https://texags.com/forums/16

You mean what is left of it?

Look at all of the other rights that have been trampled...and how willingly a majority of the population is not only okay with it, but cheering it on.

Very, very vulnerable. working through congress right now

Thread

Hopefully the recent panic buying has awaken some people. Some that never considered a gun or were anti-gun recently decided that they need one.

Most learned that you can't just go online and have one show up on your doorstep or walk into the store and pick one up as easily as grabbing a gallon of milk.

Hopefully, they will remember this when asked to support more restrictions.

I'm 60 years old, life long Texan. Had guns since I was 17, fairly avid bird hunter, along with trap / skeet shooting. I would be fine with more background checks, and even more few red flag restrictions. Not a popular opinion here, but I don't believe everyone should have access to guns, just because it's their right. There are some guns, I just don't see Joe Public needing".

Edited for a vet appt

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Very, very vulnerable. working through congress right now

Thread

---

Not "working through Congress", it's reported to a committee, where as bad as it is, it will die a death of inactivity.

Some animals are more equal than others gotcha

Hamburger Dan said:

---

I'm 60 years old, life long Texan. Had guns since I was 17, fairly avid bird hunter, weird sad one trap / skeet shooting. I would be fine with more background checks, and even a few red flag deals. Not a popular opinion here, but I don't believe everyone should have access to guns, just because it's their right. There are guns, I just don't see "needing".

---

GTFO

I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious.

I stand by my statement. Just because it is in the first stages of debate/review does not mean it is not working through congress. The danger is there. And it will keep getting pressed upon us.

Hamburger Dan said:

---

I'm 60 years old, life long Texan. Had guns since I was 17, fairly avid bird hunter, weird sad one trap / skeet shooting. I would be fine with more background checks, and even a few red flag deals. Not a popular opinion here, but I don't believe everyone should have access to guns, just because it's their right. There are guns, I just don't see "needing".

---

....and I don't believe everybody should be able to speak freely. Or not be in jail at the whim of the State. Or be able to protest against the state. Or be able to tell the government "no" on any random search and seizure. Or be able to deny quartering of soldiers against their will in their home at any given time. Or not be in involuntary servitude.

BTW, you have a 100% backwards view on 2A. It has been and never will be about "need", and the second you start going downt hat road, you have lost. Guess what - you have lost.

schmellba99 said:

---

Hamburger Dan said:

---

I'm 60 years old, life long Texan. Had guns since I was 17, fairly avid bird hunter, weird sad one trap / skeet shooting. I would be fine with more background checks, and even a few red flag deals. Not a popular opinion here, but I don't believe everyone should have access to guns, just because it's their right. There are guns, I just don't see "needing".

---

....and I don't believe everybody should be able to speak freely. Or not be in jail at the whim of the State. Or be able to protest against the state. Or be able to tell the government "no" on any random search and seizure. Or be able to deny quartering of soldiers against their will in their home at any given time. Or not be in involuntary servitude.

BTW, you have a 100% backwards view on 2A. It has been and never will be about "need", and the second you start going downt hat road, you have lost. Guess what - you have lost.

---

You could be right. I'm still holding out hope that there are sensible people on both sides that could make things right.
I'm pretty cynical, but deep down, I generally believe that good will prevail.
We just need to figure out what's allowable. Just my opinion, y'all can debate if you like.

Quote:

---

How vulnerable is the 2nd Amendment?

---

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."- Ronald Reagan

Recent trends even before COVID would seem to indicate that we haven't done a good job of passing on the love of freedom.

The 2nd Amendment was never about sport recreational use when written. It was not worded as "the right to bear arms to go shoot a turkey or target shoot." It was about the people protecting themselves against a tyrannical government ....a government who sought to disarm the people and control them. Sound familiar????
We can not legislate our way to morality. Did prohibition stop alcohol use? Do drug laws stop drug use? Does no texting while driving laws stop texting while driving? Answer is ????

