TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

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?

We have to allow tons of speech and expression that is vile and goes counter to our beliefs because of the 1st amendment. Speech and expression is no where near as "infringed" as our 2A rights. People keep brining up the "yell fire in a theater" example. It is illegal to pull your weapon and shoot into the ceiling of a theater so this example is worthless.

If or 2A freedoms were allowed as much as our 1A we would be doing really well.

I've read this post and your other responses to mojo84's question, but I've yet to see an answer. Why will you not give a straight answer? Why use the Hillary Shuffle to avoid giving a direct answer? Can you be partially for the First Amendment? It is an "all or nothing" situation as you claim for the Second Amendment?

Chas.

Are we talking about all or nothing for citizens or for the government?

Sorry my responses are not coming as quickly as you would like. I have my grandkids with me and have to post in between attention to them.

Your problem isn't speed, it content. You've responded to mojo84 twice, but did not provide an answer. You still haven't; you're still using the Hillary Shuffle.

In answer to your question, please give your opinion both as to "citizens [and] for the government." 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?" 2) Must the government refrain from passing any laws, rules or regulations that limit speech in any fashion?

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:

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?

We have to allow tons of speech and expression that is vile and goes counter to our beliefs because of the 1st amendment. Speech and expression is no where near as "infringed" as our 2A rights. People keep brining up the "yell fire in a theater" example. It is illegal to pull your weapon and shoot into the ceiling of a theater so this example is worthless.

If or 2A freedoms were allowed as much as our 1A we would be doing really well.

I've read this post and your other responses to mojo84's question, but I've yet to see an answer. Why will you not give a straight answer? Why use the Hillary Shuffle to avoid giving a direct answer? Can you be partially for the First Amendment? It is an "all or nothing" situation as you claim for the Second Amendment?

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote: 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.

I remember watching all that. Where is that Holcomb guy in this picture? A lot of OCT members (including himself) give him full credit for OC getting passed. He claims to be personally responsible for obtaining the original 85 signatures that got the bill rolling.

Holcomb had no impact on open-carry at all. He's made a lot of bogus claims, but the 85 signatures is a new one, at least for me. No, he didn't get any signatures on HB910. The NRA and TSRA did. Holcomb ran for a House seat and lost in the primary. He wants to run again, so he's making more outlandish claims.

Chas.

stingeragent wrote: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.

There's a mountain of evidence of the damage OCT/Grisham/OCTC/Watkins did to the open-carry issue. You are new to the Forum and I don't know how closely you have followed the open-carry issue and the negative impact OCT, et al had on it. If you haven't, then brew a pot of coffee and start reading the hundreds of posts on the topic, including the information I provided. If you still don't see a problem, then you don't want to acknowledge the truth.

Chas.