TexasCHLforum.com

Oh no not THAT! Anything but THAT!

Don’t worry. As long as you have an Armani suit and Gucci shoes on you will be fine.

anygunanywhere wrote:Don’t worry. As long as you have an Armani suit and Gucci shoes on you will be fine.

Good one! And don’t forget, the GOP will save us.

J.R.@A&M wrote:Well, if they come for my revolver collection, that would be a worst case scenario. Still, I reject the premise of the post. I wouldn’t turn them in, nor would I declare war. I would probably just wait and see.

Matthew 10:16
Persecution Will Come
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

cirus wrote:I intend to live out the rest of life a free man. You take that anyway you want.

I’m taking it that we agree.

Beiruty wrote:This poll is not helpful.

Probably not.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Roughly 1/3 of American households own guns. I am guessing that at least one out of 5 of those would defend their right to keep and bear arms, believing that it does not derive from any government.

So if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, and the government tries to seize privately owned weapons, then I believe the percentage would be somewhere north of 5%. In other words, 6 times the number of people in the U.S. military at the moment. The end result would not be pretty.

I would like to think that too. I would add that there are millions of living veterans who have never been relieved of their oath to the Constitution. But I would also add that many of them vote democrat and have a different view of the Constitution than we do. Historically, I believe that 3% is the number of colonists who actively took up arms against the king in our Revolutionary War ....... and people in that day had a far less encumbered view of the right to keep and bear arms than is understood by modern Americans. They didn’t need anyone to explain it to them. If they wanted a cannon and could afford to buy one, they went and bought one. How many Americans today think that a citizen ought to have the right to own a functioning howitzer if he can afford to buy it? I’m guessing that would be a pretty small percentage of even 2nd Amendment supporters.

To my mind, guessing what percentage of people would rise up in defense of the 2A is useless speculation. What is more interesting to me is the question of whether or not anyone would rise up at all, and if so, what that would look like. I don’t have a lot of faith in the appreciation of most Americans for just how special and precious are the nation’s founding principles, as codified in the Constitution. MOST won’t find them worth defending, because they ALREADY don’t find them worth defending. Those who are willing to die for it are a small lot.

Beiruty wrote:This poll is not helpful.

As are most polls.

Commander Cody wrote:

Beiruty wrote:This poll is not helpful.

As are most polls.

Wait..... are you saying most polls ARE helpful?

I figure 1 in 100 is maybe optimistic when it gets right down to it. It's probably 1 in 10 when it's forum talk but I doubt it will hold that level if it gets to it.

What's the percentage of folks that are willing to join the NRA, TSRA, and call the reps and senator on call to action? I suspect the percentage will be much lower for folks to actually put their lives and families on the line.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:Well, if they come for my revolver collection, that would be a worst case scenario. Still, I reject the premise of the post. I wouldn’t turn them in, nor would I declare war. I would probably just wait and see.

Matthew 10:16
Persecution Will Come
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

cirus wrote:I intend to live out the rest of life a free man. You take that anyway you want.

I’m taking it that we agree.

Beiruty wrote:This poll is not helpful.

Probably not.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Roughly 1/3 of American households own guns. I am guessing that at least one out of 5 of those would defend their right to keep and bear arms, believing that it does not derive from any government.

So if the 2nd Amendment is repealed, and the government tries to seize privately owned weapons, then I believe the percentage would be somewhere north of 5%. In other words, 6 times the number of people in the U.S. military at the moment. The end result would not be pretty.

I would like to think that too. I would add that there are millions of living veterans who have never been relieved of their oath to the Constitution. But I would also add that many of them vote democrat and have a different view of the Constitution than we do. Historically, I believe that 3% is the number of colonists who actively took up arms against the king in our Revolutionary War ....... and people in that day had a far less encumbered view of the right to keep and bear arms than is understood by modern Americans. They didn’t need anyone to explain it to them. If they wanted a cannon and could afford to buy one, they went and bought one. How many Americans today think that a citizen ought to have the right to own a functioning howitzer if he can afford to buy it? I’m guessing that would be a pretty small percentage of even 2nd Amendment supporters.

To my mind, guessing what percentage of people would rise up in defense of the 2A is useless speculation. What is more interesting to me is the question of whether or not anyone would rise up at all, and if so, what that would look like. I don’t have a lot of faith in the appreciation of most Americans for just how special and precious are the nation’s founding principles, as codified in the Constitution. MOST won’t find them worth defending, because they ALREADY don’t find them worth defending. Those who are willing to die for it are a small lot.

Well written and thoughtful, as always.

I am part of that small lot. The ones who are not are the ones that pose as 2A supporters by posting foolish polls and the ones who are willing to give the first inch of many miles to the enemy because the topic - bump stocks for example - is not a hill worth dying for. We are not fighting for a novelty item, we are fighting for the ideology of freedom and liberty as the Founding Fathers envisioned.

LDB415 wrote:I figure 1 in 100 is maybe optimistic when it gets right down to it. It's probably 1 in 10 when it's forum talk but I doubt it will hold that level if it gets to it.

After listening to all the stand and fight cold dead hands ever since Sandy Hook, I have looked over 1,000 men - aged 25 to 50 - in the eye and asked "are you willing to fight and die for your gun rights?"

To a man, every single one said they had too much to lose - kids, wife, house, job, free wifi. So, the actual number is something higher than 1,000-to-1.

