Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in

ecofarm said:

You qualified that statement with "like Texas". If you meant any state and without relevant considerations, then that qualification is nonsense.

Click to expand...

MMC said:

That's funny:lamo .....anytime Conservatism stands up for the Country. The progressives immediately come out trying to demean the Right while trying to ignore that fact of who is Always Looking to get around Constitutional Law and who ALWAYS looks to SCAM the LAW or Make Money off the Law.

Course you might want to remind the Demo Underground that their same old tactics just wont work in the 22nd Century.

Click to expand...

head of joaquin said:

Words mean nothing to conservatives.

Click to expand...

head of joaquin said:

Threatening the rule of law is now "standing up for the country".

This is why nobody takes conservatism seriously. Words mean nothing to conservatives.

Click to expand...

Glowpun said:

Amen, this guy is just grandstanding, etc., etc., etc. Now, if someone would shoot a family member of his, this dude will most likely change his tune depending on how slavish he is. There is some other Texas dude who wants to impeach the President because of his gun views?! This thing is getting silly and out of hand. Look, New York just passed a gun law which does NOT take away the gun from any responsible gun owner. As a NRA member what they did is reasonable. But as predicted the NRA hardliners and the gun industry protested because it would impact their profits.

You know, there was once a time when the NRA was in favor of some gun control! But not with the current hard line leadership.

Click to expand...

MMC said:

Nah, not at all that's due to Progressives having problems with Definitions.

Or are you saying Texas doesn't have it's Sovereign Government?

Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:

That would depend on how one wants to define the term. When Texas joined the United States, it did so with no treaty surrendering the sovereignty of the Republic of Texas. Further, the US refused to assume any debt held by Texas. So even after joining the US, Texas, in part, had to function, at least budgetarily, as if it was still independent and Sovereign. The lack of a Treaty is where so much confusion comes in. Even after the Civil War, Texas never met the requirements to re-enter the Union.

Click to expand...

MMC said:

Yet they could break themselves down into several smaller states correct? Wouldn't that give them sovereignty?

Click to expand...

DVSentinel said:

No more than they have claim to it now. It can be broken up into as many as 4 states, but they would still be states, not Republics. The US would just have up to 53 states instead of 50. At least 5 states now have land that was claimed by the Republic of Texas and were part of the original settlement grant given to Moses Austin by the King of Spain.

Click to expand...

Wake said:

You're using the logical fallacy of not qualifiying your statements. In reality, words may mean nothing to a few conservatives.

Click to expand...