TexasCHLforum.com

Alf wrote:Can anyone can explain why it was acceptable for Gore to challenge the 2000 election results, and take it to court when he didn't like the results, but it's deplorable for Trump to reserve the possibility of doing likewise?

dale blanker wrote:

Alf wrote:Can anyone can explain why it was acceptable for Gore to challenge the 2000 election results, and take it to court when he didn't like the results, but it's deplorable for Trump to reserve the possibility of doing likewise?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll share my recollection of that event...

Gore had conceded the election but then retracted his concession when he realized the Florida vote was so close and made the big difference in the electoral college. Calling for a recount is not unusual in many local elections. Florida did not finish a recount in a timely fashion and so the Supreme Court said "you're done" and left the Florida count in Bush's favor. This put Bush into the majority of electoral votes needed for the presidency even though Gore had won the popular majority. I believe it was later determined that a really final count in Florida would have still been in Bush's favor.

Note that Gore had not suggested the election might be rigged before the election or even after it.

dale blanker wrote:

Alf wrote:Can anyone can explain why it was acceptable for Gore to challenge the 2000 election results, and take it to court when he didn't like the results, but it's deplorable for Trump to reserve the possibility of doing likewise?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll share my recollection of that event...

Gore had conceded the election but then retracted his concession when he realized the Florida vote was so close and made the big difference in the electoral college. Calling for a recount is not unusual in many local elections. Florida did not finish a recount in a timely fashion and so the Supreme Court said "you're done" and left the Florida count in Bush's favor. This put Bush into the majority of electoral votes needed for the presidency even though Gore had won the popular majority. I believe it was later determined that a really final count in Florida would have still been in Bush's favor.

Note that Gore had not suggested the election might be rigged before the election or even after it.

Bitter Clinger wrote:

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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.

infoman wrote:I do feel like I know a great deal about license to carry in Texas specifically & have a lot of experience to back that up. I also love that we have a license to carry (to answer Mr Cotton) & I'm proud to have one. i don't however support the idea of completely doing away with the license & just say anyone can carry anywhere anytime, regardless of their backgrounds. I'm glad we have eligibility requirements to get a license. I'm defensive cause as soon as anyone posts any opinion, political view, etc that the majority disagree with they get called a "troll". I support open carry & I support granting good law abiding people a license to carry in public. Likewise I support not allowing those with disqualifying criminal records to carry in public. Yes, there are many persons on this forum who have a great deal of knowledge & expertise. I'm just saying that I'm not brand new to this stuff & im not some random internet "troll". I actually would love to someday meet Mr Cotton, I think he does a great job with this forum. I was called a "troll" by a member who just joined the forum in early 2016, so my comments were more directed at him, I've been on here since 2009 & I've helped a ton of people & have shared my knowledge & experience with many on here.

dale blanker wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:

infoman wrote:I do feel like I know a great deal about license to carry in Texas specifically & have a lot of experience to back that up. I also love that we have a license to carry (to answer Mr Cotton) & I'm proud to have one. i don't however support the idea of completely doing away with the license & just say anyone can carry anywhere anytime, regardless of their backgrounds. I'm glad we have eligibility requirements to get a license. I'm defensive cause as soon as anyone posts any opinion, political view, etc that the majority disagree with they get called a "troll". I support open carry & I support granting good law abiding people a license to carry in public. Likewise I support not allowing those with disqualifying criminal records to carry in public. Yes, there are many persons on this forum who have a great deal of knowledge & expertise. I'm just saying that I'm not brand new to this stuff & im not some random internet "troll". I actually would love to someday meet Mr Cotton, I think he does a great job with this forum. I was called a "troll" by a member who just joined the forum in early 2016, so my comments were more directed at him, I've been on here since 2009 & I've helped a ton of people & have shared my knowledge & experience with many on here.

infoman wrote:2nd amendment is about people owning guns in their own homes.