TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:Mojo is right.

No one is obligated to shop at Target.

Undoubtedly, their request is a weak kneed appeal to all elements of gun control and pro gun folk too, after all it's a request...

Of course, they could do like some brave restaurant owners and welcome gun folk, but they're a big corporation and have to behave like gut-less politicians.

I just saw it as being polite to all parties, but I guess that's just me.

mamabearCali wrote:
Anyway....good chat.

Now about target.....I find it funny that their statement has likely made them more of a target for thieves. Rather poetic.

I agree. I enjoy discussing differing views with civil people.

As to Target, it's kind of ironic. They're trying their darnedest to be respectful; they haven't had a hissy fit or threatened to post 3006 signs and they're still getting all the grief. I think I'll try shopping there just to support that sort of behavior.

mamabearCali wrote:

I'm with you on the , and while I'm not against OC, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to. I understand carrying a defensive firearm but giving up the advantage of surprise that you get from CC seems counter-intuitive.

The idea is deterrence. That if a criminal is looking for a victim they are going to choose a soft target not a armed person to tangle with. I will say there are gives and takes to OC.

What is being done in TX with people acting stupid is not helping any of us. Our local target has no signs so far.[/quote]

Again, with you on the people acting stupid.

As to the deterrence factor, I'd suggest that if you and a bad guy are similarly armed, and he knows you have a gun and you don't know that he does, he has the advantage. Also, with your weapon in plain sight and within easy grasp, unless you're able to overcome the false sense of security that being armed gives you and remained vigilant, and have the physical skills necessary to retain your weapon during a struggle, the bad guy may soon have two guns. Carrying concealed diminishes these issues.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
However, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States does say all that.

ShootDontTalk, basically, I agree with your premise, but here's the thing I would quibble with you over..... as a Christian myself, I agree that these rights are God-given. However, the founders were an eclectic bunch, including Christians, theists, agnostics, etc., and they realized that these rights had to be explainable as pertaining to them also. After all, how can an atheist who does not believe in a creator seriously claim rights established by a deity he doesn't even believe exists? So, the founders used a set of terms interchangeably, sometimes depending on who was speaking.... terms like "God-given", "nature's God", "natural rights", and so on. While I would never deny the Lord's involvement in this, others might, I think we need to be inclusive in our choice of terms so as to make it clear that these rights are universal, regardless of one's spiritual condition, simply because one lives and breathes.

If there's an award for most intelligent post, you've got my vote.

[youtube][/youtube]

C-dub wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:

C-dub wrote:
That probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear to me that his intention is calculated to alarm anyone. It would probably more likely that he would be charged with intentional failure to conceal. Especially since no one was alarmed at the time he did it and the only way anyone found out was that he was dumb enough to post it online.

What do you think his intention was and how do you know no one was alarmed?

I don't alarm easily but if I saw this pinhead pull a piece in a dept store, alarmed wouldn't quite describe my feelings. This idiot shouldn't be allowed near a real gun. Or a child.

Calm down. I said it probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear that his intention was to alarm anyone. Meaning, those around him at the time. The reason I think that is because we likely would never have heard about this if he hadn't been dumb enough to post it online. There was no headline about him being arrested for it or that the SWAT team was called in to surround the place and make everyone come out one by one with their hands above their heads. And to me, it looks like he is trying to be a little discreet in these pictures, while being a dingleberry showing off his gun in Target. That's what it looks like to me. If that's not what it looks like to you that's okay. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. You might be right and I might be wrong. So what.

First and foremost, I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was upset with you, merely with the display monkey. If I gave that impression, I apologize. But, thank you for the soothing words.

As to the PROBABLY and APPEARS, without being there, I can only say that no one APPARENTLY made a report or if they did, it hasn't been made public. But, unless these Target shoppers are a special breed, and based on the reactions at the other OC sightings, I'd suggest that folks were PROBABLY alarmed. As to his intention, who knows? When you've got an idjit with these kind of decision making skills, it's anyone's guess as to what's transpiring in his little brain-housing group.

The 'what' in the 'so what' is;

If you're right and I'm wrong, then I've possibly overreacted to a brain-damaged asshat abusing his 2nd Amendment rights by brandishing a firearm in front of a small child in a wildly inappropriate setting.

If I'm right and you're wrong, then the aforementioned chapeau has alarmed and offended many people, thereby probably changing the opinions of neutral or even pro-gun citizens into people with a negative view of guns and gun owners (again using the previous sightings as rationale ). The assumption being, that if they can't count on legal gun owners to behave responsibly then all gun owners are bad and by extension, all guns are bad.

I hope you're right.

mamabearCali wrote:I'd like to knock some sense into that Dad.

Rule #1 of OC. Don't play with your firearm. Unless you are going to shoot someone who needs shooting, don't touch it!

Rule #2 of OC. Have retention on your holster and keep your gun holstered.

Rule #3 if OC. Realize you are visible and that the manner in which you comport yourself reflects on the gun community as a whole. Don't act like an idiot or dress like a gangster. No showboating.

There are more rules, but those are the big three he broke in that picture.

As a person who would like to see more legal and normalized OC of handguns this type of stuff makes me want to .

I'm with you on the , and while I'm not against OC, for the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd want to. I understand carrying a defensive firearm but giving up the advantage of surprise that you get from CC seems counter-intuitive.

C-dub wrote:
That probably wouldn't fit because it doesn't appear to me that his intention is calculated to alarm anyone. It would probably more likely that he would be charged with intentional failure to conceal. Especially since no one was alarmed at the time he did it and the only way anyone found out was that he was dumb enough to post it online.

What do you think his intention was and how do you know no one was alarmed?

I don't alarm easily but if I saw this pinhead pull a piece in a dept store, alarmed wouldn't quite describe my feelings. This idiot shouldn't be allowed near a real gun. Or a child.

sjfcontrol wrote:Soooo. CJ thinks there is a legal definition of "Brandishing" in Texas?

How very Clintonesque! (Depends on what your definition of is, is.)

While there isn't a specific law on 'Brandishing' in the penal code, they can charge you with disorderly conduct.
If it makes you feel better, (as they're stuffing you in the back of the cop car), you can shout "I'm not being arrested for brandishing!"

I'm sure there are some internet lawyers out there that will point out that he's not 'waving or flourishing' or that his display didn't cause alarm, but I don't think that will hold much water in front of the magistrate.

Or, maybe he just doesn't mind spending a few months of his life in the legal system or just enjoys spending money on legal fees.

Regardless,that guys a forking idiot!


bran·dish verb: To wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

TEXAS PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCYw

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;