APOD Firearms

Republicans begging

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Hoji

    Bowling-Pin Commando
    Rating - 100%
    36   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    17,700
    96
    Mustang Ridge
    I'm not so sure about that. The SCOTUS refused to even hear about the unconstitutional voting changes in Pennsylvania. And they did not rule against Obamacare in a case with all 7 seated.

    Dominion voting machines in Texas had nothing to do with any "law" that was passed and the SCOTUS didn't even get involved in that, so not sure what that has to do with it.

    Roberts is a liberal and I don't think we know for sure about the others yet.
    Reading is not your strongpoint, is it?
     

    Leadeye

    Active Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 29, 2020
    233
    76
    Great Southern Forest of Indiana
    Relative to private ownership of firearms by the general public you have to ask yourself how much of leadership at any level believes in this. By that I mean not just pay lip service to it so they can get elected, but really believe in it. I'm betting very, very, few, and it's probably been that way, with few exceptions, since we have had civilization and weapons.

    To me it's a litmus test in an election, don't support it and you don't get my vote. Many times I don't get the choice I want as I haven't seen anybody like TR running for office here in Indiana so I have to chose the lesser of two evils, but I always vote.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Active Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2021
    285
    76
    Indiana
    I didn’t say anything about compromising on the constitution at all. No specifics what so ever. I agree with your sentiments on the constitution.
    What else are we getting demands to "compromise" on. If we are talking about building only 1 new aircraft carrier or 5 of them, I have no objection to building 2 or 3 and calling it a day, but that simply isn't where the argument is.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Active Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2021
    285
    76
    Indiana
    Relative to private ownership of firearms by the general public you have to ask yourself how much of leadership at any level believes in this. By that I mean not just pay lip service to it so they can get elected, but really believe in it. I'm betting very, very, few, and it's probably been that way, with few exceptions, since we have had civilization and weapons.

    To me it's a litmus test in an election, don't support it and you don't get my vote. Many times I don't get the choice I want as I haven't seen anybody like TR running for office here in Indiana so I have to chose the lesser of two evils, but I always vote.
    My concern with voting is that we have reached the point where I could do as much good walking outside and yelling as loud as I can as casting a legal and proper ballot.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Active Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2021
    285
    76
    Indiana
    I disagree. If the states with supposedly conservative legislatures would pass iron clad voting laws( no mail in ballots other than absentee ballots) voter ID, no ballot harvesting, no voting machines, etc. then there is a chance.
    That might get through in Texas but not in a lot of other red states including Indiana. I agree with you philosophically but just don't see it happening.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Active Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2021
    285
    76
    Indiana
    True compromise is mutual give and take on both sides that ends up benefiting both sides.

    No, law abiding gun owners have been giving and not getting anything in return. No mutual give and take has ever happened.

    The word compromise has been used against gun owners to make them feel guilty and give up more, and then more, and then even more. At some point, there will be nothing left to take, because we will have given in to point of being defenseless.

    Sadly, many of our so-called 2nd Amendment defenders, are either helping the other side in "compromising" our gun rights away, or woefully underfunded to fight the battles we need fought in defense of our gun rights.

    For many years, the anti-gun liberals have used the terms, safety, crime, and other catch buzzwords to appeal to the masses of why we gun owners need to give up even more of our gun rights to help further their deceptive agenda. It was merely subterfuge for many years, but just recently, we have seen and heard for ourselves exactly why they want more gun control and what measures they are willing to use to gain what they want, which is gun owners being disarmed and defenseless.
    Everything you said is true but the bigger problem is that constitutional rights by their very nature are not subject to compromise. They are hard and fast inviolable guarantees.
     

    Dougw1515

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2020
    3,488
    96
    USA
    That might get through in Texas but not in a lot of other red states including Indiana. I agree with you philosophically but just don't see it happening.
    AND... If we don't figure out a way to make safe, secure, honest elections happen at the state level there is no real recourse. There is no return to sanity. There is civil war which, if successful, simply re-empowers "We the People" to have just, fair, honest elections.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Active Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2021
    285
    76
    Indiana
    Everything you said is true but the bigger problem is that constitutional rights by their very nature are not subject to compromise. They are hard and fast inviolable guarantees.
    AND... If we don't figure out a way to make safe, secure, honest elections happen at the state level there is no real recourse. There is no return to sanity. There is civil war which, if successful, simply re-empowers "We the People" to have just, fair, honest elections.
    Exactly what I see happening.
     

    sidebite252

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 26, 2013
    3,015
    96
    Lake Texoma
    What else are we getting demands to "compromise" on. If we are talking about building only 1 new aircraft carrier or 5 of them, I have no objection to building 2 or 3 and calling it a day, but that simply isn't where the argument is.

    That’s a good example using aircraft but they can’t even agree or compromise on something as trivial as aircraft (hypothetical). My comment wasn’t any deeper than that.

    No compromise on the constitution. Let me be clear on that subject.
     

