TexasCHLforum.com

Pardon me. A light hearted attempt to point out that you don't sound like someone from the South.

Mike1951 wrote:Pardon me. A light hearted attempt to point out that you don't sound like someone from the South.

Born and raised, my friend.

Although, I am curious, would you please enlighten me as to how a Southern gentleman ought to sound?

Just would rather not hear a native speak ill of the Confederacy.

Since this isn't the place to fight another Civil War battle, I withdraw my comment and apologize for the offense.

"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." ~John Adams

ryoung wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Mr. Ryoung,

I am just curious about your sig line since you are vocal about these issues.

Mr. Abraham Lincoln was a great man, in a difficult time, and accomplished much, but had the nasty habit of suspending the Constitution. Yes, what he did might have shortened the Wart of Northern Agression, but he still ignored the foundation of this country.

Anygunanywhere

Yes, but who speaks now? Can any of us deny the truth of Mr. Lincoln's words?

Desperate times demand desperate measures. In the end he succeeded in preserving the Union and ending our national shame. Are you suggesting he should have permitted the Confederacy's illadvised attempt to secede? Is it possible that either could or would have survived?

Over the years there have been many attempts at theorizing what would/could have happened if the War of Northerrn Aggression had had a different result, from science fiction to logically well considered pieces meant for those with an academic philisophical bent. I have read and/or struggled through many of these in furtherance of my own "what if" scenarios and the prevailing thought seems to be that, through a combination of pruning unproductive divergance and the convergance model, things wouldn't really be a lot different than they are today.

Whether the Confederacy was truly ill advised in seceding, or if they just did it wrong, and the speculative results, is another thread, but the simple fact is that Lincoln overstepped his bounds on a regular basis, but his presidency, in that time of turmoil, was able to survive through his own personal strength, not because what he did was right. Lincoln may very well be part of the reason we have some of the right vs privilege problems that exist today.

[/philisophical]

Although I operate within today's environment like a good boy, I too yearn for a nationwide "Vermont Style" carry, unencumbered by permissions from various governmental bodies, just as our founding fathers conceived.

Mike1951 wrote:Just would rather not hear a native speak ill of the Confederacy.

Since this isn't the place to fight another Civil War battle, I withdraw my comment and apologize for the offense.

No offense taken. It just never occurred to me that my signature line would initiate a discussion on the Civil War.

Although I do think the Civil War and its outcome is relevant to the thread, at least from a States rights perspective, yet I also agree with the other gentleman with regard to the Commerce Clause and its abuse down through the years.

Now, is our government truly of the people and for the people? If it is, then are the people guilty of allowing it to assume absolute power?

mondo2000 wrote:"Posterity! You will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it." ~John Adams

I stand in awe of the wisdom given those great men of old.

His words admonish me even today?

ryoung wrote: . . . then are the people guilty of allowing it to assume absolute power?

Yes, but I would suggest that usurpation, rather than assumption, is what happened, and that it primarily originated in Lincolnian concepts and reconstruction era attitudes. The government became the final arbiter of what was right for everyone, and the righteous north and defeated south accepted it.

jimlongley wrote:

ryoung wrote: . . . then are the people guilty of allowing it to assume absolute power?

Yes, but I would suggest that usurpation, rather than assumption, is what happened, and that it primarily originated in Lincolnian concepts and reconstruction era attitudes. The government became the final arbiter of what was right for everyone, and the righteous north and defeated south accepted it.

Our very own Texas constitution is rife with reconstruction language, the most glaring example that is related to us and this board is the clause relating to the wearing of arms.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote: Our very own Texas constitution is rife with reconstruction language, the most glaring example that is related to us and this board is the clause relating to the wearing of arms.

Anygunanywhere

I would like to know know more about that, but I think this thread has gone down an unhelpful rabbit trail, so we must attempt to get back on course.

To placate the citizenry is to subdue them.

I think we can all agree that the carrying of a concealed handgun is a citizen's right. If so, then clearly the process established by the government of Texas in the issuance of the license to its citizens is inherently flawed.

It is flawed because in unnecessarily infringes on a fundamental constitutional right while claiming to promote it.
It is flawed because it essentially requires the citizen to prove he is not a danger to himself and others.
It is flawed because the lawless generally ignore the rule of law, and therefore will obtain and use firearms as they see fit, as it is a foregone conclusion that few convicts or common criminals will submit to this lengthy legal process to obtain the license because most of them believe thay are a law unto themselves. Besides they already know they don't qualify.

Those who meet the State's basic eligibility requirements, complete the training, and pass a preliminary background investigation should be licensed immediately. Then, if some disqualification is subsequently discovered during the more extensive background investigation, the license would be suspended or revoked pursuant to the individual circumstances.

This need not be complicated, but I suspect it is made to be complicated to deter the average citizen from exercising his Second Amendment right. If the process is complicated, lengthy and frustrating most will avoid it.

As much as I hate to admit it, we really are like sheep.

+1

ryoung wrote:If Adams and Jefferson could see us now what would they think?

They would probably be happy and proud to know that their country had lasted over 200 years and that it is still the greatest country in the world. Adams might wonder why Jefferson's portrait is on the nickel and the two dollar bill, while his isn't on any currency.

ryoung wrote: Those who meet the State's basic eligibility requirements, complete the training, and pass a preliminary background investigation should be licensed immediately. Then, if some disqualification is subsequently discovered during the more extensive background investigation, the license would be suspended or revoked pursuant to the individual circumstances.

This need not be complicated, but I suspect it is made to be complicated to deter the average citizen from exercising his Second Amendment right. If the process is complicated, lengthy and frustrating most will avoid it.

As much as I hate to admit it, we really are like sheep.

So do something about it and write and call your representatives in Austin.

dukesean wrote:So do something about it and write and call your representatives in Austin.

I do my part, but it takes more than one.

I sometimes wonder where we might be were it not for the NRA and others.

WildBill wrote:

ryoung wrote:If Adams and Jefferson could see us now what would they think?

They would probably be happy and proud to know that their country had lasted over 200 years and that it is still the greatest country in the world. Adams might wonder why Jefferson's portrait is on the nickel and the two dollar bill, while his isn't on any currency.

Yes, but do you think it occurred to them that the Federal government would become so powerful during that time?