Re: "Almost" 2A Supporters
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:07 pm
Sometimes, as I contemplate the antics of Congress, I wonder if the Founders would have been wiser to provide "Congress shall pass no law." and leave it at that.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Bingo! When Oklahoma passed OC, I never saw any OC advocates carrying long guns into businesses and forcing businesses to take a stand. They never made the national news... yet OC still passed in Oklahoma. Very few businesses posted signs in OK to restrict carry, yet here in Texas, signs have been going up for weeks. This is evidence that OCT did more harm than good.Mel wrote:No! Those other states didn't have "OCT"!Richbirdhunter wrote:
I know we're late to the OC party in Texas being the 45th state to allow some form of OC, but are we #1 in distress over it ? Did the other 44 states that already allow OC go through these same pains?
NO. Speech has limits. The 1A limits what the government can regulate with respect to speech. The 1A does not limit what citizens can regulate with respect to private property. Saying you support limits on speech does not make you almost a 1A supporter.Charles L. Cotton wrote:1) Must a citizen support another citizen's right to say anything, anywhere and any time in order to not be considered "almost a 1st Amendment supporter?
No. Governments have passed laws, rules, and regulations limiting speech. I am fine with this. Why wouldn't I be?Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2) Must the government refrain from passing any laws, rules or regulations that limit speech in any fashion?
Sometimes people ask questions, and the implication is that there IS an answer out there; in many cases there isn't. This isn't a math problem.chuckybrown wrote: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!
koine2002 wrote:I answered the question with a lengthy explanation. No, one does not need to be "all in" (any gun anywhere) to be a second amendment supporter. I don't like the government forbidding me from possessing or carrying a weapon. However, I will fight tooth and nail for the rights of private property owners as well. "My house my rules." Taking away that right is akin to taking property without due process. The second amendment is not the only right that exists. The moment we decide an individual has to provide everyone a platform to exercise their right to bear arms (or any other right for that matter) is the moment we despise liberty.mojo84 wrote:Your argument is entirely outside the context and premise of this thread and discussion.koine2002 wrote:The first amendment does not say that a homeowner or a business has to allow you to exercise the freedoms of the first amendment. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." No one, not even the government, has to give anyone a platform for exercising our first and second amendment rights. Government just cannot prevent us from exercising those rights should we choose to do so. Our rights are those of a negative nature (what a government can't stop us from doing or make us do). They are not those of a positive nature (what a government must provide people with). Positive right always mean the end of negative rights. Positive rights are what has taken over western Europe and Canada.mojo84 wrote:How about applying this same question to the 1st Amendment? Should we be a bit to say anything anywhere we want? Some seem to want to limit when and where I practice my. Christian faith. What about free association and gathering?
Can you only be partially for the 11st Amendment at times and in certain places or do you have to be for it "all in" anytime anywhere?
I'm a pastor, an evangelical, and as theologically conservative as they come. I, however, do not expect that the local store has to allow me the use of their property to evangelize. If they allow other types of speech but not mine, so be it. That's their prerogative as a non-government entity. I do expect, however, the that the city not prevent me from doing so in a city park if it allows all other forms of speech. Free and voluntary association does not mean that Billy Bob's Barbecue needs to provide their space for a church meeting. However, it does mean that the government cannot prevent us from gathering or prevent Billy Bob's from allowing us to meet at their facility. The right to peaceful assembly does not mean that a shopping mall has to allow a group of protesters to stage a protest in their mall. It does, however, mean that the government cannot prohibit such protests. I see the second amendment in the same way. The moment we make the constitution, and our rights, about what we must provide for each other is the moment we have lost our liberty. I'm essentially just a consistent Libertarian.
How about answering my question that I posed to anygun? This discussion is about all or nothi and all in or all against?
You're welcome, and Happy New Year to you too.chuckybrown wrote:.....we have free speech, but "we shouldn't yell FIRE in a movie theater" either.The Annoyed Man wrote:I believe that the 2nd Amendment right is ought to be unlimited. Balanced against that, I believe that some portion of the time, its full expression isn't wise. That is why I am glad that OC passed, but also why I won't be doing it myself most of the time.
I feel the same way about free speech too.
TAM, you nailed the answer for me. Thank you.
Happy new year!!
Re: "shout fire in theater"........ Ordinances against shouting fire in theaters aren't really a restriction on free speech. I've given this example many times: It is totally legal to shout fire in a theater, if there actually IS a fire in the theater. It's analog would be municipal ordinances against firing a gun inside the city limits. You can't do it just to celebrate the amount of beer you've had to drink, but you CAN lawfully fire your gun in self-defense inside city limits. Laws against doing either - shouting fire unnecessarily inside a theater, or shooting your gun unnecessarily inside city limits - are not a restrictions on either the 1st or 2nd Amendment, because you still CAN do either if the situation actually calls for it.jed wrote:But to some, this may seem like political correctness. It is not PC, it's common sense and good judgment.
If you mean people in general, I take offense. If you mean politicians, I think some are partial supporters.OP wrote: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!
