TexasCHLforum.com

Weren't the issues of secession and states' rights vs federal sovereignty decided in 1865?

In 1865 it was finally decided that the Federal Government will go to any lengths and violate the Constitution in any manner to assert their power.

This is an ad that that the Dems are running on Facebook. They are attacking Republicans and Conservatives from every direction, because they know they are way behind in 2010 and 2012.

http://www.dccc.org/page/s/telljoewilso ... urce=fb_ad

On the surface, this is an ad to sign a petition to condemn Joe Wilson (Mr. You Lie). However, if you look closely, this is an effort to quiet anyone that speaks out against the Dem message. They are sneaky, but very transparent. And I'm sure that anti-CHL legislation is very high on their agenda. They want the rest of the country to be like Chicago.

solaritx wrote:It is my understanding that Texas can NOT secede. Understand that this happened after the civil war. What Texas can do.............it split into 4 states (thus adding 3 states to the current number.....the total number of states seems to be in question depending on if you count the stars on our flag or use the answer Obama gives)

This would give Texas a boot load of Reps and 8 Senators

Ok, my idea is divide into 4 states, give the one down by the border to the Dems and let them deal with the illegals how they want to, and let them bleed The Democratic State of Texas dry, and we will take the other three. More logical and sane voices in DC and we solve the illegal problem we currently have by enforcing the current laws but give the illegals a choice....go home or to the Democratic State of Texas.

Garry

The allocation of representatives is a function of population but fixed at 435. I don't think splitting into 4 or 5 states would net very many additional representatives. The only way to net additional representatives would be to have four tiny areas with very little population. A state gets a minimum of 1 representative. But what Texan would want to live in the smallest state?

People have the right to keep and bear arms but their rights sometimes get violated by abusive governments.

States have the right to secede but their rights sometimes get violated by abusive governments.

Secede = "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

pdubyoo wrote:This is an ad that that the Dems are running on Facebook. They are attacking Republicans and Conservatives from every direction, because they know they are way behind in 2010 and 2012.

http://www.dccc.org/page/s/telljoewilso ... urce=fb_ad

On the surface, this is an ad to sign a petition to condemn Joe Wilson (Mr. You Lie). However, if you look closely, this is an effort to quiet anyone that speaks out against the Dem message. They are sneaky, but very transparent. And I'm sure that anti-CHL legislation is very high on their agenda. They want the rest of the country to be like Chicago.

I'm sure if John Murtha shouted this at a republican president, you'd be 100% behind a censure movement, right?
I'd perhaps be more forgiving if Obama was actually lying. (He wasn't.)

Heh..wow!! I wasn't even trying to there with the "S" word subject....I was just wondering if the blue side gained enough power what could the future of our CHL laws and other gun related things turning out.

But as some of you stated they are still mostly pro-gun in TX and not much concern to be had.

Just to clear the air...I'm not at all against Democrats...this wasn't a poke @ them to stir things up. I was just wondering if we would need to be concerned if the dems gained control.....I just looked at NY, CAL,Ill and wondered what most of you thought.

nitrogen wrote:

pdubyoo wrote:This is an ad that that the Dems are running on Facebook. They are attacking Republicans and Conservatives from every direction, because they know they are way behind in 2010 and 2012.

http://www.dccc.org/page/s/telljoewilso ... urce=fb_ad

On the surface, this is an ad to sign a petition to condemn Joe Wilson (Mr. You Lie). However, if you look closely, this is an effort to quiet anyone that speaks out against the Dem message. They are sneaky, but very transparent. And I'm sure that anti-CHL legislation is very high on their agenda. They want the rest of the country to be like Chicago.

I'm sure if John Murtha shouted this at a republican president, you'd be 100% behind a censure movement, right?
I'd perhaps be more forgiving if Obama was actually lying. (He wasn't.)

