TexasCHLforum.com

As Donald Sutherland once said, "Always with them negative waves man...always with them negative waves."

I'm afraid I'd never even make it to the hospital!

I agree that the tactic is detrimental to the cause of influencing legislators. One could argue that a pro life group demonstrating in front of the post office in complete silence without any placards highlighting the issue is an effective protest on the restriction to the right to life. However, in this case the clinic supplies the focus of the protest. A protest in front of such a clinic is arguably more effective. If your analogy is true then we must add this one as it must work as well:

A group of people protest OC restrictions and are carrying large placards with anti-abortion phrases and grisly photos of dead fetuses. Does the presence of the placards help or hurt their cause?

If not, then the whole analogy fails. In truth the clinic is exactly the "openly carried rifle" of the right to life group. The clinic is representative of the issue. The presence of a real slung rifle adds to the discussion perhaps, but on a completely different subject.

I just don't see how legally exercising the 2nd Amendment hinders the exercise of it. Our rights, as spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from our Creator. They are not granted by our government. They are gifted by our Creator. A state-issued CHL is not the sole expression of the right to keep and bear arms.

If your analogy is true, then one should never peacefully assemble to protest a restriction on peaceable assembly. Your analogy must stand the test of 1) is it legal and 2) is it Constitutional. Is open carry of a firearm legal (a long gun at least) and Constitutional in Texas as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment or not? (Again we do well to remember that our government has spelled out the restrictions, in spite of the Constitution.)

The current rash of tactics hinder the influence of politicians and legislation. No question. Scaring people demonstrates extremely poor judgement and perhaps pushes politicians to restrict Constitutional rights (unlawfully I should add) No question. Adjust the tactics? Absolutely, in my view at least. But to suggest some should stop exercising their legal, Constitutional rights in order to curry the favor of politicians to stop them from restricting our Creator-gifted rights and continue to relax the un-Constitutional restrictions, seems counter productive to the republic. After all, they did swear under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when they took office. That oath was not conditional.

Call me naive, but I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned the ugly political quagmire we find ourselves in. Surely there is a better way. Maybe what you suggest is the only way. I'm just not sure it makes the nation stronger. My opinions anyway.