I was wondering....how many of the people chastising this guy have, at one point, during one thread or another regarding OC made a comment to the "one guy" that says "it's legal and LE can't do anything to ya"
GO FOR IT!!....we need a test case!!!
Well....gentlemen.....he went for it! Right, wrong, or indifferent...he did it. It made the media, the "law" was clarified/discussed during the exposure and if his actions served to inform, educate, and give reason for discussion, perhaps it was a victory for all.
Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Humanphibian
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 1:10 pm
- Location: Frisco, Republic of Texas!
- Contact:
Re: Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
http://www.thedecostop.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.texasbeverages.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
____
/ 6 \
http://www.texasbeverages.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
____
/ 6 \
Re: Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
Maybe he just always carries a rifle? The capitol isn't in a great part of town.frazzled wrote:What exactly was the guy's message anyhow?
Re: Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
Okay, so let's accept the "public perception" angle: has there been any outrage over this, other than by the gun-rights community?
Sometimes we get so PC-minded, afraid that our foes might hate us, that we forget that they already hate us and already portray us in the worse possible light. We do the movement no favors when we not only confirm the stereotype, but try to enforce it more rigidly than our foes. And make no mistake: they're not placated by our internal PC-ness, they're laughing the whole time.
It's like the post-9/11 security measures that we voluntarily implemented: the terrorists won.
Sometimes we get so PC-minded, afraid that our foes might hate us, that we forget that they already hate us and already portray us in the worse possible light. We do the movement no favors when we not only confirm the stereotype, but try to enforce it more rigidly than our foes. And make no mistake: they're not placated by our internal PC-ness, they're laughing the whole time.
It's like the post-9/11 security measures that we voluntarily implemented: the terrorists won.
-
frazzled
Re: Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
DallasCHL wrote:Maybe he just always carries a rifle? The capitol isn't in a great part of town.frazzled wrote:What exactly was the guy's message anyhow?
-
dihappy
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 907
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: San Antonio
Re: Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
This is not only your opinion of the man, but also that of many antis. And like them, your entitled to your opinion.frazzled wrote:Frankly its this sort of thing that keeps me from taking the "tea party" seriously.mymojo wrote:Sounds an awful lot like a generic Anti argument for gun control to me.frazzled wrote:
Carrying...(fill in the blank with an gun you dislike or don't own).... makes you look:
1. Stupid
2. Militia like (read terrorist)
3. Redneck crazy.
It maybe your right but it just makes you and your cause look asinine and an absolute joke.
If you can say he deserves to be tazed for carrying while you have a gun on your hip, then all you are really saying is
"my right to carry is morally superior to his right to carry." and I'm pretty sure there's a word for that.
Let me clarify my point: I find it completely reprehensible that a gun owner could say another gun owner deserves to be tazed for exercising his 2a rights.
If you believe thats an anti gun argument you're living in lala land. It made him look stupid. It made the protest look stupid. It was a politial rally, not gun rights rally. It was completely legal. But lots of things are completely legal and still completely inappropriate. If I am marching for or against abortion for example, I wouldn't carry a sign saying "STOP THE BADGERS!" All you will get is strange looks. Thats what occurred here.
No, he deserves to be tazed for being stupid. Lots of people deserve to be tazed for being stupid. Its a dream I have.
I think this video is appropriate:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
PATHFINDER
- Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:09 pm
Re: Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin
In TEXAS the LICENSED concealed carry of a handgun is NOT the exercise of a civil right. The unlicensed carry of a handgun (concealed or non-concealed) would constitute the exercise of the right - but ofcourse Texas law presently does not recognize the general carry/wearing of a handgun as a RIGHT. In Vermont or Alaska that might be the case. The exercise of a civil right is not subject to government license. The Texas legislature's constituted power to "REGULATE the WEARING of arms, with a view to prevent crime " is distinct from LICENSING the wearing of arms. A licensing provision may be considered to be the logical and reasonable extention of the power to regulate the exercise of a PRIVILEGE - but never the exercise of a RIGHT.
The prosecution of the Texas criminal offense of peacefully carrying a handgun on or about the person -thereby strangely defining the exercise of a civil right as conduct constituting a BREACH of the PEACE - was until recent decades historically confined to within large urban jurisdictions . The word CONCEALED has never been expressly included in the Texas law - probably due to the obvious CONCEALABILITY of the listed small arms combined with the Reconstruction mind-set in 1871 that all civil rights in Texas and the other Confederate states were subject to suspension. This is reason enough for the 82nd Legislature to finally address this 140 year travesty that translates to a nullity of Article I, section 23. This may very well require an express statutory definition that 46.02 only addresses the CONCEALED carry of the listed small arms, thereby clarifying the CHL as a license to carry CONCEALED - rather than a license to carry at all. Hopefully incorporation of the 2A will clarify that the "right of every person to keep and bear (small) arms" in Texas encompasses the keeping & bearing of a handgun "in case of confrontation" - which under the provisions of Article I, section 23 of the Texas constitution encompasses , subject only to reasonable restriction, all lawful social intercourse beyond the threshold of one's home.
The prosecution of the Texas criminal offense of peacefully carrying a handgun on or about the person -thereby strangely defining the exercise of a civil right as conduct constituting a BREACH of the PEACE - was until recent decades historically confined to within large urban jurisdictions . The word CONCEALED has never been expressly included in the Texas law - probably due to the obvious CONCEALABILITY of the listed small arms combined with the Reconstruction mind-set in 1871 that all civil rights in Texas and the other Confederate states were subject to suspension. This is reason enough for the 82nd Legislature to finally address this 140 year travesty that translates to a nullity of Article I, section 23. This may very well require an express statutory definition that 46.02 only addresses the CONCEALED carry of the listed small arms, thereby clarifying the CHL as a license to carry CONCEALED - rather than a license to carry at all. Hopefully incorporation of the 2A will clarify that the "right of every person to keep and bear (small) arms" in Texas encompasses the keeping & bearing of a handgun "in case of confrontation" - which under the provisions of Article I, section 23 of the Texas constitution encompasses , subject only to reasonable restriction, all lawful social intercourse beyond the threshold of one's home.