TexasCHLforum.com

LAYGO wrote:

handog wrote:The 911 operators should be trained to ask the caller, what is the person doing with the firearm? Is he threatening any one? is it holstered? has he fired it? If the answer is, he is just carrying it, then, no law has been broken and the LEO should not have been dispatched. The LEO, in this case was obligated at that point to see if an actual crime was being committed.

Until that one time they had a call of a guy carrying a rifle on his back, not pointing it at anyone, but then later shot someone.

I'm all for our constitutional rights, but I would HOPE an LEO would at least talk to the person, w/o violating their rights, determine if they are up to no good, & be on their way. I'm sure if they ran into a guy fuming about some guy sleeping with his wife, they would take appropriate action, but a couple of guys walking expressing their right would be let on their way.

Granted, there's nothing from keeping a bad guy from doing the same. Walking down the street with a long arm & when confronted saying "I'm expressing my 4th, 5th, 6th constitutional rights" . . . then shooting who ever it was after the police leave.

What you're saying in essence is that merely possessing a gun that is not concealed is a suspicious activity in and of itself, and anyone doing so should be checked out by the police (because we're not supposed to be stopped by the police without reasonable suspicion). You're also, in essence, promoting the libprog notion that anyone with a gun might go crazy at any time. You're falling right into the libprog trap, because by that logic, no one should be allowed to possess a gun at all. Of course, the first step, which is already underway, is to use that logic to ban people the left brands as mentally unstable from possessing guns --you know, people like "climate deniers," who the left have taken to calling crazy. I hope you realize that the left considers ANYONE who doesn't subscribe to the ruling leftist orthodoxy as mentally unstable. You're walking along the edge of a real slippery slope, so watch your step.

Texsquatch wrote:Open carry just to prove a point and bait cops into altercations is senseless and I think it just give anti-gunners more ammo. Be honest, some guy in black clothes comes walking down your street with a rifle over his shoulder... How would you react? I would get my son inside, get my weapon in hand and call the police and watch him as long as he was in my line of sight. My wife would be on her phone giving our neighbors a heads up. I'm not sticking around to ask if he's "supporting" my 2nd Amendment rights or is wacko on bath salts. How would cops know unless they interview him?

No offense, but because people have been conditioned by decades of leftist anti-gun rhetoric and fear mongering to think anyone openly carrying a gun is on the verge of going on a murderous rampage. When I was a teen I walked all over my neighborhood with a rifle slung over my shoulder or carrying a shotgun, sometimes with friends. Not once did anyone call the police or did an officer driving by stop to question me. We openly checked out each others guns in the high school parking lot. Frightened children didn't run screaming from the buildings, SWAT teams didn't descend upon us, and low and behold, we didn't even get in trouble with the school. Now, people even drive by a couple guys hunting doves in a field and they get the vapors. This is all the product of a degenerate urban liberal culture that has worked tirelessly for decades to condition people that guns are scary objects that should only be in the hands of the anointed. We got to this point because the left has taken over the schools and the media, and they have spread nothing but ignorance and fear. Banning guns requires a culture that is ignorant and afraid of guns, like the UK. That's why the progs make a fuss about people openly carrying weapons. When people carrying guns is accepted as normal and not unusual, the chance of a gun ban is next to zero. Making the sight of weapons in public abnormal and unusual is a required first step in banning guns.

Does that mean I'd never call the police about a man with a gun? No, but I'd use some judgement to assess whether or not the person was acting in a suspicious manner. The mere possession of a gun is not suspicious. In fact, someone bent on using a gun to commit a crime is not likely to walk about with a rifle slung over his shoulder, because it increases the possibility he will be intercepted before he can act.....same as people with big DSLR's openly snapping photos are not likely to be "terrorists." Liberals want anyone with a gun to be labeled suspicious and dangerous. Your reaction will help the left by teaching your kids that lesson: a man with a gun is a potential lunatic, dangerous, and suspicious for merely being armed. The left always has its eye on the next generation: That's how they take our guns.