Was meant as reply to Hamburger Dan ...not ND

Hamburger Dan said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Hamburger Dan said:

---

I'm 60 years old, life long Texan. Had guns since I was 17, fairly avid bird hunter, weird sad one trap / skeet shooting. I would be fine with more background checks, and even a few red flag deals. Not a popular opinion here, but I don't believe everyone should have access to guns, just because it's their right. There are guns, I just don't see "needing".

---

....and I don't believe everybody should be able to speak freely. Or not be in jail at the whim of the State. Or be able to protest against the state. Or be able to tell the government "no" on any random search and seizure. Or be able to deny quartering of soldiers against their will in their home at any given time. Or not be in involuntary servitude.

BTW, you have a 100% backwards view on 2A. It has been and never will be about "need", and the second you start going downt hat road, you have lost. Guess what - you have lost.

---

You could be right. I'm still holding out hope that there are sensible people on both sides that could make things right.
I'm pretty cynical, but deep down, I generally believe that good will prevail.
We just need to figure out what's allowable. Just my opinion, y'all can debate if you like.

---

There is no debate. It is a NATURAL human right inherent to all of us, paid for by the blood of those who defend our liberty.
There is no compromise or pandering because time and time again the leftists have shown they won't stop ****ting all over the 2A. This is the line.

Carpe Libertas.

If you know anything about history, you will quickly give up on the notion that there are reasonable people in the left.

Hell, just limit it to American history and you eill,come,to that conclusion, throw in world history and it is that much more glaringly obvious.

The most important Natural Law/Liberty is the Right of Self-preservation even over and above governmental overreach, and, to that end, if that is my Natural Law/Liberty then I should be afforded the ability to will use the most effective means necessary in that moment.

On December 14th, 2012; twenty first grade children plus 6 adults were killed with a Bushmaster XM15. The shooter also carried 10, 30-round magazines. It happened in a suburban area in a left-leaning state in the northeast USA.

The President was a newly re-elected Democrat.

The Senate was majority Democrat, 51-47 (2 Independent). The House had a slim Republican majority, 233-201.

After the shooting, the President asked his Vice President (a congressional insider famous as a deal-maker) to make a "maximum effort" push to increase gun control.

Did they restore the "assault weapon" ban? No.

Did they ban large capacity magazines? No.

Did they expand background checks? Again, no.

Nothing. Happened.

My point is that if nothing happened after Newtown, then nothing ever will.

But 2A fear mongering makes a lot of money for a lot of folks.

The only rights you have are the ones upon which you insist. You only have a right to free speech if you safeguard it. The reason most governments distrust private citizen firearms ownership is because it means that unlawful exercise of power by government could be effectively resisted. Most governments aren't willing to sustain heavy employee casualty rates in pursuit of their ideological objectives. That is the simplest argument for the 2A.

38 out of 50 states are needed to ratify the constitution.

The sips have a better shot getting into the SEC vs constitution being ratified.

I don't think it will legally be in jeopardy but watching the overreach of liberties by the feds and state governments happening now and people just accepting it and wanting more I could easily see some illegal executive orders or mandates trying to water it down or take it away.

During this whole thing my county in Colorado quietly announced they are not processing new CHL applications for an indefinite amount of time.

Fairview said:

---

I don't think it will legally be in jeopardy but watching the overreach of liberties by the feds and state governments happening now and people just accepting it and wanting more I could easily see some illegal executive orders or mandates trying to water it down or take it away.

During this whole thing my county in Colorado quietly announced they are not processing new CHL applications for an indefinite amount of time.

---

Slowly but surely/death of a thousand cuts.

schmellba99 said:

---

Hamburger Dan said:

---

I'm 60 years old, life long Texan. Had guns since I was 17, fairly avid bird hunter, weird sad one trap / skeet shooting. I would be fine with more background checks, and even a few red flag deals. Not a popular opinion here, but I don't believe everyone should have access to guns, just because it's their right. There are guns, I just don't see "needing".

