Open carry of long arms at state capital?

[txinvestigator]

Internet rule #1 ... correct someone's spelling, and you automatically make one yourself in the same post. "possess".

Internet rule #2. If you are going to chastise someone about correcting the spelling of another, be sure the person was correcting the spelling and not the actual use of the wrong word.

He did not misspell the word. He wrote "bare" and by his content you can see he meant "bare" I was correcting his usage.

But you are right, I did miss the last S.

 

[txinvestigator]

Look again, you got the wrong post and word. "possess", not "posses". ;0>

No, he was correct. You are missing his context.

 

[ROGER4314]

Having lived the way I did for 1/2 of my life, I developed a keen radar for trouble. My trouble gauge is running off the scale for the plans that you're making. It sounds like you are itching for a fight and I'm sure that you'll find that.

If you have deep pockets and love dealing with lawyers, there's no doubt that they'll figure out a way to separate you from your cash.

Please consider NOT doing that!

"He who goes looking for trouble, will surely find it."

Flash

 

[matefrio]

Guess giving someone freedom = the possibility they're not going to do so to your personal measure.

There are many authors who have written bad books, many paintings I don't see as art and many Internet post that i know would better be taken down but the freedom folks have is above my sensibilities to trample their rights.

These guys and gals of the open carry movement, like them or not, are using the rights they have been granted by God. I believe that deserves our support that if not anything else.

We don't take away your keyboard when you misspell a word or cut your internet off when your grammar is bad either.

I'm a horrid speller and if I was afraid of everyone calling me out on every word I misspelled and stopped giving my opinion I'd have empowered them to take away my rights of free speech.

So should we ridicule others for the way they choose to express their personal convictions, using the rights they have been granted by God, in the voice they know how to speak with to the best of their ability, and are taking on personal risk for a cause they believe in?

 

[matefrio]

The Second Amendment gained a bunch but lost a bunch as well these last few years. With the losses comes the frustration and with the frustration comes the desire to act and now what you are seeing are folks doing their best to push back on a system they feel they have lost control over.

If you know of another way to further our 2nd Amendment rights that's better, and proven more productive, organize and let's get it done, till then folks are at their wits end and that's why you see these acts of in your face tactics that make most everyone uncomfortable.

That uncomfortable feeling though on the two sides of the issue makes a time of discussion and change. Everyone takes pause and then we have a moment to push things in a direction.

So, during that moment of discomfort and time when it's key when decisions are being made we all need to push the decisions towards the 2nd amendment or we'll lose ground and weaken ourselves by being put on the defense.

So, let's stop apologizing for the actions of a few who got us to the decision point or are taking us there and take action to be strong and unified apologetics for the cause when the time comes.

God bless the USA, God bless our freedoms. Let's not lose focus by quarreling amongst ourselves as we defend our country and our freedoms against those who would degrade the 2nd Amendmendment further.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Bare means without covering. If the amendment read "the right to keep and bare arms" it would be nonsensical. That word is an adjective that describes a noun. BEAR is the word used in the amendment as a verb (intransitive verb). It means "to carry or posses" in this usage.

I'll admit that wasn't as spelling mistake and I actually screwed up the wording of the second Regardless if you look at even the definition of BEAR there is one that still fits my assertation. From thefreedictionary.com:

bear[SUP] 1[/SUP] (bâr)v. bore (bôr, b

r), borne (bôrn, b

rn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
v.tr.1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.

5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.

6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" (Abraham Cowley).
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: "boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" (F. Scott Fitzgerald).

v.intr.1. To yield fruit; produce: peach trees that bear every summer.
2. To have relevance; apply: They studied the ways in which the relativity theory bears on the history of science.
3. To exert pressure, force, or influence.
4. a. To force oneself along; forge.
b. To endure something with tolerance and patience: Bear with me while I explain matters.

5. To extend or proceed in a specified direction: The road bears to the right at the bottom of the hill.

Be nice to find a ye olde time dictionary to see if that has always been in the vernacular though.

