TexasCHLforum.com

TheFriscoKid wrote:

jason812 wrote:

TheFriscoKid wrote:
Is everyone here a 'cold dead hands' advocate ?

Yes

Jason, no wife or children ? No other passions or hobbies ? Travel? Anything ?

Really - honestly willing to have a shoot out where the certain result is your death? Regardless of how many you'd take with you ?

Did the men who founded this country have wives and children and were they up against unfavorable odds? I would rather die than roll over and let my kids live in a country that the leftist want to create. Their freedom is worth dying for. In can tell that is a foreign concept to you and that is ok. There are plenty that will stand up for your freedom too.

TheFriscoKid wrote:

jason812 wrote:

TheFriscoKid wrote:
Is everyone here a 'cold dead hands' advocate ?

Yes

Jason, no wife or children ? No other passions or hobbies ? Travel? Anything ?

Really - honestly willing to have a shoot out where the certain result is your death? Regardless of how many you'd take with you ?

Would giving up all you had be too much to ask to preserve your country? Our founders didn’t think so. They were willing to risk it all, including terrible deaths, for a country they had yet to see.

http://www.nhccs.org/destiny.html

If the time comes we will not be standing alone. There will be patriots whose numbers cannot be counted standing beside us.

TheFriscoKid wrote:

jason812 wrote:

TheFriscoKid wrote:
Is everyone here a 'cold dead hands' advocate ?

Yes

Jason, no wife or children ? No other passions or hobbies ? Travel? Anything ?

Really - honestly willing to have a shoot out where the certain result is your death? Regardless of how many you'd take with you ?

Many of us here swore a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There is no expiration date on that oath.

oljames3 wrote:

TheFriscoKid wrote:

jason812 wrote:

TheFriscoKid wrote:
Is everyone here a 'cold dead hands' advocate ?

Yes

Jason, no wife or children ? No other passions or hobbies ? Travel? Anything ?

Really - honestly willing to have a shoot out where the certain result is your death? Regardless of how many you'd take with you ?

Many of us here swore a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There is no expiration date on that oath.

The Terrible Fate of the Men Who Signed The Declaration of Independence

Here is the documented fate of what happened to signers of the 'Declaration of Independence':

The British caught five of the signers and tortured them as traitors before they died.

Nine of the 56 signers fought and died from wounds or hardships of the war.

Two of the signers lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army. Another had two sons captured.

Carter Braxton a signer from Virginia, was a wealthy planter and trader, but saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. Braxton sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

The British hounded Thomas McKeam to the point where he was forced to move his family almost constantly and keep them in hiding. McKeam was not paid for his services in the Congress. With his possessions taken, poverty was his reward for signing the 'Declaration of Independence'.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed, and his wife died within a few months of being jailed by the British.

John Hart had to flee into the forest and lived in caves for a year. When he returned, his wife had died and his 13 children (who fled for their lives) had vanished. Within a few weeks of returning, John Hart died.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of other signers including Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

Now you know the true meaning of patriotism

Remember, the Second Amendment does not grant you the right to keep and bear arms, it acknowledges your God given right to protect yourself and your family by having firearms; and restricts the government from infringing upon that right.

All laws past and present are infringements that have come about as compromises with those who want to take away your rights.

A common phrase heard is “the Second protects the First.” The accurate phrase is “the Second protects the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the whole of the Constitution.”

The progressive socialists and their GOP globalist allies love when you agree to compromise away your freedoms.

Our freedoms and our country are worth protecting.

The question you have to ask yourself is are you willing to fight and die to keep your firearms?

montgomery wrote:The question you have to ask yourself is are you willing to fight and die to keep your firearms?

I answered this question affirmatively in September, 1973. Many others here responded similarly.

montgomery wrote:The question you have to ask yourself is are you willing to fight and die to keep your firearms?

Your question is incorrect. The correct question is: "Are you willing to fight and die to keep your freedom?"

It seems among the gun owning community here in Texas, there are many who were like the colonists who didn't think taking on King George was worth it.

Many have trouble acknowledging there is something bigger and more important than themselves. Too many think the world revolves around them.

Those that do not value the freedoms that are valued in this country should consider visiting or moving to one of the socialist or communist utopias they so fondly admire and long for from a distance.

Giving up rights for a false sense of security and safety is ludicrous.

montgomery wrote:The question you have to ask yourself is are you willing to fight and die to keep your firearms?

No. Neither fight nor die. I am also not willing to kill the parents, spouses, brothers, and children of others to keep my guns which would also be a reality or possibility should 'confiscation' occur.

Most everyone here is pro LEO - 'cold dead hands' means those are the same guys that will be coming to do their jobs when and if the order is ever given. I'm sure they won't enjoy it either even if it goes peacefully and well. But if the tide shifts and the laws change, then that is the will of the people and in a democracy that's the way the ball bounces.

I wouldn't be the first to turn mine in. I'd be willing to wait, I'd be willing to hide and bury my guns and ammo until the day I absolutely need them or until things change. I'd be willing to lie to authorities.