---

....and I don't believe everybody should be able to speak freely. Or not be in jail at the whim of the State. Or be able to protest against the state. Or be able to tell the government "no" on any random search and seizure. Or be able to deny quartering of soldiers against their will in their home at any given time. Or not be in involuntary servitude.

BTW, you have a 100% backwards view on 2A. It has been and never will be about "need", and the second you start going downt hat road, you have lost. Guess what - you have lost.

---

Hey Dan, the 2nd isn't where it is in the BOR so that you can hunt real or clay birds, it is there so that wanna be dictators with the opinions stated by schme can't implement them. Giving the said "leaders" the tools to restrict the ability to dispute the implementation of those opinions will greatly increase the potential that they will try. You don't even have to look at history, all you have to do is look south.

What other rights do people have that they don't "need" in your opinion?

It ain't called the Bill of Needs.

DeadCiv said:

---

On December 14th, 2012; twenty first grade children plus 6 adults were killed with a Bushmaster XM15. The shooter also carried 10, 30-round magazines. It happened in a suburban area in a left-leaning state in the northeast USA.

The President was a newly re-elected Democrat.

The Senate was majority Democrat, 51-47 (2 Independent). The House had a slim Republican majority, 233-201.

After the shooting, the President asked his Vice President (a congressional insider famous as a deal-maker) to make a "maximum effort" push to increase gun control.

Did they restore the "assault weapon" ban? No.

Did they ban large capacity magazines? No.

Did they expand background checks? Again, no.

Nothing. Happened.

My point is that if nothing happened after Newtown, then nothing ever will.

But 2A fear mongering makes a lot of money for a lot of folks.

---

https://bit.ly/2UWZ1nX

Sute, nothing will happen, right?

Not all that threatened at the moment. We have the Constitution on our side, obvi. Also have the Supreme Court on our side since Heller decision. Concealed Carry has grown like a weed over the last 20 yrs, now giving way to open carry in many places. We need to keep the movement going - invite your coworker to the range some weekend, teach your kids, take the scout troop, etc. Building new converts is the best way to keep it going.

Tell that to Virginia. And CA, and the dems that keep puahing bills in Congress.

Fairview said:

---

I don't think it will legally be in jeopardy but watching the overreach of liberties by the feds and state governments happening now and people just accepting it and wanting more I could easily see some illegal executive orders or mandates trying to water it down or take it away.

During this whole thing my county in Colorado quietly announced they are not processing new CHL applications for an indefinite amount of time.

---

What county? I need a new pet project

LEJ said:

---

Fairview said:

---

I don't think it will legally be in jeopardy but watching the overreach of liberties by the feds and state governments happening now and people just accepting it and wanting more I could easily see some illegal executive orders or mandates trying to water it down or take it away.

During this whole thing my county in Colorado quietly announced they are not processing new CHL applications for an indefinite amount of time.

---

What county? I need a new pet project

---

Eagle County Colorado. Here's the link to the Facebook post where they casually mention it.

https://www.facebook.com/44746585884/posts/10157272211530885/?d=n

Legislatively, the 2nd. Amendment is slightly vulnerable from the aspect it would require a chipping away, or "domino effect' to kill it over time. It would take decades to completely squash it. A bum rush would be defeated easily.

The real vulnerability is with the Supreme Court. With the proper case being presented to the SCOTUS, they could rule by a margin of one on party lines (and there ARE party lines there like it or not) that it only applies to a "militia", and that the ordinary citizen are in fact not one. This is why whether you "like" a person or not for POTUS is irrelevant. They could be a giant jackass with poor morals, but if they are the pro 2nd Amendment candidate at the top of the ticket, you better swallow your pride and vote for them. This is what kills me about the never Trumpers. They'd have let Hillary win and have the last couple of appointments to SCOTUS with the victory, just because Trump. If she would have won, the last two appointments would have meant just getting the right case in front of the SCOTUS and bingo, the 2nd Amendment would have been gutted for its original intent.

Too casually