Open carry of long arms at state capital?

[Green Eye Tactical]

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).

Ok, so- ridiculous pics posted by people who think the state should take all of your guns. Are you disagreeing with the OC approach, or are you insinuating that constitutional rights of people should be restricted?

Personally, I support the OC activity on the state capital. The only way to get unconstitutional laws overturned is, unfortunately, through the courts. Unless of course someone finds a guy to run for office with a spine and the apathetic citizens actually vote. (not an insult, last Texas turnout was 1.09mil out of 26.06mil. Better than the National average, but our forefathers would still be rolling over in their graves)

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

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.

Ha. I remember that video. It wasn't even an intelligence counter protest. Most people just looked at them like idiots or didn't get what they were doing in the first place.

 

[TXARGUY]

Ok, so- ridiculous pics posted by people who think the state should take all of your guns. Are you disagreeing with the OC approach, or are you insinuating that constitutional rights of people should be restricted?

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you had a problem with your reading/comprehension skills.

 

[London]

Ha. I remember that video. It wasn't even an intelligence counter protest. Most people just looked at them like idiots or didn't get what they were doing in the first place.

I had no idea what point they were trying to get across either, and I couldn't hear much of what they were saying despite being so close. Now that I've seen the video and heard the dialogue I am convinced there was no point; they were merely trying to start a fight in order to make us look violent and intolerant of disagreement. How'd that turn out for them?

The video cuts off a minute or so before they were escorted away by police who made them leave; I'm not sure what for. A couple of people clapped but for the most part I got the feeling most people felt they had a right to be there; being an idiot is not a crime.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

I'm sorry. I didn't know that you had a problem with your reading/comprehension skills.

You mad? I'll ignore the insult, but to be safe- I re-read your post. And as before, I see that you have posted pictures that imply that the exercising of rights gives a (silly) PR opportunity for the opposition. But, I just asked a simple clarification as to what view you are trying to reinforce by doing so. Feel free to read my post and respond to the question. Or just respond in a manner that may differ from how you would in person.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

I had no idea what point they were trying to get across either, and I couldn't hear much of what they were saying despite being so close. Now that I've seen the video and heard the dialogue I am convinced there was no point; they were merely trying to start a fight in order to make us look violent and intolerant of disagreement. How'd that turn out for them?

The video cuts off a minute or so before they were escorted away by police who made them leave; I'm not sure what for. A couple of people clapped but for the most part I got the feeling most people felt they had a right to be there; being an idiot is not a crime.

Couldn't agree more. I would call that a missed opportunity by the OCT crowd. What should have happened was that all OCT members should have responded to the counter-protesters detainment in the same manner that they respond to member detainment. Now THAT would have been a priceless piece of propoganda.

 

[karlac]

I was just pointing out that you stated the BOR grants us rights - it doesn't, it only protects the ones we already have.

Yep, you are correct, it was indeed a bad choice of words ... "guaranteed" would have been the better choice for the thrust of the comment.

 

[London]

Couldn't agree more. I would call that a missed opportunity by the OCT crowd. What should have happened was that all OCT members should have responded to the counter-protesters detainment in the same manner that they respond to member detainment. Now THAT would have been a priceless piece of propoganda.

I agree, but hindsight is 20/20. I will keep your idea in mind if I ever encounter a similar circumstance.

 

[TXARGUY]

You mad? I'll ignore the insult, but to be safe- I re-read your post. And as before, I see that you have posted pictures that imply that the exercising of rights gives a (silly) PR opportunity for the opposition. But, I just asked a simple clarification as to what view you are trying to reinforce by doing so. Feel free to read my post and respond to the question. Or just respond in a manner that may differ from how you would in person.

I didn't "imply" anything. I proved it to be true.

I understand you are new here so you don't know me and please let me take this opportunity to welcome you to the forum.

You will find that I am a very outspoken advocate for my and your second amendment rights and of open carry in Texas.

I am pointing out that these rallies (against?) something that is already legal does nothing but piss off the anti's and give them more ammunition to attack us with.

The proper avenue for this argument is in the courts and in the polling booth.

As for your last statement, understanding that you don't know me, there is nothing that I will say to you here that I will not say to your face.

There are many here who know me personally who will vouch for that.

 

[London]

The proper avenue for this argument is in the courts and in the polling booth.

Tell that to CJ Grisham.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I am pointing out that these rallies (against?) something that is already legal does nothing but piss off the anti's and give them more ammunition to attack us with.

Last I checked many (but not all admittedly) of these long gun OC rallies are trying to get something legalized, OC of HANDGUNS so that we don't have to tote around unwieldy long guns to actually prevent by intimidating the bad guys violence instead of simply stopping it after the fact with a concealed handgun.