 

[matefrio]

The famous case of the orchestra playing while the titanic sinks comes to mind.

Folks will be correcting spelling and grammar as our 2nd Amendment rights are lost and the irony will be we won't have guns to defend the first amendment as intended so there'll be less important words to spell check and grammar to correct in the end, just the silence of government suppressed speech.

 

[txinvestigator]

I'll admit that wasn't as spelling mistake and I actually screwed up the wording of the second Regardless if you look at even the definition of BEAR there is one that still fits my assertation. From thefreedictionary.com:



Be nice to find a ye olde time dictionary to see if that has always been in the vernacular though.

No.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

I always find these discussions on gun forums entertaining. You'll always find people defending laws restricting gun possession, and those same people claim to be 2a supporters. Now, while my personal view- is that: There is a proper time and place for things. However, I won't characterize anyone exercising a God granted, inalienable right as a zealot- any more than I would someone exercising their right to drink a 2 liter coke in Manhattan. I think that is why there is such a big rift in the NRA and the conservative party at the moment. We still have sides in both of these organizations who are no longer true constitutionalists. And if you find yourself saying "but" after stating you believe in (insert right or amendment here), then you fall into this category.
Pissed off? Offended? Fine, but keep in mind, we should be able to celebrate our right to disagree with the guy walking down the street with the AR-15 on his back and his right to do so at the same time. Restricting his rights so we can go back to our warm, fuzzy bubble of existence is not how this country was founded. The next few years will be interesting, indeed.

 

[London]

LOL. Start a thread asking questions about open carry, end up siding with my arch-enemy TXI (just kidding ). And Matefrio, your posts are music to my freedom-lovin' ears!

I'm not going to get into the open carry debate; I have done it a thousand times and have taken my side (literally- I open carried my Glock for a week in NM and attended the Line in the Sand event with my trusty PTR-91). I asked the questions here because I wanted to know what kind of fight I could expect. While it is total bullshit DPS is arresting people for trumped up crimes (TXI- you should know they arrest people for DC who are NOT displaying in a manner calculated to cause alarm.) and the extremely questionable crime of trespassing on property I own, at this time I simply do not have the finances or time to fight their bullshit.

Unfortunately tyranny has won this round, and I must live to fight another day. It is unfortunate I can not show up and engage in lawful activities without the prospect of certain arrest for victimless non-crimes, but such is the case. Those of you who harbor anti-open carry sentiments are enablers of this "We'll do it and get away with it because the public doesn't care" mentality on behalf of the DPS.

I will still try to attend despite this. If I attend I will see if I can show up in my AF blues (if I can find them AND still fit into them!), have my rifle ready in my car, and see what happens.

Here is the event for anyone interested: https://www.facebook.com/events/635836676454491/645285808842911/?notif_t=plan_mall_activity

 

[Younggun]

I always find these discussions on gun forums entertaining. You'll always find people defending laws restricting gun possession, and those same people claim to be 2a supporters. Now, while my personal view- is that: There is a proper time and place for things. However, I won't characterize anyone exercising a God granted, inalienable right as a zealot- any more than I would someone exercising their right to drink a 2 liter coke in Manhattan. I think that is why there is such a big rift in the NRA and the conservative party at the moment. We still have sides in both of these organizations who are no longer true constitutionalists. And if you find yourself saying "but" after stating you believe in (insert right or amendment here), then you fall into this category.
Pissed off? Offended? Fine, but keep in mind, we should be able to celebrate our right to disagree with the guy walking down the street with the AR-15 on his back and his right to do so at the same time. Restricting his rights so we can go back to our warm, fuzzy bubble of existence is not how this country was founded. The next few years will be interesting, indeed.

Many who disagree with some OC supporters aren't doing so because we think rights should be limited, but because we also respect the rights of others. Namely, I respect Starbucks right to not want OC rallies on their property.

By respecting that right by their request we would be in much better standing with Starbucks as a firearms community than we are now.

