"Almost" 2A Supporters

[Ruark]

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.

[Mel]

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! Those other states didn't have "OCT"!

[mojo84]

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?

[anygunanywhere]

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.

[G.A. Heath]

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 can claim anything he wants to, in the end being a pastor will not change things when he faces judgement (On Earth or Not). He was a participant in the "Lets Go To The Capital and Get Arrested" Game that OCT/CATI/TC played. The last few sessions all I heard was "The NRA and TSRA killed Open Carry by not supporting it, if they supported it then it would have passed..." Then in 2014 the Senate had an interim hearing, some people asked for it to be about OC instead of Campus Carry and those people were not in one of the many open carry groups nor was it Mr. Holcomb. I will not reveal who they were because that information is not mine to share. The NRA and TSRA supported OC this year and did their lobby work on it. They went to great lengths to undo or minimize damage caused by zealots. Did Mr. Holcomb work hard to get OC passed? I don't know about that, but I do know he was either lobbying ineffectively or he was lobbying illegally because he was not registered as a lobbyist for 2015.

[mojo84]

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.

So the two are being treated similarly. What's the problem?

As far as jumping to the extreme example of yelling fire in a theater, that is not what I was thinking of at all as that is just hyperbole trying to make a point. How about a more reasonable scenario? Two people sitting in a crowded theater and talking to each other throughout the entire movie? Do you really think that will be allowed even though it may not technically rise to the level of being illegal? What about me walking around inside HEB prosthletizing and passing out tracts?

Jumping to the extreme does not do your argument or our cause good. I also never said the two issues were infringed equally. The example of limits is quite valid though considering the premise of the original post.

[anygunanywhere]

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.

So the two are being treated similarly. What's the problem?

As far as jumping to the extreme example of yelling fire in a theater, that is not what I was thinking at all as that is just hyperbole trying to make a point. How about a more reasonable scenario? Two people sitting in a crowded theater and talking to each other throughout the e tire movie? Do you really think that will be allowed even though it may not technically rise to the level of being illegal? What about me walking around inside HEB prosthletizing and passing out tracts?

Jumping to the extreme does not do your argument or our cause good. I also never said the two issues were infringed equally. The example of limits is quite valid though.

How exactly are the 1st and 2nd amendments being treated similarly today? Do you really think that your 2A freedoms are as broad as that of protected speech? The lefty progs stumble all over themselves claiming 1A freedom and the courts can't wait to rule in their favor on all forms of disgusting and ridiculous speech. Try and get the same support for anything 2A related and you will fail miserably.

My citing the theater example was not to support my argument, it was to illustrate that the example proves nothing and does not relate to anything that exists in reality.

Two people talking during a movie is not protected speech and they can be removed legally and charged with trespassing if they do not leave. The old private property thing at work.

[mojo84]

Anygun, you have to take my comments and comparison in context of the OP.

The op is asking about all or nothing. Very few things in life is all or nothing. To help you understand the premise. Are you anti 1st Amendment because you accept and tolerate some limitations? That's the premise of this discussion.

Open carry is not protected either. You know, property rights and all.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[anygunanywhere]

Anygun, you have to take my comments and comparison in context of the OP.

The op is asking about all or nothing. Very few things in life is all or nothing. To help you understand the premise. Are you anti 1st Amendment because you accept and tolerate some limitations? That's the premise of this discussion.

Open carry is not protected either. You I ow, property rights and all.

Being anti-OC as a property owner does not mean you are not pro-2A and really has nothing to do with the 2A so it is an apple/orange. Same with comparing OC to free speech.

There are those who will never OC. That is their decision. However, those that never will OC need to support the right of those who will OC the freedom to do it where allowed.

Now, if we can only get those pesky government infringements on the 2A eliminated we would be doing pretty well.

[anygunanywhere]

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?

There are indeed few rights that are absolute. The right to life is one of them.

The 2A and RKBA comes close and limits what the government can do.

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[mojo84]

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?

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.

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.

Your argument is entirely outside the context and premise of this thread and discussion.

How about answering my question that I posed to anygun? This discussion is about all or nothi and all in or all against?