Return to “Poll: Do you support open-carry in Texas?”
srothstein wrote:
...You may be held legally responsible for the results of your actions, but the act is not prohibited...
There is a Latin phrase for this and I believe it is, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" which translates as: "after this, therefore because of this". **sigh**anygunanywhere wrote:Your listing of specific individuals who you think should not carry is certainly more specific than "bunch of loons". I do, however, think that your original post meant that your definition painted a much more broad picture of who you would not like to see armed.Oldgringo wrote:Absolutely! There are time honored restrictions on who can own a firearm as there are on what constitutes freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc. Felons, juveniles, chemically dependent folk, dopers, etc. are not allowed to own (carry) guns. Likewise, one's freedom of speech does not allow slander, violating 10 year old daughter rule, defamation of character, making gun/bomb jokes at the airport, etc.nitogen wrote:
Personally, I think I agree with Oldgringo, I do NOT want any loony to be able to own a gun, just like I personally find some speech offensive and disgusting.Oops! Did I mention airports? I'm sorry, the founding fathers didn't have to deal with airports.
Open carry is fine and I have no problem with it for me...and maybe you. However, it's just not for everybody.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves even those who the government decides are ineligible. We give the government its power and authority. The government does not give us rights.
Anygunanywhere
Absolutely! There are time honored restrictions on who can own a firearm as there are on what constitutes freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc. Felons, juveniles, chemically dependent folk, dopers, etc. are not allowed to own (carry) guns. Likewise, one's freedom of speech does not allow slander, violating 10 year old daughter rule, defamation of character, making gun/bomb jokes at the airport, etc.nitogen wrote:
Personally, I think I agree with Oldgringo, I do NOT want any loony to be able to own a gun, just like I personally find some speech offensive and disgusting.
Oops! Did I mention airports? I'm sorry, the founding fathers didn't have to deal with airports. Thank you. You have confirmed my reservations regarding unbridled open carry of firearms.nitrogen wrote:I do not support the notion that every loonie in the state has a right to walk around with any book or say whatever is on their mind. Ergo, I reckon I support the notion that some sort of prequalification process; e.g., the first amendment licensing procedure be involved prior to being able to read or speak.
This sort of prequalification is not a license, per se. Without a background check of some sort....well, I don't like the idea of freestyle OC.Locksmith wrote:
...unless you are a felon, or diagnosed by his/her own doctor to be incapable of safely owning a weapon, until he/she can demonstrate otherwise...