TexasCHLforum.com

In my books, "Infringed" means Infringed. You rights can't be "sorta" Infringed, or "partially" infringed, or "acceptably" infringed. They either are, or they're not.

I believe our forefathers left a country where dissent = hanging. As a direct descendant of Nathan Hale, I get the commitment to what our framers thought our nation/constitution was about.

Thanks to everyone for the civil discourse.

It's a complex question to be sure, but the best point made so far is the fact that the Feds/States don't limit 1A rights.....so why should we allow them to limit 2A rights?

To intertwine that with the entirety of "C"/HL discussion....and how to develop a stance on that, I guess I want unconditional ability to keep and bear arms.

I grew up (in the 70's) driving to high school with two shotguns in the window gun rack of my truck, kept 'em in my dorm room/fraternity house. Try driving down the street today with two guns in a gun rack in your truck in Houston, much less to high school? Or, like the recent Rice U students, keep a shotgun in your room? FELONY. All in the name of what.....political correctness/contrived safety?

I mean, I get it...some don't want to scare grandma/grandpa/soccer mom/church lady at the HEB. But I feel it's the decision to be silent vs. standing up that got us to where we are today.

Look at any other cause out there today, and for the most part, the minority sets the tone through VOLUME.

Thanks for the discussion gents. There's some real thoughtfulness going on here.....

Thanks TAM. Again, not trying to kick up dust here, just trying to think it through, and formulate my position......

I've read some recent threads on here regarding the possibility of Open Carry ("OC") passing during this legislative session.

While I'm not condoning the behaviors/antics/strategies that some have taken to lead the charge for OC, I'm equally confused
by the stance of my fellow CHL'ers. And, specifically, the chasm that exists between the two.

Let me share why I have those feelings:

Some on the CHL side seem to be opposed to OC. Concerns are sited such as more 30.06 postings, possibly seeing
tougher restrictions on carry, and the concern of "alarming" the general public with open carry. Now, the OC'ers seem to be equally
fervent regarding OC rights, and don't seem to be concerned about the CHL'ers concerns. (My .02 cents...I'm trying to nicely
generalize here, so don't flame me for not getting my words right, I'm trying to illustrate....)

My question is this: How can anyone, (including myself) be pro 2nd amendment, yet be against OC? It's almost like being pro
"applied CHL". In other words, if it fits a definition that's acceptable based on today's community standards, it's ok,
otherwise, not so much.....

Has political correctness now entwined itself in 2nd amendment discussion? Is CHL is fine, but goodness sakes,
let's not assert our rights to the point that others find in unacceptable? Where's the right to "bear" arms if this is the case?

Folks, I am NOT trying to start a flame war, just trying to think this all through.

My bigger question is: At what point do we stand up and say "the 2nd amendment is the 2nd amendment"? Or, don't we?

I'm trying to find out how to think this through, and am curious how ya'll feel.

Peace.