of "never have a battle of wits with the unarmed" fits this case well.

That's why I haven't bothered to reply to those people. The way some of them are trying to pick a fight I don't think the were paying attention when they took the CHL class. If they took the CHL class.

Now that's funny.

and I think I will certainly follow my own advice and not have a battle of wits with the unarmed. It just would not be the gentlemanly thing to do.

centex aggie wrote:I know that the last time American's 2nd Amendment rights were taken away was during Katrina in New Orleans, but do any of you know how many times that this has been done by our Govt? I have looked but having a hard time finding anything.

tia

Eh, call it sometime in 2009 when hussein gets elected.

DParker wrote:Who's this Marshal Law guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_Law

boomerang wrote:

DParker wrote:Who's this Marshal Law guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_Law

Boomerang,

Curious. You still an Obama fan?

lawrnk wrote:Boomerang,

Curious. You still an Obama fan?

I gave that up the week before you stopped beating your wife.

Seriously. Are you still pushing the "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" nonsense?

boomerang wrote:

lawrnk wrote:Boomerang,

Curious. You still an Obama fan?

I gave that up the week before you stopped beating your wife.

Seriously. Are you still pushing the "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" nonsense?

Not sure hy you are a wife beater but you should try ginko biloba?

boomerang wrote:My first choice is Paul.

My second choice is Obama. If I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.

lawrnk wrote:

boomerang wrote:

lawrnk wrote:Boomerang,

Curious. You still an Obama fan?

I gave that up the week before you stopped beating your wife.

Seriously. Are you still pushing the "a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" nonsense?

Not sure hy you are a wife beater but you should try ginko biloba?

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/complexquestions.html

lawrnk wrote:

boomerang wrote:My first choice is Paul.

My second choice is Obama. If I'm going to vote for a democrat I may as well vote for one who is honest about it.

This doesn't sound like he's saying that he's an "Obama fan". It sounds like he's a Ron Paul fan.

In any event...while I'm definitely not an Obama fan myself, I think much of the apprehension about federal gun-grabbing happening if he's elected is unwarranted. Not because I don't think he's fundamentally an anti (I harbor no illusions on that matter), but because I recognize the limitations on executive authority on issues like that. Any effective gun banning at the federal level is going to require both initiative and majority support in Congress, and most Congress critters learned a couple of election cycles ago what a suicide mission that is. Couple that with what I expect will be a favorable ruling on Heller by SCOTUS this month and...well, I'm not saying that it can't happen...just that I think the "woe is us if Obama becomes President" stuff is overblown, at least on the 2A issue.