Feinstein Introduces assault weapons ban

[ST5MF]

Serious question. Just how many people are running "unregistered SBRs" (depending on how you choose to define that) these days with all the "pistol" AR-15s available? I'd suggest more is happening than you think, and that's a good thing. There's nothing inherently more dangerous from a ballistics point of view about a 10' AR vs a 16" AR.

Serious answer, the people who choose to do so are probably looking over their shoulder for an item they buried in their backyard and never take to the range, that can‘t really be defined as open defiance now can it.

Serious question for you. What do you think would happen if you had an illegal SBR rally at The Alamo? Promote it via different media platforms and have an open display of defiance of federal gun law. You think you would achieve any desired results? You think you would go unscathed?

 

[oldag]

I don’t believe they are even likely to hear the case. Perhaps you missed the 2020 Presidential Elections and the massive amounts of blatant voter fraud amongst other election crimes? What did The SCOTUS choose to do in that instance?

We could argue that all day long.

The conservative justices have already publicly stated that gun control needs to be examined. They were just waiting for Barrett to join as they could not count on Roberts.

 

[ST5MF]

We could argue that all day long.

The conservative justices have already publicly stated that gun control needs to be examined. They were just waiting for Barrett to join as they could not count on Thomas.

The SCOTUS has proven to be a feckless entity for the American People. There will be 100 gender case hearings before a single 2A is docketed. The betrayal by SCOTUS is blatantly evident to those paying attention.

 

[Rhino]

Serious answer, the people who choose to do so are probably looking over their shoulder for an item they buried in their backyard and never take to the range, that can‘t really be defined as open defiance now can it.

Serious question for you. What do you think would happen if you had an illegal SBR rally at The Alamo? Promote it via different media platforms and have an open display of defiance of federal gun law. You think you would achieve any desired results? You think you would go unscathed?

More likely to than your secession deal... which I'm not 100% against, just saying.

 

[gll]

Serious answer, the people who choose to do so are probably looking over their shoulder for an item they buried in their backyard and never take to the range, that can‘t really be defined as open defiance now can it.

Serious question for you. What do you think would happen if you had an illegal SBR rally at The Alamo? Promote it via different media platforms and have an open display of defiance of federal gun law. You think you would achieve any desired results? You think you would go unscathed?

1621 says no to your last two questions... Only the left can get away with that kinda shit!

 

[ST5MF]

More likely to than your secession deal... which I'm not 100% against, just saying.

So you are saying you are going to organize an non registered SBR Rally at The Alamo or?

It seems you want others to be defiant of federal gun laws but won‘t cross that threshold yourself as you are at least aware enough to know that it ends very bad for you, and for anyone else for that matter. This is called reality.

The option to secede from the U.S. was baked into the Texas Constitution when we joined The Union, and it would be a perfectly legal COA if that is what the people of Texas wanted. If we don’t secede then we will effectually be beholden to any and all federal gun control laws and the penalties for breaking those laws will in fact be severe. Again, see Waco 1994 and Ruby Ridge 1992 as examples of those who defy federal gun laws.

 

[oldag]

The SCOTUS has proven to be a feckless entity for the American People. There will be 100 gender case hearings before a single 2A is docketed. The betrayal by SCOTUS is blatantly evident to those paying attention.

Time will tell.

 

[toddnjoyce]

...The option to secede from the U.S...

Here’s recent thread on that exact topic.

HB1359, introduce today... For Texas Secession

If passed HB1359, would put the vote to the people of Texas the question of Secession of Texas from the United States of America to form The Republic of Texas! I would love to this pass and the Vote go to the people of Texas. Now don’t assume I would vote yes to secede. But I would love to see...

www.texasguntalk.com

Realize the US gets a vote, too.

 

[ST5MF]

Here’s recent thread on that exact topic.

HB1359, introduce today... For Texas Secession

If passed HB1359, would put the vote to the people of Texas the question of Secession of Texas from the United States of America to form The Republic of Texas! I would love to this pass and the Vote go to the people of Texas. Now don’t assume I would vote yes to secede. But I would love to see...

www.texasguntalk.com

Realize the US gets a vote, too.