To a lot of people this may make me a 'bad' patriot. But like most people I am concerned about protecting my wife and child first and foremost and I can't do that very well if I am going to engage the govt. in a shootout. I am certain I will lose that fight 100% of the time.

Gun rights are important but they come second to my family, my life and my ability to protect and provide. Protect doesn't always mean 'stand yer ground n fight' it often means avoid the fight and get the hell out of Dodge.

I've had the fortune of spending many years outside of America and can think of 100s of places where we could live safely and have natural deaths.

With all of that written, I don't think it will ever come to that. What might happen is stronger checks, stronger 'check ups', higher requirements for storage, safety and training and absolute restrictions and better systems and safeguards on the mentally ill (dangerous).

I am not liberal in this regards and discussing 'mental health' - this is what a high majority of NRA Conservatives (79%) and Republicans (90%) believe are needed.

TheFriscoKid wrote:

montgomery wrote:The question you have to ask yourself is are you willing to fight and die to keep your firearms?

No. Neither fight nor die. I am also not willing to kill the parents, spouses, brothers, and children of others to keep my guns which would also be a reality or possibility should 'confiscation' occur.

Most everyone here is pro LEO - 'cold dead hands' means those are the same guys that will be coming to do their jobs when and if the order is ever given. I'm sure they won't enjoy it either even if it goes peacefully and well. But if the tide shifts and the laws change, then that is the will of the people and in a democracy that's the way the ball bounces.

I wouldn't be the first to turn mine in. I'd be willing to wait, I'd be willing to hide and bury my guns and ammo until the day I absolutely need them or until things change. I'd be willing to lie to authorities.

To a lot of people this may make me a 'bad' patriot. But like most people I am concerned about protecting my wife and child first and foremost and I can't do that very well if I am going to engage the govt. in a shootout. I am certain I will lose that fight 100% of the time.

Gun rights are important but they come second to my family, my life and my ability to protect and provide. Protect doesn't always mean 'stand yer ground n fight' it often means avoid the fight and get the heck out of Dodge.

I've had the fortune of spending many years outside of America and can think of 100s of places where we could live safely and have natural deaths.

With all of that written, I don't think it will ever come to that. What might happen is stronger checks, stronger 'check ups', higher requirements for storage, safety and training and absolute restrictions and better systems and safeguards on the mentally ill (dangerous).

I am not liberal in this regards and discussing 'mental health' - this is what a high majority of NRA Conservatives (79%) and Republicans (90%) believe are needed.

If guns are banned, you'd bury yours until the day they are "needed"? What's the "need" going to be that would require you to dig them up and use them?
You're going to lie to the government about your firearms? Have you missed the stories about people sent to prison for "false statements" to the FBI? How you going to take care of your wife and child in jail/prison?
You know 100's of places in the world where you can live freer and safer than the United States? Name 5 and back up your answers with facts and sources.
Finally, you like millions of others, are so ill informed that you believe we live in a democracy. We do not, we live in a Constitutional Republic, protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Everyone will be lying about their guns and perjury is tough to prove. I have guns today. I don't have any tomorrow. So no worries about that.

I've lived 55 years - haven't "needed" a gun yet.

US is typically ranked out of the top 10 and as far back as mid 30s in personal freedom.

Cato has US at 17th.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

Lastly - you - me - we - are the majority ! What do you think it means that 90% of Republicans think the mentally ill shouldn't have weapons?

This is my singular argument. We need to get behind this before a whole bunch of junk is going to be forced upon us.

Nothing here that I see that threatens gun owners like me.

A majority of Americans blame Congress and President Donald Trump for not doing more to prevent mass shootings, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds.

The survey -- conducted in the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead -- also finds that significantly more Americans believe mass shootings in the United States are due more to mental health issues than inadequate gun laws.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said Trump is not doing enough to prevent mass shootings and 77% say Congress is doing an inadequate job on the issue.

Among those polled, 57% said mass shootings in the United States were more of a reflection of problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems, while 28% blamed "inadequate gun laws." Nine percent blamed both equally. Across party lines, 77% of individuals polled said the Parkland shooting could have been prevented by more effective health screening treatment.

Police documents described the confessed shooter, Nikolas Cruz, as suffering from mental illness.

Some 58% of those polled said stricter gun control laws would have prevented the Florida shooting. Among party lines, 86% of Democrats and 57% of independents said stricter gun control would have prevented it, but only 29% of Republicans said the same thing.

There was no rise in support for a ban on assault weapons compared to two years ago. In addition, 42% of respondents said the Florida shooting could have been prevented if school teachers were allowed to carry guns.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll was conducted from February 15-18 among a random sample of 808 adults reached vial cellphone or landline with a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points. Among those surveyed, 31% identified as Democrat, 24% as Republican and 40% as independent.

flechero wrote:

NNT wrote: My church today talked to some of us and reminded us they don't consider carry guns in the building appropriate, but falling far short of banning us. I struggle with that one. For now I choose to respect the request. I am not sure I alway will.

Sorry to hear that... it would have been my last day there. It's a non-negotiable item for me.

I would have respected the request and the notice that I, as someone who carries a gun, is not welcome in that church.