It's great to support the 2A, but don't do so by disrespecting the rights of others.

 

[London]

I always find these discussions on gun forums entertaining. You'll always find people defending laws restricting gun possession, and those same people claim to be 2a supporters. Now, while my personal view- is that: There is a proper time and place for things. However, I won't characterize anyone exercising a God granted, inalienable right as a zealot- any more than I would someone exercising their right to drink a 2 liter coke in Manhattan. I think that is why there is such a big rift in the NRA and the conservative party at the moment. We still have sides in both of these organizations who are no longer true constitutionalists. And if you find yourself saying "but" after stating you believe in (insert right or amendment here), then you fall into this category.
Pissed off? Offended? Fine, but keep in mind, we should be able to celebrate our right to disagree with the guy walking down the street with the AR-15 on his back and his right to do so at the same time. Restricting his rights so we can go back to our warm, fuzzy bubble of existence is not how this country was founded. The next few years will be interesting, indeed.

Those who criticize freedom simply on the grounds they do not like victimless activities of others are useful idiots for those who will quickly come for THEIR rights once the most unpopular ones have been destroyed. They are unwitting puppets in a game of divide and conquer.

People can criticize me for being ostentatious all they want. At the end of the day no one can say I haven't fought for my rights rather than willingly choose not to exercise them simply because it is frightening to those who will never be friendly towards guns anyway.

I also see how others will think I am just as guilty at falling victim to a game of divide and conquer, as OC demonstrations have a very stratifying effect on gun owners. I understand that perspective, but disagree. I think of it much more as separating the wheat from the chaff. I also doubt any of them have ever been to one, as there is often plenty of educational literature and friendly conversation with non-gun folks. Tell me that isn't helping the cause.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

Many who disagree with some OC supporters aren't doing so because we think rights should be limited, but because we also respect the rights of others. Namely, I respect Starbucks right to not want OC rallies on their property.

By respecting that right by their request we would be in much better standing with Starbucks as a firearms community than we are now.

It's great to support the 2A, but don't do so by disrespecting the rights of others.

Fair point, but off topic. The OP is about carrying on public property. Yeah, I know it devolved- Starbucks always gets in there like a dirty shirt. And I hate their burnt-ass coffee. I FULLY support ANY PRIVATE owned business to make a call on their policies. Not being able to carry my stick into a hippy establishment in now way infringes on my Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. It is a silly argument. Now on the flip-side, if I did like their burnt-ass coffee and had been a regular patron- I would just simply take my business elsewhere.

 

[London]

Fair point, but off topic. The OP is about carrying on public property. Yeah, I know it devolved- Starbucks always gets in there like a dirty shirt. And I hate their burnt-ass coffee. I FULLY support ANY PRIVATE owned business to make a call on their policies. Not being able to carry my stick into a hippy establishment in now way infringes on my Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. It is a silly argument. Now on the flip-side, if I did like their burnt-ass coffee and had been a regular patron- I would just simply take my business elsewhere.

I am also unaware of gun-owners continuing to use SBs for political purposes. SB asked they do not shop there with guns, gun owners almost entirely seem quite happy to comply (just not in the way SB would like!).

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

Those who criticize freedom simply on the grounds they do not like victimless activities of others are useful idiots for those who will quickly come for THEIR rights once the most unpopular ones have been destroyed. They are unwitting puppets in a game of divide and conquer.

People can criticize me for being ostentatious all they want. At the end of the day no one can say I haven't fought for my rights rather than willingly choose not to exercise them simply because it is frightening to those who will never be friendly towards guns anyway.

I also see how others will think I am just as guilty at falling victim to a game of divide and conquer as OC demonstrations have a very stratifying effect on gun owners. I understand that perspective, but disagree. I think of it much more as separating the wheat from the chaff. I also doubt nay of them have ever been to one, as there is often plenty of educational literature and friendly conversation with non-gun folks. Tell me that isn't helping the cause.