Nope...I'm not a proponent of censuring anyone. The 1st ammendment guarantees the right of free speech. I am a proponent of using the ballot box to speak my mind.
I agree that Joe Wilson was out of line...I don't argue that...and he apologized to Obama for it. As I have stated in many other threads on this forum, politicians of any brand are, for the most part, hypocrits. Pelosi, Reid and company called anyone that voices an opposing opinion about this healthcare bill "astroturf" (fake), "swastika carrying mobs", etc. I'm not asking for them to be censured. I'd love to see them voted out of office, but I'm not starting smear campaigns about any of the general public that disagrees with the same conservative ideology that I embrace. As a conservative, I'm not real happy with some of the leaders that represent me in DC, and I'll exercise my voting right to try and remedy that. I have to believe that many of the Dems feel the same way about some of their extremely liberal leadership in DC. If not, I'd be real surprised. Are you a fan of censuring Joe Wilson? Or me?
My point was...if they go unchecked with their current strategy of smearing and attacking ANYONE that speaks against them, they will eventually get the Chicago Daley-Durbin-Kennedy-Sunstein anti-gun message into the mainstream mindset.

Didn't Dubya get booed in one of his State of the union speaehes.. I don't remember any apologies or even a stink made about it. Or the terribly embarassing incident at Obamas Inauguration. While Wilson was wrong, he did man up and apologize. I don't believe that the Republicans can ever compare to the rudeness the Democrats have displayed to President Bush. The Inaugeration treatment was one of the poorest treatments ever demonstrated by a politiocal party, and is a key event in the loss of civility in respect for the office.

nitrogen wrote:I'd perhaps be more forgiving if Obama was actually lying. (He wasn't.)

This gets to two of the things that left me confused about the speech.
First - the number of uninsured Obama quoted has gone from 47 million to 30 million. We know from the Census bureau that the 47 million did include illegal aliens. I haven't heard an explanation of the 30 million, but maybe that's part of the difference. Or, possibly, 17 million people have found insurance since this debate started, in which case we don't need to do anything! Anyway - HR3200 may provide coverage to illegal aliens. The Washington Examiner distilled the Congressional Research Service report on the treatment of aliens in HR 3200 and reported:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

Which leads to the second confusing thing. Obama has a plan, but not a bill. His plan may be all butterflies and rainbows and warm puppies, but the actual bill on the house is a prescription for what Mark Levin calls 'soft tyranny'. I think Obama knows what the American people will think of it once it starts taking effect, since it isn't slated to go into effect until after the next Presidential election.

And don't get me started on scare tactics! Why is it a scare tactic when folks against HR3200 say "it will lead to healthcare rationing" but it's not a scare tactic when Obama, with the reverb going full tilt, face 50 feet high on the Jumbotron in the stadium, sounding like the wrath of God, points at his audience and says "YOU COULD LOSE YOUR INSURANCE TOMMORROW!!!!!!!!!!" ???

Back on topic. a large number of blue states are also shall-issue states. There was even a thread in the Waiting Room forum about getting a permit from Penn. since Texas renewals are taking so long. Here are two maps to check out:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/ and http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

That does not mean I think our carry rights are safe - constant vigilance! Our government has a history of chipping away at our rights, no matter which party is in power. There are well organized campaigns with the ultimate goal of outlawing gun ownership completely ( which our current President has stated he supports - never forget that!). Most of the MSM is more likely to support a Brady Campaign position than an NRA position. If we don't stay aware and involved, we lose our freedoms.

Chip wrote:

nitrogen wrote:I'd perhaps be more forgiving if Obama was actually lying. (He wasn't.)

This gets to two of the things that left me confused about the speech.
First - the number of uninsured Obama quoted has gone from 47 million to 30 million. We know from the Census bureau that the 47 million did include illegal aliens. I haven't heard an explanation of the 30 million, but maybe that's part of the difference. Or, possibly, 17 million people have found insurance since this debate started, in which case we don't need to do anything! Anyway - HR3200 may provide coverage to illegal aliens. The Washington Examiner distilled the Congressional Research Service report on the treatment of aliens in HR 3200 and reported:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.

