"Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing OC

[MadMonkey]

I can see both sides of the argument. At the end of the day no one knows what will happen in the future until it does. When the OC crowd hurts or helps the 2A movement is debatable and will be until some concrete evidence is adduced.

Starbucks.

Prime example

[baldeagle]

think lawful OC doesn't hurt the cause of 2A supporters because the written letter of the US Constitution is on the side of OC

I guess I'm going to have to reread the 2nd Amendment. The last time I read it it said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right to bear arms openly shall not be infringed.

Our founding fathers, who wrote the Constitution we love to cite, seemed to have no problem with reasonable restrictions on arms. For example, in Boston you were not permitted to store powder in your house. Why? Probably because if it blew up it could start a fire that might also burn down your neighbor's house, and that wouldn't be nice.

Whenever people live in close quarters (like cities) there will be more restrictions on freedoms because you're rubbing elbows with other people. In the country, where your nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile away (or further), feel free to store explosives in your house. You don't endanger anyone but yourself. Most people understand these concepts and have no problems with them. OCers seem to think that cities should treat firearms like everyone is country folk. That's just plain silly.

Just because someone thinks it's perfectly fine to tote an AR-15 on a sling while getting a mocha grande doesn't mean the suburban homeowner on their way to work will feel comfortable with that, especially when the media is constantly getting them riled up and filled with fear about the mere presence of guns. Doing so simply increases the chances that the business owner will opt to deny the carrying of arms on their property, which while completely within his rights reduces the safety of everyone on his property.

Isn't the end goal to have the unrestricted right to defend yourself and your loved ones from attacks by predators? How does hauling an AR-15 into the coffee shop help that goal?

The laws we have now in Texas work pretty well. I'd like to be able to carry my firearm openly, because it would be easier to do so. But I'm not in favor of riling up the public and turning them against guns. They're much more inclined to listen to the traitors on the left when they fear unrestricted gun use.

[mamabearCali]

I OC here in VA every now and again. It is almost never an issue. Now I OC a small handgun not a rifle.....so perhaps most people just don't notice it. I would not be surprised.

It would be better IMO if TX and VA had carry laws like AZ or AK. Constitutional carry is very attractive to me. If you are legal to own you are legal to carry it however you wish. As far as being antagonistic and causing more 30.06 signs. I don't think we have anymore no gun signs than TX does. Truth be told I saw more 30.06 signs in my two weeks in San Antonio than I have seen in ten years in and around Richmond.

Anyway....TX has great gun laws. Their castle doctrine is a huge asset. If y'all are lacking in the OC bit, take it easy, be careful do it right the first time. On the balance I would take the irritation of not open carrying for the clarity you have in when you may or may not use lethal force.

[rotor]

Isn't the end goal to have the unrestricted right to defend yourself and your loved ones from attacks by predators?

This has never been in question and I have no argument with your comments.

Quoting Wikipedia
Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution
Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

Deterring tyranical government, either external as in the American Revolution or internal ( which we all pray will never happen here). These rights predate the constitution and are more than just self defense, it is assurance that a tyrannical government will never be able to suppress an unarmed population, eg Germany in WW2. There is so much more to the meaning of the 2nd amendment than just concealed carry and self defense. This is how we maintain liberty. This is why we don't want our firearms registered. I know I am preaching to the choir but there is so much more to the 2nd amendment.

[Oldgringo]

{snip}

It would be better IMO if TX and VA had carry laws like AZ or AK. Constitutional carry is very attractive to me. If you are legal to own you are legal to carry it however you wish. As far as being antagonistic and causing more 30.06 signs. I don't think we have anymore no gun signs than TX does. Truth be told I saw more 30.06 signs in my two weeks in San Antonio than I have seen in ten years in and around Richmond.

{snip}

There it is boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen. IOE, mamabearCali is spot on correct.