I like the wheat from chaff outlook. I prefer to see it as exposing the sheep wearing wolfs clothing from the pack. There's a lot out there....

 

[Younggun]

Fair point, but off topic. The OP is about carrying on public property. Yeah, I know it devolved- Starbucks always gets in there like a dirty shirt. And I hate their burnt-ass coffee. I FULLY support ANY PRIVATE owned business to make a call on their policies. Not being able to carry my stick into a hippy establishment in now way infringes on my Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. It is a silly argument. Now on the flip-side, if I did like their burnt-ass coffee and had been a regular patron- I would just simply take my business elsewhere.

Sorry, didn't realize we were going back to the OP


Which really isn't a debate of OC Vs 2A but a question of legality. So we are still OT so I'm good.

 

[London]

I like the wheat from chaff outlook. I prefer to see it as exposing the sheep wearing wolfs clothing from the pack. There's a lot out there....

Unfortunately, yeah. Probably better they don't attend anyway. They'd likely be way to self-conscious to contribute anything useful. I've interacted with several friendly, curious, and seemingly gun-neutral people while OCing. It's fun and rewarding!

Oftentimes it is an excuse to play "Meet your friendly neighborhood gun-owner" with people who are also bombarded with "All gun owners are trigger-happy racist neo-Nazi rednecks" claims made by our opposition. When face-to-face with a real life gun owner, guess which reality they are forced to acknowledge? (Hint: there's only one reality!) I don't see anything good from having pussy-footing gun-owners on the front lines like that, especially given their tendency to make 2A concessions publicly to reporters.

 

[TXARGUY]

Those who criticize freedom simply on the grounds they do not like victimless activities of others are useful idiots for those who will quickly come for THEIR rights once the most unpopular ones have been destroyed. They are unwitting puppets in a game of divide and conquer.
.

There we go. The old "if you disagree with me you are a useful idiot playing into the hands of the grabbers blah blah blah..." argument.

Of course the grabbers would never think to use your stance against you (& sadly by proxy me).

 

[karlac]

But you are right, I did miss the last S.

That's what I was pointing out. Not only did you misspell a word while correcting someone's usage, you also missed the irony in doing so.

 

[London]

There we go. The old "if you disagree with me you are a useful idiot playing into the hands of the grabbers blah blah blah..." argument.

Of course the grabbers would never think to use your stance against you (& sadly by proxy me).

Because giving them what they want has kept them from criticizing us??? Speaking of gun grabbers, here's another reason why OC events are great for gun owners and bad for them: counter-protests.

Here is a good example: Here are two rocket surgeons at work during the Line in the Sand event. If you look closely, you can even see me in the background (the dude in the fedora).



Here's some funny trivia: The first guy speaking (bald w/no helmet) is actually my girlfriend's Uncle. My girlfriend was also in attendance with me and can be seen in the video. The dude was so oblivious to what he was doing he didn't even realize he was insulting his own niece who was standing literally about ten feet behind him.

His whole family knows about the video now. Not only has he been exposed for the jerk he is, but his actions in public have helped move them towards a more gun-friendly position. After all, the gun-owners were nothing but polite and respectable in the video. Oh well, the cameras were rolling and he wanted to be famous. Now I guess he got what he wanted.

Here's another example of counter-protest to the same event.:

Photos: The "Moms Demand Action" Counter-Rally to the Alamo Open Carry Event | The Truth About Guns

Our event had between 500-2,000 people present. Moms Who Need Action had less than twenty. Somewhere on Alex Jones' website is video of him being assaulted by MDA's star organizer. When asked by Alex Jones why she shoved him from behind, her justification was, "Because I don't like you!". This stuff speaks for itself and is out there forever now. I'd call that a lasting impression! Yet another example of how gun-grabbers are their own worst enemies.

There are a lot of benefits to OC events which those who do not attend will likely never be aware of. Like I said, the only people I've seen criticize them so far are people looking from the outside in. Every one of those pictures you posted is self-evidently absurd.