    Renegade

    SuperOwner
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 5, 2008
    11,749
    96
    Texas
    Hell, I’ve wondered if Crenshaw would be a good swap for Cruz but I’m afraid he’s just like the rest of em.

    I have yet to see Crenshaw on the correct side of any important issue. Here is what he had to say about L Cheney who led the Republican impeachment effort:

    Crenshaw said earlier that Cheney had a "hell of a lot more backbone than most" and called her a "principled leader."

    Republicans are literally shutting on their base and are gonna be shocked when nobody comes out to support them.
     

    ScS

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 14, 2017
    92
    11
    saline
    Personally I believe the real enemy is being overlooked. The mainstream media has accomplished what the Democrat party could never do. It's some'd up in one sentence.
    If you want to control a group of people, make them silent.
    All of the major news networks have in effect silenced conservative. All major web networks are in the process of doing the same.
    You've got to know who the real enemy is before you can win the fight.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Everything you said is true but the bigger problem is that constitutional rights by their very nature are not subject to compromise. They are hard and fast inviolable guarantees.

    If that were true, then laws pertaining to Constitutional Amendments would exist in the first place, but they do.

    Case in point, many people like to point to some of our federal gun laws being an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, and in some ways I agree, but also disagree with some of them. Laws are suppose to reflect what we as society deems is acceptable behavior and provide for punishment for breaking them.

    Now if we are going by the assumption or belief that amendments are hard and fast, and in no way subject to compromise, and any laws pertaining to them are an infringement, then let me ask you a question. What are your thoughts on pornography? What about laws pertaining to child pornography specifically? Reason I point this out, is because people that participate in such, can claim those laws are an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights, and before laws existed pertaining to both, they were legal. How about slander and libel? If laws didn't exist for those as well, they would be protected under the 1st Amendment.

    Constitutional Amendments should never be compromised at their very core values and premise ever, but they still have to be fluid, and adaptable to changing times.
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    Has anyone else gotten the letter from the republicans begging for more money? I got one and it didn't say do not reply so I did. Told them they will be getting no more from me. Evidently, they are nonbelievers, because I got another today. Junk bin!

    Rat bastard Rino lying azzhat R's are why I voted for Trump in 2016. McCarthy and McConnell throw him under the bus. Cheney/Bush and 9 others vote to impeach.

    No, I will treat them the same as I have all the kneeling sports players..... NEVER AGAIN!!

    Might as well get a new Party, cuz this one ain't happenin!!!
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    I wish we’d do away with all political parties completely.

    Well, it'd be nice if "may the best man win" worked. But in today's USA, there is a large political ideology divide. I don't believe that the R's anymore reflect conservatism, as if they ever did (they lied about it for a few years), but the D's are definitely going Socialist Democrat.

    Can't have it. And there is still no chance of a 3rd party win.

    If I could move to Costa Rica to avoid what is coming, I would!!!
     
    Last edited:

    IndyDave1776

    Active Member
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 9, 2021
    285
    76
    Indiana
    If that were true, then laws pertaining to Constitutional Amendments would exist in the first place, but they do.

    Case in point, many people like to point to some of our federal gun laws being an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment, and in some ways I agree, but also disagree with some of them. Laws are suppose to reflect what we as society deems is acceptable behavior and provide for punishment for breaking them.

    Now if we are going by the assumption or belief that amendments are hard and fast, and in no way subject to compromise, and any laws pertaining to them are an infringement, then let me ask you a question. What are your thoughts on pornography? What about laws pertaining to child pornography specifically? Reason I point this out, is because people that participate in such, can claim those laws are an infringement of their 1st Amendment rights, and before laws existed pertaining to both, they were legal. How about slander and libel? If laws didn't exist for those as well, they would be protected under the 1st Amendment.

    Constitutional Amendments should never be compromised at their very core values and premise ever, but they still have to be fluid, and adaptable to changing times.
    You cut to the heart of the problem: the swamp DOES NOT follow the law, and ignoring the constitution does not make doing so legal, yet it routinely happens. Problem needs solved.
     

    Texasjack

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 50%
    1   1   0
    Jan 3, 2010
    5,869
    96
    Occupied Texas
    It will be a cold day in hell before I send a nickel to those bickering idiots. It's not a political party - it's just an excuse to get a place on the ballot. It was bad enough with all the RINOs, like Mitt Romney, but then to see so many upset with Trump because he disrupted their deals with the Commiecrats and all the loot they shared by robbing our tax dollars. Before the 2006 elections I said that the best scenario would be if Trump could destroy both parties and let new parties form - a Conservative, pro-America party and a socialist party that OPENLY ADMITTED to being commies, unlike the Dumbocrat party today. If the Russians or ChiComs were to blow up Washington while Congress is in session, we should write them a thank you note and declare that day a national holiday.

    I apologize for sounding so pissed - but I am, in fact, extremely pissed.
     
    Top Bottom