Which leads to the second confusing thing. Obama has a plan, but not a bill. His plan may be all butterflies and rainbows and warm puppies, but the actual bill on the house is a prescription for what Mark Levin calls 'soft tyranny'. I think Obama knows what the American people will think of it once it starts taking effect, since it isn't slated to go into effect until after the next Presidential election.

And don't get me started on scare tactics! Why is it a scare tactic when folks against HR3200 say "it will lead to healthcare rationing" but it's not a scare tactic when Obama, with the reverb going full tilt, face 50 feet high on the Jumbotron in the stadium, sounding like the wrath of God, points at his audience and says "YOU COULD LOSE YOUR INSURANCE TOMMORROW!!!!!!!!!!" ???

Back on topic. a large number of blue states are also shall-issue states. There was even a thread in the Waiting Room forum about getting a permit from Penn. since Texas renewals are taking so long. Here are two maps to check out:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/ and http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

That does not mean I think our carry rights are safe - constant vigilance! Our government has a history of chipping away at our rights, no matter which party is in power. There are well organized campaigns with the ultimate goal of outlawing gun ownership completely ( which our current President has stated he supports - never forget that!). Most of the MSM is more likely to support a Brady Campaign position than an NRA position. If we don't stay aware and involved, we lose our freedoms.

That's what I'm talking about!

Any State has the right to secede. The founders were seceding from Great Brittain and by law they didnt have that right.

Rules and laws are adhered too unless the majority wants to change them.

Its not an issue of law or rule its an issue of majority. If a large majority of Texans wanted to secede it could happen.

Aint gonna happen until the Feds are irrelevant to our success. Right now they are relevant.

As far as Democrats in Texas go we have a few left wing loons in the legislature but overall we have Texans that ride pretty close lines. Thats why George Bush was touted at bringing the legislature together, it wasnt that hard of a task, when he got to the Federal level he was a dismal failure at it because it is impossible to bring the Congress together.

I wouldnt worry about the Democrats in Texas yet. With that said get out there and vote but dont loose sleep.

I have worked with Democrats in Texas pushing very conservative bills and I have worked against Republicans in Texas pusing very liberal bills.

Party doesnt always mean much. These folks are still human and still have their own agendas regardless of platform.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . .Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Jan. 12 1848

-Abraham Lincoln, who later as President of the United States put down the only bonafide attempt at succession to date.

ninemm wrote:The allocation of representatives is a function of population but fixed at 435. I don't think splitting into 4 or 5 states would net very many additional representatives. The only way to net additional representatives would be to have four tiny areas with very little population. A state gets a minimum of 1 representative. But what Texan would want to live in the smallest state?

You are correct but it is the total of 10 US Senators that would be the big change. In addition consider this: the new states could set up their own constitution. If the residents were really pro-gun, like West Texas, then that constitution could have a very strong RKBA clause that doesn't allow their legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms". You could have Vermont/Alaska style, no-license-needed open or concealed carry. You wouldn't have silly off-limits areas like voting locations or professional sporting events. It would be a Texas without the liberal influence of Austin & the Valley!

Who's with me for the new state of Llano Estacado?

SA-TX

nitrogen wrote: I'm sure if John Murtha shouted this at a republican president, you'd be 100% behind a censure movement, right?
I'd perhaps be more forgiving if Obama was actually lying. (He wasn't.)

Actually, he was lying. The liar in chief is a constitutional scholar. He knows darned good and well that our constitution will not allow the exclusion of illegal aliens from the health care system. He is such a big sac of garbage it just makes my skin crawl. Illegals do qualify for "social" programs. Yeah sure...the liar in chief can sit back and claim there is no provision for free health care to illegals, while he knows they will be covered at the orders of the courts. Just like the courts ordered Texas schools to admit illegal immigrant children into the schools. I have nothing against illegals. I just feel they should contribute to the system they have become so astute at taking advantage of.

Good lord almighty....how does he fool so many people.