Realize we don’t know until we try. As much as some folks hate Texas they may just opt in favor for succession.

 

[ST5MF]

Time will tell.

Yes, but based on the SCOTUS inaction(s) I can see the writing on the wall.

Many, including myself, know the courts are as corrupt and bias as the DC Swamp. I have zero faith in the SCOTUS at this point.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Realize we don’t know until we try. As much as some folks hate Texas they may just opt in favor for succession.

Secession has been tried once already. How do you think a second attempt will turn out?

There is credible research that the founders envisioned a constitutional convention is the path such challenges would take.

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance states “one nation, indivisible”

 

[gll]

Secession has been tried once already. How do you think a second attempt will turn out?

There is credible research that the founders envisioned a constitutional convention is the path such challenges would take.

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance states “one nation, indivisible”

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892. The founding fathers envisioned no such thing as an indivisible nation. We were a union of sovereign states and recognized by most, as such, until after the Civil War, and sovereign states are free to make their own way. Neither did the Civil War prove otherwise, except that one group of states might exert their power to conquer another group of states in a time when public and world opinion carried little weight. I think things could be different today.

If the Democrats really want to own America forever, the easiest way to do it would be to get shed of Texas... They tell us we are nothing but a problem, anyway.

 

[ST5MF]

Secession has been tried once already. How do you think a second attempt will turn out?

There is credible research that the founders envisioned a constitutional convention is the path such challenges would take.

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance states “one nation, indivisible”

There is a reason the 2A reads “shall not be infringed,“ yet here we are.

 

[oldag]

Secession has been tried once already. How do you think a second attempt will turn out?

There is credible research that the founders envisioned a constitutional convention is the path such challenges would take.

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance states “one nation, indivisible”

We are not far from the point that the Constitution will be, in practicality, gutted.

When Texas CHOSE to join the union, there was an implicit assumption that the Constitution was part of the deal. If the Constitution is to be cast aside, then the deal is off. The United States will have chosen to break the agreement.

Constitutional convention? I doubt we will ever see that happen again.

 

[Coop45]

At this point the Bolsheviks are laughing at this type of rhetoric. They steal elections and no one can stop them. They want open defiance so they can jump start the eradication of dissidents. Thus far there has been nothing but talk and just like in 1994 that is how this will play out. The difference is that in 1994 we tossed the gun grabbers out of office, now that they can and will continue to steal elections that won’t happen so it is full speed ahead.

Are best and perhaps only chance at freedom is to return to a Republic of Texas.

In the open would just get another Waco.

 

[gll]

We are not far from the point that the Constitution will be, in practicality, gutted.

When Texas CHOSE to join the union, there was an implicit assumption that the Constitution was part of the deal. If the Constitution is to be cast aside, then the deal is off. The United States will have chosen to break the agreement.

Constitutional convention? I doubt we will ever see that happen again.

As I read it, the purpose of an Art V Constitutional Convention is to amend the Constitution. Why would the Constitution need to be amended for Texas to leave? There is no constitutional stipulation against a state leaving...

If the states want to amend the Constitution, they should be able to do it on Zoom... Legislatures call for it, elect delegates, inform Congress, delegates meet on Zoom, abrogate the Constitution by amendment...

 

[Coop45]

View attachment 248166

Damn, I'm an outsider then. LOL!

 

[toddnjoyce]

...When Texas CHOSE to join the union, there was an implicit assumption that the Constitution was part of the deal. If the Constitution is to be cast aside, then the deal is off. The United States will have chosen to break the agreement.

As I read it, the purpose of an Art V Constitutional Convention is to amend the Constitution. Why would the Constitution need to be amended for Texas to leave? There is no constitutional stipulation against a state leaving...

Have either of y’all reviewed Texas v White?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

 

[gll]

Have either of y’all reviewed Texas v White?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

Didn’t the Supreme Court declare secession unconstitutional?

TEXIT NOW!

Get the facts about TEXIT.

tnm.me

 

[oldag]

Have either of y’all reviewed Texas v White?

{{meta.fullTitle}}

I can find cases that uphold segregation. Doesn't mean they are right.