In our annual travels, we don't see any more "gun buster" signs in Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, the Dakotas and Arizona than we see 30.06 signs in Texas. Now then, what is the real problem? Maybe have statewide OC with metro preemption?

[Stratman]

I see absolutely no reason to try to advance the OC cause by scaring the bejesus out of a bunch of yuppies and their kids by showing up in Starbucks with an AR strapped over a shoulder. The only thing this will do is lessen the chances to ever get this law passed. Like it or not the general opinion of CHL holders by a majority of voters is that we are a bunch of gun toting nuts, and they vote this opinion. It does the OC cause no good to reinforce this perception by parading around with a rifle. Also, I am respectful of the fact that many people are not familiar with firearms and are afraid of them. I get this and so I will not try to force my political position on them by frightening them to no identifiable valid purpose.

[Dragonfighter]

{snip}

It would be better IMO if TX and VA had carry laws like AZ or AK. Constitutional carry is very attractive to me. If you are legal to own you are legal to carry it however you wish. As far as being antagonistic and causing more 30.06 signs. I don't think we have anymore no gun signs than TX does. Truth be told I saw more 30.06 signs in my two weeks in San Antonio than I have seen in ten years in and around Richmond.

{snip}

There it is boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen. IOE, mamabearCali is spot on correct.

In our annual travels, we don't see any more "gun buster" signs in Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, the Dakotas and Arizona than we see 30.06 signs in Texas. Now then, what is the real problem? Maybe have statewide OC with metro preemption?

[cb1000rider]

There is so much more to the meaning of the 2nd amendment than just concealed carry and self defense. This is how we maintain liberty. This is why we don't want our firearms registered. I know I am preaching to the choir but there is so much more to the 2nd amendment.

Just curious, in that context - and that context alone that an armed public keeps a corrupt government at bay, isn't it out of date? There was a time when governments would line up armies of solders and have them shoot at each other. The militia arms were not necessarily at a tactical disadvantage. These days, what is a government going to do when facing armed insurgents? Do we deploy a group of soldiers to line up and take pot-shots at the insurgents? No... We bomb them via a remote vehicle while sitting in a chair halfway around the world. There is no armed militia in the world that has a chance against an oppressive government armed with modern weapons.

I suppose the "Red Dawn" scenario might have some validity, but as a tool for keeping our own government thinking twice about military success? No way...

I'm in for concealed carry and self defense. I don't want to change the 2nd amendment. I just think that when drafted, the drafters had no means to see this far into the future.

End of off topic...

[rotor]

There is so much more to the meaning of the 2nd amendment than just concealed carry and self defense. This is how we maintain liberty. This is why we don't want our firearms registered. I know I am preaching to the choir but there is so much more to the 2nd amendment.

Just curious, in that context - and that context alone that an armed public keeps a corrupt government at bay, isn't it out of date? There was a time when governments would line up armies of solders and have them shoot at each other. The militia arms were not necessarily at a tactical disadvantage. These days, what is a government going to do when facing armed insurgents? Do we deploy a group of soldiers to line up and take pot-shots at the insurgents? No... We bomb them via a remote vehicle while sitting in a chair halfway around the world. There is no armed militia in the world that has a chance against an oppressive government armed with modern weapons.

I suppose the "Red Dawn" scenario might have some validity, but as a tool for keeping our own government thinking twice about military success? No way...

I'm in for concealed carry and self defense. I don't want to change the 2nd amendment. I just think that when drafted, the drafters had no means to see this far into the future.

End of off topic...

Look at Syria. The rebels don't seem to have the sophisticated weapons that the government has. Look at Afghanistan. The Taliban fighting with relatively unsophisticated weapons against a far superior military. Don't forget, these are the people that the Russian military couldn't beat.

[MadMonkey]

There is so much more to the meaning of the 2nd amendment than just concealed carry and self defense. This is how we maintain liberty. This is why we don't want our firearms registered. I know I am preaching to the choir but there is so much more to the 2nd amendment.

