TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:I don't guess I will bother to vote, with all the voter fraud and how rigged it is per Trump.
With all the illegals and dead poeple voting whats the point?

You are doing exactly what the progs want you to do. You took the bait.

Exactly.

rbwhatever1 wrote:The GOP abandoned me long ago and I imagine the other silent majority trying to usher in a Trump Landslide despite the trenched in Grand Old Party Establishments non-support from the start. I would like to believe that those DNC voters will rise up against their corrupted party as well and we shall see. Bernie Sanders voters should be massing with pitchforks to reject being the "good little subjects" of the DNC. Maybe I missed a memo on this one.

This is a peaceful Revolution from many of the huddled masses. Win or lose the GOP establishment is no more for me.

Believe me, I do hear you. I have not been a member of the GOP since 2012, probably for the same reasons as you. But I didn't vote for Trump, or against Clinton. I voted for SCOTUS appointments that will continue to preserve the 2nd Amendment for the next 30 years, rather than SCOTUS appointments that will ensure its termination forever as a real, exercisable right in the next 4-8 years. I don't want to see my fellow citizens have to resort to the 2nd Amendment in order to preserve the gov't. I'd rather that possibility be put off as long as we can.

It took me a long time to come to that conclusion. I looked at 3rd party possibilities, but I couldn't support any of their candidates. Then I looked at whom I might write in. I was seriously thinking of writing in my pastor's older brother. From the beginning, I have always said that Trump would not be even close to my kind of candidate, but he was not Hillary Clinton. If there were a viable alternative to Trump or Clinton, I might have probably taken it. But in the end, for me, it boiled down to what will happen to the 2nd Amendment over the next 4-8 years. That's my defining issue this time around. I am not just voting against Hillary Clinton, I am voting for the preservation of the 2nd Amendment.

If Trump turns out to be a pretty good president, that's all gravy. If he doesn't, but he does appoint good justices, then we're no worse off than we are now, except that we'll have a SCOTUS that will have our backs. And if he turns out to be a bad president, and he doesn't appoint good justices, then we're no worse off than we'd be if Clinton got elected. Then maybe it becomes time to use the 2nd Amendment in the defense of the rest of the Constitution.

So that was my rationale. I understand that it might not work for you or others, and that's OK. We have to vote our consciences. That was my conscience.

And still no reply at all, let alone a rational reply from the Hillary voters. It's awful quiet in here.........

dale blanker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: I voted this morning. Trump/Pence for POTUS/VPOTUS, and a mixture of republican and libertarian in the down-ballot.

TAM, I can imagine the reasons for your vote but I would be interested in hearing them from you. I've seen some of your thoughts about the election and am a little surprised with your final selection and report. Did you receive the Divine Guidance that you had hoped for?

By the way we voted by mail last week. Very convenient and I attached a chip to my ballot so that I can track it.

I won't say exactly for whom I voted but I did vote mostly Republican!

Yes, I did receive that guidance, and the choice became clear. But I still wasn't entirely comfortable with it until Trump's policy speech of last week, in which he clearly and succinctly stated his 100 day plan. That was about as close to a home run as Trump has hit all season. Now I'm not naive, and I know that, as often as not, plans do not survive first contact with the enemy, and if Trump wins, he'll have to deal with an antagonistic Paul Ryan as Speaker......and that may possibly derail some of his plan. But at least I now know what Trump's intentions are. He was not all that clear about it previously, and I discounted two of the three debates as being nothing more than gotcha sessions for the media, and he wasn't that specific in the third debate. And I remain somewhat troubled by Trump's personal moral issues. OTH, I admit that the lamestream media is pumping that aspect for all it's worth, because they are terrified of having to cover a Trump White House with the loss of access to which they will have condemned themselves by being so overtly partisan in their coverage. Furthermore, one of Trump's best selling points is Mike Pence. Let's see......something terrible happens to POTUS, and we can either have Pence or Kaine. That's a no-brainer. First of all, Pence is smart, honest, moral, and personable. And, Kaine is none of those things. He's not qualified to be dog catcher. For the life of me, I can't figure out how he made the ticket. It's like they went out of their way to pick some howdy-doody who wouldn't outshine Clinton, because she's so bad that she's easy to outshine. I wouldn't hire Kaine to pick up after my dog. Heck, even crazy old Uncle Joe Biden is more qualified than Kaine......and my dog is a lot smarter than Biden.

To me, Trump is still not the ideal candidate. But, I have no other choice but to take him at his word about SCOTUS appointments, and I think that, more than anything, is what will define the next 25 years.