And as London points out. Sometimes (read many times) the courts and voting booths haven't done us any good in defending rights that should not be whim to majority opinions in the first place.

 

[Mreed911]

I am pointing out that these rallies (against?) something that is already legal does nothing but piss off the anti's and give them more ammunition to attack us with.

So I'm new, too, and I don't understand this statement, but I'll take a stab and look for correction.

It's legal because the second amendment, the ultimate law (in a strict sense) of the land, protects a natural right to bear arms?

My only disagreement with this is in effective purpose: my understanding of Texas law is that open carry of handguns is illegal, generally. The conflict seems to be whether the statutory prohibitions against such in state law match up with our state constitution and US Constitution? So any challenge would require committing an act that is currently illegal in order to challenge that through the courts, 'hoping' for an eventual ruling to restore lawful order?

I'm not AGAINST that, mind you, just trying to understand the framing of the issue.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

I didn't "imply" anything. I proved it to be true.

I understand you are new here so you don't know me and please let me take this opportunity to welcome you to the forum.

You will find that I am a very outspoken advocate for my and your second amendment rights and of open carry in Texas.

I am pointing out that these rallies (against?) something that is already legal does nothing but piss off the anti's and give them more ammunition to attack us with.

The proper avenue for this argument is in the courts and in the polling booth.

As for your last statement, understanding that you don't know me, there is nothing that I will say to you here that I will not say to your face.

There are many here who know me personally who will vouch for that.

Longevity doesn't excuse manners. Good discussion and debate is a good thing. Tossing around insults because someone asks you a question is something that the left does. And 5,668 posts on the internet doesn't buy excuses for bad behavior. And you, definitely, do not know me.

Now aside from that, your comment about this already being "legal". That is kind of the heart of this matter. You're right- Long gun and replica open carry is legal. The reason that these rallies are being conducted, correct me if I'm wrong London, is because certain entities have decided to apply other laws in a matter that may or may not have been the legislative intent, in order to prevent such "legal" behavior.

Here's another question- Why should activist be worried about pissing off Anti's? They are going to be mad at the sheer fact that you have guns period. And they are going to attack anyways. I would think that it would be agreeable, that many of the social laws and programs are in place to satiate the vocal minority. So why not be vocal?

Now, I also agree that the primary focus needs to be the courts and polling place. However, are those battles not won by lobbying, grass roots efforts and rallies? It is pretty much how progressives are winning (or have won) control of this country.

 

[TXARGUY]

Longevity doesn't excuse manners. Good discussion and debate is a good thing. Tossing around insults because someone asks you a question is something that the left does. And 5,668 posts on the internet doesn't buy excuses for bad behavior. And you, definitely, do not know me.

Really don't understand where you are going with this outside of an attempted character assault. I typed a few lines that you didn't agree with, you added your own filler/interpretation of what I said, I pointed that out.

Now aside from that, your comment about this already being "legal". That is kind of the heart of this matter. You're right- Long gun and replica open carry is legal. The reason that these rallies are being conducted, correct me if I'm wrong London, is because certain entities have decided to apply other laws in a matter that may or may not have been the legislative intent, in order to prevent such "legal" behavior.

Why do you think that the "certain entities" are pushing back?

Here's another question- Why should activist be worried about pissing off Anti's? They are going to be mad at the sheer fact that you have guns period. And they are going to attack anyways. I would think that it would be agreeable, that many of the social laws and programs are in place to satiate the vocal minority. So why not be vocal?

Why should activists go out of their way to piss off anyone? You have to understand that to the vast majority of Texans the anti's with their 10 person protests look like a bunch of mouth breathing, hate mongering ass hats. The venom they spew serves only to entertain each other. They're not out changing minds. Using their same tactics from a pro-gun standpoint has the same effect.

Taking a high road doesn't mean you're satiating the idiots, it means you are smart enough to spread your message through more effective avenues.

Now, I also agree that the primary focus needs to be the courts and polling place. However, are those battles not won by lobbying, grass roots efforts and rallies? It is pretty much how progressives are winning (or have won) control of this country.

Lobbying, grass roots efforts and rallies, yes.

It's the method that is in question. For example; would you be more inclined to support abortion if you saw a pro-abortion rally where they were performing abortions right on the Capital grounds?

 

[TXARGUY]

So I'm new, too, and I don't understand this statement, but I'll take a stab and look for correction.

It's legal because the second amendment, the ultimate law (in a strict sense) of the land, protects a natural right to bear arms?

My only disagreement with this is in effective purpose: my understanding of Texas law is that open carry of handguns is illegal, generally. The conflict seems to be whether the statutory prohibitions against such in state law match up with our state constitution and US Constitution? So any challenge would require committing an act that is currently illegal in order to challenge that through the courts, 'hoping' for an eventual ruling to restore lawful order?

