TexasCHLforum.com

So, if one agrees with CC, but not OC....is it possible to be a partial 2A supporter?

In other words....can someone support 2A rights....but only to a certain extent...i.e. not exercising 2A rights that might make others "uncomfortable"?

I'm curious, because I think you're either all in, or you're not.

No flames wanted, just honest discourse.

Happy 2016!

It doesn't bother me if someone supports CC, but doesn't support OC. It's difficult to explain, but it just doesn't. I accept that some people are irrational when it comes to their fear of guns and there's nothing I can do about that and I'm not an "in your face" kinda person.

Thanks for the response C-dub! I appreciate you sharing your viewpoint.

Not many view the 2A as binary, either anything goes or nothing goes.

Very few "rights" are absolute, and often rights conflict in various ways. This is the principal "business" of the Supreme Court, deciding which "rights" prevail in all the enumerable combinations.

"It does not affect me and what I do"
"It affects me and what I want to do"
You find this in all areas of life, not just 2A. To not go too far off topic, it is often difficult to get deer hunters behind legislation to improve duck hunting.

I don't agree with all in or not. I believe there is a time and place for everything. I don't curse in church. I don't go out in public in my underwear. I don't drink at children's birthday parties. Yet there are occasions when I do those things.

Most of the time I will carry concealed. Sometimes I may not.

I believe the NRA and TSRA assign a rating to our elected officials based on how they support the 2A. I think it is only fair that it would also apply to everyone else as well. Why limit it to only elected officials?

I think you will find that most on here support OC, but we also support property rights. If it weren't for the antics of the OCT and CATI groups, you probably wouldn't see such a backlash against open carry. If you don't believe me, just look at how many businesses are posting against OC, but are ok with CC... you didn't see that in Oklahoma when they first went to OC, but they didn't have folks running into the local Whataburger with AR 15s slung across their chests trying to "educate" the public.

As long as there is some form of carry and the state doesn't arbitrarily deny any law abiding citizen the right to carry a handgun I'm all for it.

As I've said in posts before I'm not a member of OCT, but I honestly don't see why what they did was a big deal. What is the difference between going into whataburger with a holstered handgun (hypothetically if it was legal before an hour from now), and going into one with an AR-15 slung over the back. Both weapons can inflict serious damage. Theres plenty of pistol mags out there with the same capacity as an AR. If it was reversed and rifle open carry was banned, but pistols weren't, and they all went in with pistols , the same people would have freaked out. A gun is a gun. You can pop off a handgun just as fast as a legal AR. There's gonna be just as many people freaking out come 1 more hour when they see people with handguns. It doesn't matter if its a rifle or a pistol, MDA, and the typical anti gun person doesn't want to see a gun. Rifle, pistol, or a shotgun.

stingeragent wrote:As I've said in posts before I'm not a member of OCT, but I honestly don't see why what they did was a big deal. What is the difference between going into whataburger with a holstered handgun (hypothetically if it was legal before an hour from now), and going into one with an AR-15 slung over the back. Both weapons can inflict serious damage. Theres plenty of pistol mags out there with the same capacity as an AR. If it was reversed and rifle open carry was banned, but pistols weren't, and they all went in with pistols , the same people would have freaked out. A gun is a gun. You can pop off a handgun just as fast as a legal AR.

Think about it like this:
You have person "A" who 100% supports the second amendment, but uses in your face tactics to get his point across. Person "A" while a "Pure" supporter pushes more fence straddlers to the other side than he brings over to our side. Now lets take person "B" who is a 90% supporter of the second amendment, but he doesn't do anything to hurt the cause he just doesn't support everything. He brings people over to our side without pushing anyone over to the other side. Which one do you want helping your cause?

The Dutton amendment was DEAD because of CJ Grisham's stunt in Oklahoma, OCT/CATI/OCTC's antics/statements, and because of Stickland's comments. Unlicensed Carry was DEAD because of Kory Watkins, CJ Grisham, CATI, OCT, and OCTC only because they pushed more people over to the other side than they brought over. Just because someone doesn't support everything you want right now doesn't mean they are an enemy, and just because someone wants everything you do doesn't mean they are a friend.

I thought the Dutton amendment got tabled because of a wording issue. I get what your saying but it could honestly go either way. I don't think there's anyway for us to know for sure how many people got pushed one way or another. I have seen other videos, not just theirs, and not just in texas and numerous people come up asking questions, asking for a card or a website, because they had no idea it was legal to open carry. That's a good reason why people panic because they don't know the law. They see someone with a gun an immediately think they must be a criminal if they have a gun. Same reason I assume the media/ PD's are much more involved this go around getting the word out so that hopefully people will not panic. Some people cannot be pushed to either side though. I think those on the fence are the minority. I've had some heated conversations with stringent anti gun folks on facebook, and you can talk to them until your blue in the face and they just can't comprehend that a 30.06 sign isn't going to stop a criminal from coming in with a gun. It's only gonna stop a licensed person that means no harm.

Nicely put G.

IMHO, some of the things done by some of the OCT and or OCTC group were nearly as bad as what some of the BLM groups have been doing over the past few months.

Is there any evidence that what they did played a role in the bill outside of speculation? I mean did any representative that voted against the bill come out and say, because OCT is running around with AR's we are against open carry? (this isn't sarcasm, I'm curious to know if that is the case). I have seen them blamed for issues in numerous threads but haven't seen any actual info that they somehow played a part, outside of assuming that because they open carried and got news attention that it surely must have played a factor.

Perhaps the answer is not in the number of legislators moved but by the number of corporate and small business owners who were moved from one side to the other. The reports of more 30.06 signs being posted is the result of the negative publicity generated by the OCT folks.