I can find cases that uphold segregation. Doesn't mean they are right.
Show me a path for any state to exit the union. Unilaterally doesn’t work in any manner.
I can find cases that uphold segregation. Doesn't mean they are right.
It can. Either with permission or without.Show me a path for any state to exit the union. Unilaterally doesn’t work in any manner.
It can. Either with permission or without.
Following your logic, America would never have come into being.
Let’s traipse down this lane for a moment. The original thirteen colonies were founded by royal charters by the English crown to one of a couple private companies. Most all these charters reverted to the crown by the time the Revolution occurred.
We’ll fast forward thirty years or so thru the Boston Tea Party, no taxation without representation, the first Continental Congress and up to the Articles of Confederation. This was the first “opt-in” attempt as forming the modern United States of America. A few (six) short years later the Constitutional Convention to overcome the Articles of Confederation.
That convention wrote the part about “We the People,... in order to form a more perfect Union,”. As they laid out the mechanics, these folks that just fought a war of independence, chose not to include a method by which to dissolve this more perfect Union. You think that was an oversight?
I don’t think so, and contemporary writings suggest it was not an oversight, either. Let’s see what Madison, writing as Publius, says about this subject in Federalist 58.
”... the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.”
The subject of dissolving the more perfect Union was significant enough for public debate by the framers, which indicates a deliberate decision on the subject. But one which only merited a paragraph. Counter that with Washington’s entire farewell address, which was essentially an admonishment to forego allowing factions to forsake good governance for political party favoritism and expediency.
You could hold a rally, but the feds are more patient than you can be. They would let the rally happen and over the next few weeks and months they pick off folks they ID'd as being there and try to get them to throw another few patriots under the bus.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.
Let’s traipse down this lane for a moment. The original thirteen colonies were founded by royal charters by the English crown to one of a couple private companies. Most all these charters reverted to the crown by the time the Revolution occurred.
We’ll fast forward thirty years or so thru the Boston Tea Party, no taxation without representation, the first Continental Congress and up to the Articles of Confederation. This was the first “opt-in” attempt as forming the modern United States of America. A few (six) short years later the Constitutional Convention to overcome the Articles of Confederation.
That convention wrote the part about “We the People,... in order to form a more perfect Union,”. As they laid out the mechanics, these folks that just fought a war of independence, chose not to include a method by which to dissolve this more perfect Union. You think that was an oversight?
I don’t think so, and contemporary writings suggest it was not an oversight, either. Let’s see what Madison, writing as Publius, says about this subject in Federalist 58.
”... the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.”
The subject of dissolving the more perfect Union was significant enough for public debate by the framers, which indicates a deliberate decision on the subject. But one which only merited a paragraph. Counter that with Washington’s entire farewell address, which was essentially an admonishment to forego allowing factions to forsake good governance for political party favoritism and expediency.
Damned fine thinking!At least the Democrats are consistent - once again they are going after law abiding citizens instead of criminals. Perhaps once they pass the "assault weapons" ban and we are classified as criminals they will leave us alone too!
Sad but true...Damned fine thinking!
Yeah and with the other “ hand” they are letting criminals out. I guess they want criminals out and remove our guns so we can’t protect ourselves. How crazy is that?Yes democrats have engineered the negative image of gun owners. However, just like a bully, at some point he’s gonna need his ass whooped.
ALL part of the plan!Yeah and with the other “ hand” they are letting criminals out. I guess they want criminals out and remove our guns so we can’t protect ourselves. How crazy is that?
Wicked ole c you next tuesdayKansas Gov. Kelly vetoes lowered concealed gun carry age requirement, permit reciprocity, tighter election laws
View attachment 253785
Kansas Gov. Kelly vetoes lowered concealed gun carry age requirement, permit reciprocity, tighter election laws | American Military News