Chuckybrown
Just because I most likely will never OC does not mean I am not a full 2A supporter. How can I CC 24/7 and not be a full supporter? Just because I see totally no need for me to OC at wally world, HEB, whataburger or anywhere else, does not mean I do not support OC or 2A. OC is great with a large dose of common sense and good judgment (which OCT has none). OC has caused us to lose more CC locations. The right to OC has infringed on the right to CC. This is not because of OCT, they just expedited the OC info to businesses. If not for OCT, starting today businesses would be freaking out every time they see someone OCing. Then they would have gradually been informed if 30.06/07. OCT just sped the process along.
On a personal note, I am so sick of reading about OC. Charles may need to rename this forum to TexasOCforum.
I'm done ranting.
I hope everyone has a very Happy New Year!!
chuckybrown wrote: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!
cyphertext wrote:So you carry a rifle everywhere you go? I don't. That isn't practical. We are not at a point in this country where I live in fear and feel the need to carry an AR 15 and a 210 round load out everywhere I go. That day hopefully will never come. Today, I am quite comfortable with my Sig P290 and 7 round capacity. And I don't believe that the 2A trumps property rights.LSUTiger wrote:When I'm sitting at the cafe and some terrorist or other crazy wants to have his/her 15 minutes of infamy at decides to shoot the place up I 'd rather have a rifle handy than just a puny handgun.cyphertext wrote:I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.
How's the saying go, "a pistol is just so you can fight your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind "
Rifles meant for defense against tyranny and oppression can also be used against other everyday threats and are what I'd rather have in a defensive situation. That's a true tactical advantage.
Your argument is silly.
LSUTiger wrote:cyphertext wrote:So you carry a rifle everywhere you go? I don't. That isn't practical. We are not at a point in this country where I live in fear and feel the need to carry an AR 15 and a 210 round load out everywhere I go. That day hopefully will never come. Today, I am quite comfortable with my Sig P290 and 7 round capacity. And I don't believe that the 2A trumps property rights.LSUTiger wrote:When I'm sitting at the cafe and some terrorist or other crazy wants to have his/her 15 minutes of infamy at decides to shoot the place up I 'd rather have a rifle handy than just a puny handgun.cyphertext wrote:I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.
How's the saying go, "a pistol is just so you can fight your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind "
Rifles meant for defense against tyranny and oppression can also be used against other everyday threats and are what I'd rather have in a defensive situation. That's a true tactical advantage.
Your argument is silly.
I never said that 2A rights trump property rights just pointing out the validity of carrying a long gun for self defense
Carrying an AR15 with a 210 rd loadout is legal whether it's cc or oc. the only thing that makes it impractical is the response of the sheeple who pee their pants when they see it and the police who are not worthy of the badge if they can't fully support and respect people's 2A right.
What makes you comfortable leaves me feeling uncomfortably under prepared.
Remember San Bernadino?
Good luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".Middle Age Russ wrote:2A supporters come in all stripes -- from rabid absolutists (Everyone should Always have multiple guns on them and the Government can't do anything to stop them) to the aforementioned Fudds whose support is largely based on having and using game-getting guns in-season. While not totally an absolutist myself, their stance is both irritating in the bravado often expressed and correct from the perspective of history. A monopoly of force inevitably results in individual rights being trampled -- an eventuality the Founders clearly understood and the reason for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The "danger" I see with the Fudds is their apparent willingness to "compromise" again and again as long as the results don't affect their ability to go afield a few times a year. The resolve of the anti-gun element is consistent, and they fully understand the strategy of incrementalism, so such compromises only result in further compromises until the right has been limited out of existence. There are droves of Fudds out there, and at least some of them might be sympathetic to a broader reading of the Second Amendment than they typically espouse, but the challenge is to win them over. Too few people today bother with history and the lessons we should have learned from it.
I certainly agree that insulting someone will never help win them over. While I might recognize someone as having the opinions of a Fudd, I certainly would never refer to them in that manner in any discourse with them.Good luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".
I agree. The name-calling isn't warranted, but the fundamental concept is valid. I had an assistant once (R.I.P.), an old guy in his 70s who had been an avid deer hunter for some 50-60 years. Him and his old buddies bought a big deer lease every year, bagged a bunch of deer, he had mounts in his house, the whole nine yards. But he'd probably never been near a handgun in his life. Once I commented to him how some idiots wanted to ban handguns, and he got fired up and said "well, they should ban'em, good heavens, too many people out there shootin' each other, there's no use for those stupid things." End of conversation.Middle Age Russ wrote:[quoteGood luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".]
I certainly agree that insulting someone will never help win them over. While I might recognize someone as having the opinions of a Fudd, I certainly would never refer to them in that manner in any discourse with them.
Your question is based on a false premise. The second amendment states "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." It is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment to require that you carry openly. (At one time concealed carry was illegal because that's what bad people did.) It is also not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment to require you to carry concealed. (Later open carry was also considered a bad thing.) Note that the amendment does not say "the right to carry openly" shall not be infringed. Your right is to keep and bear, but the manner of keeping and bearing is not stated in the amendment. That is left up to Congress and the States.chuckybrown wrote: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!