TexasCHLforum.com

One would think that it shoud be a straightforward process to determine whether an applicant for a CHL is an upstanding citizen or a common criminal. In our present situation the law abiding citizen must prove he is not a criminal; then wait two months or more to "legally" exercise his right that is guaranteed by our beloved Constitution. Meanwhile Joe the Crack Dealer and Alfredo the Alien are out there. They are armed to the teeth, ready to eliminate anyone who might interfere with there "business" or cross their wicked path.

Does this pass the smell test? I think not.

What has happened to this great Republic for which so many have sacrificed everything?

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

They would probably think we have the government we deserve.

boomerang wrote:They would probably think we have the government we deserve.

Sadly,

They had a government like that...I believe they changed that. Sadly, our government is much stonger than the one they revolted against.

Threads like this make me wonder why people think my beliefs on absolute rights are absurd. I think I am fed up with infringement and having to prove my status with the various governments who seek to reasonably restrict me with more common sense laws.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Threads like this make me wonder why people think my beliefs on absolute rights are absurd. I think I am fed up with infringement and having to prove my status with the various governments who seek to reasonably restrict me with more common sense laws.

Anygunanywhere

Our basic civil rights are laid down in fairly plain English. Then some fool comes along who claims to know what the founding brothers really meant. There are some who desire to fiddle with that providential document until it becomes irrelevant.

May God help us all in that day, because when the foundation on which our Republic is built disintegrates, so must the Republic.

The constitution says the federal government has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

That sounds pretty simple. They can regulate foreign trade and interstate commerce.

But they have no constitutional authority to regulate things that, at some time in the past, may have moved in commerce between the states. They have no authority to regulate local transactions that may, in some vague unspecified way, affect commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. They have no legal legitimate authority to regulate what a Texas resident buys/sells/rents in Louisiana, unless there's commerce among the states. Anyone who passes, upholds or enforces laws to the contrary seems to have a serious reading comprehension problem or maybe they are intentionally or knowingly working to subvert the constitution.

The logical conclusion is they're either idiots or domestic enemies of the constitution of the United States.

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

As i understand it, its the extremely broad interpretation of the "commerce clause" of the constitution that has put us in the big govt. mess that we are currently in.

one does wonder what the founders would think about the current affairs of a modern administration

anygunanywhere wrote:Yes, what he did might have shortened the Wart of Northern Agression, but he still ignored the foundation of this country.

Wart??

Sorry anygun. I know it's a serious subject. I just thought the typo was kinda funny.v

The Annoyed Man wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Yes, what he did might have shortened the Wart of Northern Agression, but he still ignored the foundation of this country.

Wart??

Sorry anygun. I know it's a serious subject. I just thought the typo was kinda funny.v

Typing while on my back with leg elevated. Sausage fingers do not help.

It is funny.

Anygunanywhere

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?

ryoung wrote:
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?

If the excuse to suspend the constitution was okay then, it will be okay in the future.

Oops. I mean it will be okay now. We have fewer rights now then our predecessors enjoyed back then. Only thing is our fellow frogs feel the water getting warm and have no intention of jumping out of the pan.

Who will jump out and turn the fire aff and when?

Anygunanywhere

ryoung wrote: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?

Ya ain't from 'roun here, ere ya?

Mike1951 wrote:Ya ain't from 'roun here, ere ya?

Excuse me?