Grundy1133 wrote: sounds like a george bushism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... ontificate

SQLGeek wrote:

Grundy1133 wrote: sounds like a george bushism

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... ontificate

i know but it sounds like one tho... like how he used to add "icate" to words.

montgomery wrote:

LDB415 wrote:I figure 1 in 100 is maybe optimistic when it gets right down to it. It's probably 1 in 10 when it's forum talk but I doubt it will hold that level if it gets to it.

After listening to all the stand and fight cold dead hands ever since Sandy Hook, I have looked over 1,000 men - aged 25 to 50 - in the eye and asked "are you willing to fight and die for your gun rights?"

To a man, every single one said they had too much to lose - kids, wife, house, job, free wifi. So, the actual number is something higher than 1,000-to-1.

Assuming that you polled a truly representative sample of the population, then your poll may be an accurate reflection of the percentage willing to fight. Did you have any other conversation, or ask any other questions that might bias the responses (e.g. asking if they were "sure" given what they had to lose, etc.)?

The more interesting question would be to ask about the number of people who are willing to fight to preserve our system of self governance. Based on military enlistment numbers alone, I'd say that number is quite a bit higher. The key is to help people understand the real issue that we are talking about, so they don't mistakenly believe that we are only at risk of losing gun rights, or only at risk of losing our ability to own a bump stock.

To paraphrase, at first they came for the bump stocks, and I did not fight them because I didn't see a use for bump stocks. Then they came for 60 round magazines, and I did not fight them because all of my magazines are less than 40 rounds. Then they limited gun ownership to a max of 5 handguns and 5 long guns, and I did not fight them because I had less than those numbers.............. Finally, they came for my freedoms, and I gathered like minded friends to resist, but we did not have the means to do so.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

LDB415 wrote:I figure 1 in 100 is maybe optimistic when it gets right down to it. It's probably 1 in 10 when it's forum talk but I doubt it will hold that level if it gets to it.

After listening to all the stand and fight cold dead hands ever since Sandy Hook, I have looked over 1,000 men - aged 25 to 50 - in the eye and asked "are you willing to fight and die for your gun rights?"

To a man, every single one said they had too much to lose - kids, wife, house, job, free wifi. So, the actual number is something higher than 1,000-to-1.

Assuming that you polled a truly representative sample of the population, then your poll may be an accurate reflection of the percentage willing to fight. Did you have any other conversation, or ask any other questions that might bias the responses (e.g. asking if they were "sure" given what they had to lose, etc.)?

The more interesting question would be to ask about the number of people who are willing to fight to preserve our system of self governance. Based on military enlistment numbers alone, I'd say that number is quite a bit higher. The key is to help people understand the real issue that we are talking about, so they don't mistakenly believe that we are only at risk of losing gun rights, or only at risk of losing our ability to own a bump stock.

To paraphrase, at first they came for the bump stocks, and I did not fight them because I didn't see a use for bump stocks. Then they came for 60 round magazines, and I did not fight them because all of my magazines are less than 40 rounds. Then they limited gun ownership to a max of 5 handguns and 5 long guns, and I did not fight them because I had less than those numbers.............. Finally, they came for my freedoms, and I gathered like minded friends to resist, but we did not have the means to do so.

No poll. Asked so-called patriots and gun guys I personally know from all walks of life, man to man, eye to eye. By no means was it scientific, but it was telling.

The real issue is the average person is too complacent in their comfortable lives to get informed and get engaged. In the spirit of the Harley-Davidson mantra, "If you have to explain, they won't understand".

montgomery wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

LDB415 wrote:I figure 1 in 100 is maybe optimistic when it gets right down to it. It's probably 1 in 10 when it's forum talk but I doubt it will hold that level if it gets to it.

After listening to all the stand and fight cold dead hands ever since Sandy Hook, I have looked over 1,000 men - aged 25 to 50 - in the eye and asked "are you willing to fight and die for your gun rights?"

To a man, every single one said they had too much to lose - kids, wife, house, job, free wifi. So, the actual number is something higher than 1,000-to-1.

Assuming that you polled a truly representative sample of the population, then your poll may be an accurate reflection of the percentage willing to fight. Did you have any other conversation, or ask any other questions that might bias the responses (e.g. asking if they were "sure" given what they had to lose, etc.)?

The more interesting question would be to ask about the number of people who are willing to fight to preserve our system of self governance. Based on military enlistment numbers alone, I'd say that number is quite a bit higher. The key is to help people understand the real issue that we are talking about, so they don't mistakenly believe that we are only at risk of losing gun rights, or only at risk of losing our ability to own a bump stock.

To paraphrase, at first they came for the bump stocks, and I did not fight them because I didn't see a use for bump stocks. Then they came for 60 round magazines, and I did not fight them because all of my magazines are less than 40 rounds. Then they limited gun ownership to a max of 5 handguns and 5 long guns, and I did not fight them because I had less than those numbers.............. Finally, they came for my freedoms, and I gathered like minded friends to resist, but we did not have the means to do so.

No poll. Asked so-called patriots and gun guys I personally know from all walks of life, man to man, eye to eye. By no means was it scientific, but it was telling.

The real issue is the average person is too complacent in their comfortable lives to get informed and get engaged. In the spirit of the Harley-Davidson mantra, "If you have to explain, they won't understand".

omg this! so much this! I've been saying this for years.... the majority of the younger generations (including people my age. im 30) are so complacent with their lives and the delusion that the govt will "protect them" should they strip them of their rights.... the government isnt stripping you of your rights in exchange for protection.... they're doing it so they can CONTROL YOU. if they want you to do something all they have to do is point a gun at you. if they want to commit genocide because the US is over populated, all they have to do is point a gun at you.... once they take away the 2nd, all our other rights will soon follow...