Texas Open Carry – Negative

[03Lightningrocks]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

[frazzled]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

[03Lightningrocks]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

Nice translation. That is exactly what I am saying.

[Conagher]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

Thanks for your reply. Interesting how things get interpreted. I went back to re-read the posts to see if anyone actually compared a gun to a tattoo but could not find it. The posts appeared, to me anyway, focused on the thought process of restricting freedom due to person perception/preference. I guess this is in line with the game of telling a secret, let it get passed around the room until it gets back to you, and see how ridiculously changed it gets. So maybe it is just a natural occurance.

But since we are down this path of higher magnitude of visibility I would be interested in your opinion on this question: Which do you feel would have a larger impact to a bystander: Openly carrying a typical size pistol (currently not legal in Texas), or openly carrying an AR15 Bushmaster (currently legal in Texas)?

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

[Keith B]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a Mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

Thanks for your reply. Interesting how things get interpreted. I went back to re-read the posts to see if anyone actually compared a gun to a tattoo but could not find it. The posts appeared, to me anyway, focused on the thought process of restricting freedom due to person perception/preference. I guess this is in line with the game of telling a secret, let it get passed around the room until it gets back to you, and see how ridiculously changed it gets. So maybe it is just a natural occurance.

But since we are down this path of higher magnitude of visibility I would be interested in your opinion on this question: Which do you feel would have a larger impact to a bystander: Openly carrying a typical size pistol (currently not legal in Texas), or openly carrying an AR15 Bushmaster (currently legal in Texas)?

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

I think you are going to get similar reactions on both. While the AR-15 may be a little more 'in your face' I think either one will get you a visit from the local LEO's.

[Conagher]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a Mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

Thanks for your reply. Interesting how things get interpreted. I went back to re-read the posts to see if anyone actually compared a gun to a tattoo but could not find it. The posts appeared, to me anyway, focused on the thought process of restricting freedom due to person perception/preference. I guess this is in line with the game of telling a secret, let it get passed around the room until it gets back to you, and see how ridiculously changed it gets. So maybe it is just a natural occurance.

But since we are down this path of higher magnitude of visibility I would be interested in your opinion on this question: Which do you feel would have a larger impact to a bystander: Openly carrying a typical size pistol (currently not legal in Texas), or openly carrying an AR15 Bushmaster (currently legal in Texas)?

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

I think you are going to get similar reactions on both. While the AR-15 may be a little more 'in your face' I think either one will get you a visit from the local LEO's.

You may be right Keith B. So do you think "a visit from the local LEO's" is independent of the firearm, or even weapon for that matter? For example, if you were openly carrying a pellet gun, realistic toy gun, over even a samurai sword you would be just as likely to get that visit? Thus the legality of the action would be independent of the visit.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

[frazzled]

I think you are going to get similar reactions on both. While the AR-15 may be a little more 'in your face' I think either one will get you a visit from the local LEO's.

You may be right Keith B. So do you think "a visit from the local LEO's" is independent of the firearm, or even weapon for that matter? For example, if you were openly carrying a pellet gun, realistic toy gun, over even a samurai sword you would be just as likely to get that visit? Thus the legality of the action would be independent of the visit.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher[/quote]
1. Agreed a pistol or rifle will get similar response from the public. From me, you'll get the response of: "hey is he carrying that Ar-15 illegally? If so and I get a hold of it, do I have a new toy? Secondly, where does he get his ammo from?:


2. The others incite different reactions. A pellet gun no. A replica toy gun, real gun and samurai sword are going to get equal reactions depending on the circumstance.

[Keith B]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a Mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

Thanks for your reply. Interesting how things get interpreted. I went back to re-read the posts to see if anyone actually compared a gun to a tattoo but could not find it. The posts appeared, to me anyway, focused on the thought process of restricting freedom due to person perception/preference. I guess this is in line with the game of telling a secret, let it get passed around the room until it gets back to you, and see how ridiculously changed it gets. So maybe it is just a natural occurance.

But since we are down this path of higher magnitude of visibility I would be interested in your opinion on this question: Which do you feel would have a larger impact to a bystander: Openly carrying a typical size pistol (currently not legal in Texas), or openly carrying an AR15 Bushmaster (currently legal in Texas)?

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

I think you are going to get similar reactions on both. While the AR-15 may be a little more 'in your face' I think either one will get you a visit from the local LEO's.

You may be right Keith B. So do you think "a visit from the local LEO's" is independent of the firearm, or even weapon for that matter? For example, if you were openly carrying a pellet gun, realistic toy gun, over even a samurai sword you would be just as likely to get that visit? Thus the legality of the action would be independent of the visit.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

No, I don't. You have added to my post. What I feel is something that looks, feels and smells like a real firearm will get you a visit in most cases. Pellet gun maybe, depending on who it is that is observing you. But samurai sword may not depending on where you are and what the circumstances around you at the time are. There are a ton of factors involved on if/when LE would be called, including location, demeanor, your physical appearance, ad nauseam.