Just curious, in that context - and that context alone that an armed public keeps a corrupt government at bay, isn't it out of date? There was a time when governments would line up armies of solders and have them shoot at each other. The militia arms were not necessarily at a tactical disadvantage. These days, what is a government going to do when facing armed insurgents? Do we deploy a group of soldiers to line up and take pot-shots at the insurgents? No... We bomb them via a remote vehicle while sitting in a chair halfway around the world. There is no armed militia in the world that has a chance against an oppressive government armed with modern weapons.

I suppose the "Red Dawn" scenario might have some validity, but as a tool for keeping our own government thinking twice about military success? No way...

I'm in for concealed carry and self defense. I don't want to change the 2nd amendment. I just think that when drafted, the drafters had no means to see this far into the future.

End of off topic...

UAVs only work for a tiny number of targets, and those operators can be taken out.

As for the bolded part, yeah, look at what's going on in the world right this moment...

[Charles L. Cotton]

An armed populace cannot be controlled for long. More importantly, an army cannot occupy its own country. It must have food and water, as well as fuel and other essential supplies. Those can be disrupted rather easily, plus no army can survive a prolonged war of attrition when grossly outnumbered. We learned that in Vietnam because our gutless, cowardly President Johnson wouldn't let us fight to win. The Russians learned that in Afghanistan and they did fight to win. An armed populace cannot be defeated in the long run, unless weapons of mass destruction are used and that cannot be done on one's own soil.

Chas.

[Robert*PPS]

[quote="cb1000rider"]There is no armed militia in the world that has a chance against an oppressive government armed with modern weapons.[quote="cb1000rider"]

Funny...There were people who thought the same exact thing at the time of the revolution ....both revolutions

[mamabearCali]

In order for a dictator to use the military against his own people he has to have the support of the whole of the military. Right now, this minute, a dictator might be able to have a few specially picked regiments, but the rest of the military would likely sit on their hands. The special forces...the bread and butter of efficient force would likely work in the opposite direction.

Second lets say that the whole control of the military was obtained by threats/cajolling/chemical controllers--whatever. You have to remember the first rule of insurgency that is whatever the enemy has can be yours if you play things out smart. We also have millions of vets who know military tactics and the young guns controlled by the controllers will make mistakes and the old lions will take advantage. Then you have the advantage that even ballet moms like me and soccer moms like my friends know how to use basic weaponry. Never fight the enemy on their terms.

Finally it took our whole military might to control a tiny nation with maybe 10 cities and that was with 1/4 of the population friendly to us and 1/2 the population scared to death. This is a huge nation. So while a Washington Dictator might be able to control from Virginia north the rest of the country will be very hard to control. We are able to stay a nation because we are ruled by consent. The moment it is clear that is no longer the case expect to see a serious break up.

No the real threat is a slow simmering take over under color of law. We must stay vigilant. Also watch who is counting the votes. It is hard to watch what is happening here in VA. Don't let them take over TX.

[03Lightningrocks]

Somehow this has to be relevant...this is the face of open carry antics IMO...(not the exact guy but insert your protester here)

Sorry if this disturbs some here, but if I saw that guy walking into the mall, I would assume the worse and aim for the T zone with no warning. I would not wait to see what that fool was about to do next. I would sneak up like a bad dream on that fool. My handgun is no competition for that guy. This would eliminate my desire to "play fair". I would not think of the "legal" ramifications for a split second.

[03Lightningrocks]

An armed populace cannot be controlled for long. More importantly, an army cannot occupy its own country. It must have food and water, as well as fuel and other essential supplies. Those can be disrupted rather easily, plus no army can survive a prolonged war of attrition when grossly outnumbered. We learned that in Vietnam because our gutless, cowardly President Johnson wouldn't let us fight to win. The Russians learned that in Afghanistan and they did fight to win. An armed populace cannot be defeated in the long run, unless weapons of mass destruction are used and that cannot be done on one's own soil.

Chas.