I'm not AGAINST that, mind you, just trying to understand the framing of the issue.

Getting arrested is not the most effective way to change the laws/interpretations of the law.

Hopefully my response to Green Eye above will answer the rest of your questions. If not let me know.

 

[karlac]

Now aside from that, your comment about this already being "legal". That is kind of the heart of this matter. You're right- Long gun and replica open carry is legal. The reason that these rallies are being conducted, correct me if I'm wrong London, is because certain entities have decided to apply other laws in a matter that may or may not have been the legislative intent, in order to prevent such "legal" behavior.

Here's another question- Why should activist be worried about pissing off Anti's? They are going to be mad at the sheer fact that you have guns period. And they are going to attack anyways. I would think that it would be agreeable, that many of the social laws and programs are in place to satiate the vocal minority. So why not be vocal?

Now, I also agree that the primary focus needs to be the courts and polling place. However, are those battles not won by lobbying, grass roots efforts and rallies? It is pretty much how progressives are winning (or have won) control of this country.

Not taking issue, just a parallel comment.

From 1958 to 1961, almost daily during dove season in Texas, I rode horseback from the corner of Witte and Nuens Rd, to attend school at "Spring Branch Sr High School" on Westview Dr, partly through what was then Houston's "suburbia", a scant +/- ten miles from downtown.


I rode bareback so I wouldn't have to deal with a saddle, carried a 20ga Remington Model 11 (and/or a .22 bolt action rifle if I felt like shooting rabbits along the way), wore a game bag with shells, and a halter & tie rope to tie up the mare by the football field (behind the old skating rink).

I walked into school with a shotgun and/or rifle, game bag, and left them with the shop teacher until school was out. I then rode to the corner of Gessner (a shell road at the time) and Clay to catch the evening flight coming into the C.M. Frost Ranch pine windbreak to roost.


Not a word was ever said during that entire time, not a question asked, not a person "alarmed" to even a raised eyebrow.


This was barely 50 years ago, well in memory of many here. How times have changed in Texas, eh?


From an age based perspective, this discussion, and those like it, and the rapidity with which things have changed, simply boggles my mind.


"Well, Doctor, what have we got?” ... “A republic, if you can keep it."


Obvious we haven't been up to the task, and judging from some of the comments in this thread, are long way from ever being so.

 

[Mreed911]

Getting arrested is not the most effective way to change the laws/interpretations of the law.

Hopefully my response to Green Eye above will answer the rest of your questions. If not let me know.

Okay, I think you and I are pretty close in agreement, then.

 

[Green Eye Tactical]

Not taking issue, just a parallel comment.

From 1958 to 1961, almost daily during dove season in Texas, I rode horseback from the corner of Witte and Nuens Rd, to attend school at "Spring Branch Sr High School" on Westview Dr, partly through what was then Houston's "suburbia", a scant +/- ten miles from downtown.


I rode bareback so I wouldn't have to deal with a saddle, carried a 20ga Remington Model 11 (and/or a .22 bolt action rifle if I felt like shooting rabbits along the way), wore a game bag with shells, and a halter & tie rope to tie up the mare by the football field (behind the old skating rink).

I walked into school with a shotgun and/or rifle, game bag, and left them with the shop teacher until school was out. I then rode to the corner of Gessner (a shell road at the time) and Clay to catch the evening flight coming into the C.M. Frost Ranch pine windbreak to roost.


Not a word was ever said during that entire time, not a question asked, not a person "alarmed" to even a raised eyebrow.


This was barely 50 years ago, well in memory of many here. How times have changed in Texas, eh?


From an age based perspective, this discussion, and those like it, and the rapidity with which things have changed, simply boggles my mind.


"Well, Doctor, what have we got?” ... “A republic, if you can keep it."


Obvious we haven't been up to the task, and judging from some of the comments in this thread, are long way from ever being so.

karlac, I could not agree with you more.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

My 2 cents...

Why not wait, vote for Abbott, and then OC after we get that passed for handguns? Why shove it in peoples faces now when victory is probable during the next session.

I get the sentiment but let's use our heads.

(I sure hope i didn't misspell anything words or use them improperly. I don't want any demerits from the grammar police.)

 

[TXARGUY]

My 2 cents...

Why not wait, vote for Abbott, and then OC after we get that passed for handguns? Why shove it in peoples faces now when victory is probable during the next session.

I get the sentiment but let's use our heads.

(I sure hope i didn't misspell anything words or use them improperly. I don't want any demerits from the grammar police.)

My thoughts exactly.