Let's try to look at just one factor; location. Are you outside a gun shop and taking your 1911 or AR inside to have it repaired or to target practice? This would be less of a potential to be called on than walking into Red Lobster or the mall with it. Are you in a rural, suburban or metro area? Rural areas are a lot more lenient in seeing firearms due to familiarity with hunters or target shooters than a suburban or metro area. These both will play into the factor HEAVILY. And there are tons of others, just on location alone.

Overall, trying to put open carry into a single 'will it or will it not get you called on' whether legal or not, is not feasible and you are spitting in the wind if you try to do sum it that way.

[Conagher]

Overall, trying to put open carry into a single 'will it or will it not get you called on' whether legal or not, is not feasible and you are spitting in the wind if you try to do sum it that way.

I absolutely agree!

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

[Dragonfighter]

Responding to what I believe the intent of the thread is:

Preface: I have no problems seeing guns on anyone (everyone). I grew up where everyone was taught how to handle, operate and safely carry firearms. Competency was inherent.

With that, the only objections I have to OC is:

• 1) An all or nothing law wherein the option to CC is lost...I may not care if you are armed but I'm not keen on you knowing that I am.
  
  2)That a permissive law be enacted without some test of competency.

As to #2, I do not believe the government has any right to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms but our present society has a lot of people who would strap one on without knowing how to use it and becoming part of the problem. I grew up when competency with firearms was a rite of passage, that society doesn't exist anymore. An upbringing where firearms are properly respected and used is the exception.

I'm not suggesting a license but something along the lines of a Safe Hunter's Course certificate you carry in your wallet and present if needed (LEO concerns).

That's it. Otherwise, let's git 'er done.

[03Lightningrocks]

Wow...talk about absurd???? Now a tattoo is the same as a gun??? Here in lies the problem.

Wearing a cross, a mexican flag or a tattoo is not going to cause bodily injury to anyone! The problem is that the majority of the population recognizes this fact. Some radical gun advocates seem to either be in denial of it, or pretend they are.

Keep it up with the silliness and you will lose.

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

Thanks for your reply. Interesting how things get interpreted. I went back to re-read the posts to see if anyone actually compared a gun to a tattoo but could not find it. The posts appeared, to me anyway, focused on the thought process of restricting freedom due to person perception/preference. I guess this is in line with the game of telling a secret, let it get passed around the room until it gets back to you, and see how ridiculously changed it gets. So maybe it is just a natural occurance.

But since we are down this path of higher magnitude of visibility I would be interested in your opinion on this question: Which do you feel would have a larger impact to a bystander: Openly carrying a typical size pistol (currently not legal in Texas), or openly carrying an AR15 Bushmaster (currently legal in Texas)?

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

Wow Conagher!!! Are you connected with the "movement" somehow?

First off, YOU drew the analogy between the TaTTOO and the GUN when you stated that you were offended by Tattoo's so maybe folks should have to hide them. If you really believe it is an equivalent issue, your doomed to misread the situation repeatably.

Now we are asking about carrying a rifle vs carrying a hand gun. OK...I will tell you the obvious. YES...walking around Plano Texas with a rifle will get you NEGATIVE attention. You will be lucky if it doesn't get you gunned down by the local swat team. Yes...it would be more noticeable than a handgun strapped on your waist. How does this relate to the subject legalized open carry?


EDIT>>>ADD IN..I just read Kieth's response and I do agree that circumstances and location will dictate the reaction you get when toting around a rifle.

[03Lightningrocks]

Frankly, I don't want to see it (your gun). It's an eyesore, and I don't need that in my face everywhere I turn. Honestly, I find it offensive.

I feel the same way about seeing a crucifix or a Mexican flag in America. Can Texas pass a law to force them to conceal?

This is an interesting thought process. I actually feel the same way about tatoos - I find them disgusting and offensive. However, living in the land of the free, it just does not seem reasonable for me to insist on the restriction of someone's freedom because of my perception or preference. So instead of actively opposing body art, or insisting that it be concealed, I simply don't look at it.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

Here ya go Conagher. If you weren't trying to draw some kind of parallel here...my apologies.

[anygunanywhere]

Translation: The open carry of firearms visually is an order of magnitude higher in its impact on bystanders in this time. CHLs are beneficial in that there is a strong background check and at least minimal training involved.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, as long as you submit to the government by providing fingerprints to the FBI for a background check, attend a training course, and pay a fee for a permission card.

I never read that in the BOR. This just proves my point I made in a prior post.

Anygunanywhere

[03Lightningrocks]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, as long as you submit to the government by providing fingerprints to the FBI for a background check, attend a training course, and pay a fee for a permission card.

Anygunanywhere

OK...what ever else is posted...that is funny.

[frazzled]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, as long as you submit to the government by providing fingerprints to the FBI for a background check, attend a training course, and pay a fee for a permission card.

Anygunanywhere

OK...what ever else is posted...that is funny.

And that attitude will keep OC illegal.