Bitter Clinger wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

surprise-poll-results.png

Wonder if this will surprise those Hitlery voters?:

Per 18 USC Ch. 101 field-end:cite : RECORDS AND REPORTS:

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

We'll see. I voted this morning. Trump/Pence for POTUS/VPOTUS, and a mixture of republican and libertarian in the down-ballot. We voted at the Grapevine Rec Center, and I was surprised to find that there were no paper ballots available for early voting. I was told they are only available on election day. I asked if they have had any issues with the machines changing votes, and was told (don't know if true or not) that all of the incidents of incorrectly recorded votes on the machines had turned out to be operator error, and that if you pay attention, your ballot will be correct. The guy told me that you can always correct your selections right up to the moment when you press the "cast ballot" button. He turned out to be correct about that feature. Once I figured out how to use the machine (which was of a type I'd never seen before but truly wasn't that difficult to use), it went fairly quickly. Towards the end, I was presented with a page that showed me a list of all of my selections, giving me a chance to verify them BEFORE I pressed the "Cast Ballot" button. If any of them were not correct, I had the opportunity to use a "go back" button to change them.

Now, I can't testify as to the security of the data once it's collected, but frankly, one can't testify as to the security of our paper ballots either, once they've been collected. A bad person is going to find a way to falsify the data, whether it is digital or on paper. So I think the solution there is to thoroughly vet the integrity of those people who will be handling and/or guarding over the votes until they are tabulated, and the integrity of those who count the votes. That integrity has to be backed up with harsh prison terms for violating the trust......and there are precious few people in prison for vote fraud these days - because democrats don't think they should have to serve time for engaging in their time-honored "best practices". That said....... Perhaps my opinion is unfair, and if it is, I certainly don't mean to offend anyone........but I think that the voting errors with the digital machines are going to turn out to be like the "hanging chad" thing, and a LOT of that particular fiasco had to do with the intellectual competence of the voter.

infoman wrote:Wow, I've been a member of this forum for many years & probably know as much or more about gun laws & General CHL/LTC than most on this forum yet I get called a "troll" & bashed for saying I'm voting a certain way. In regards to gun control, I know that neither candidate will ban owning guns, neither will "do away" with the 2nd amendment & there will most definitely be a TEXAS LTC 4 years from now. I'm also not for constitutional carry. I'm glad Texas has eligibility requirements for those wanting LTC's. I'm glad that we do thorough background checks & I'm proud to have & know others who have an LTC knowing they are law abiding citizens. Again, no one will ban the owning/carrying of handguns in Texas- no way no how. It's a state thing, the Texas legislature would have to make that call.

1. Please support your assertion that you know more about gun laws and general CHL/LTC than "most on this forum". That has no more logical validity than my claim to know more about astronomy than most of Caltech's, MIT's, or JPL's astronomers. It's a nonsense assertion, undeserving of respect, UNLESS it can be backed up by facts. Show me the facts or retract that statement, otherwise, it's just bloviating; and that's how I'll regard your future posts......just bloviating, unsupported by facts.
2. Go read the Federalist Papers to understand what the founders actually meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment......not what you want it to mean.

I think you have been brainwashed about what it means to have rights versus privileges, and it is exactly because people like you think that rights ARE privileges that the free exercise of rights eventually disappears. A privilege is something that someone allows you do do or have. It's not something that is yours simply because you're a free man (or woman). Whenever you think a right is a privilege, you accede to the notion that it is something that is granted to you by gov't, rather than something which is yours merely because you breath air. In so doing, you ignore a fundamental principle of law, which ANY 1st year law student can tell you, and that is that ANY thing is by default legal, unless some anal retentive party pooper from the left comes along and makes it illegal. That's what laws do. They don't create rights, they hem them in, limiting them. Whenever someone accepts the spurious notion that the free exercise of a right is a privilege which gov't can suspend, then it is no longer a RIGHT.

The Bill of Rights isn't there to grant you those rights, it is there to restrict gov't intrusion into them; to protect them from people who think they are mere privileges, granted by gov't. The 2nd Amendment defines a right to keep and bear arms, and nowhere in its text - OR IN THE WRITINGS OF THE MEN WHO WROTE THE 2ND AMENDMENT - is it defined as restricted to one's home. That it a patently stupid idea.

And I'll add one other thing, having to do with closed minds....... I've been a member of this forum for longer than you have, and I am always learning something new, including about the Law. I've never in all that time made a claim to know more about the law than most other members here, and that speaks to a certain amount of arrogance on your part. Arrogance is one of the hallmarks of the left.

vjallen75 wrote:There are a number of things that would have to happen before I would ever vote for Hillary

There is literally nothing that could happen that would get me to vote for Hillary. I'd vote for Tiny Tim before I'd vote for Hillary. I'd vote for Ernest P. Worrell before I'd vote for Hillary. I'd vote for Clara Peller before I'd vote for Hillary. I'd vote for "The Guy on the Left" before I'd vote for Hillary. I'd vote for This Guy before I'd vote for Hillary.