open carry

[frankie_the_yankee]

The simple fact is that while people used to be comfortable with OC 150 years ago, those people are long gone.

The overwhelming majority of the general public today is not comfortable with OC, and they are not about to change their views any time soon. In my view, it would take some kind of massive societal upheaval for that to take place - something like our society being under a continual state of seige by terrorists or something like that.

But here and now, living in relative peace and tranquility, there is simply no impetus for it. Right now, TX is a pretty comfortable place. For that matter, America is a pretty comfortable place. When people are comfortable, they tend not to make big changes.

[Owens]

Oh, don't get me wrong folks...I'm not pounding my fist demanding it (OC), I just have a point of view on it. The conditioning I am talking of could take that 150 years to get back to where it was. Who knows. I just think it could be better, but we sure don't have it bad.

WildBill...
(I've been know to stir the pot myself).....................with a canoe paddle!

[frankie_the_yankee]

Oh, don't get me wrong folks...I'm not pounding my fist demanding it (OC), I just have a point of view on it. The conditioning I am talking of could take that 150 years to get back to where it was. Who knows. I just think it could be better, but we sure don't have it bad.

WildBill...
(I've been know to stir the pot myself).....................with a canoe paddle!

What I'm getting at is that anything that would "condition" society in that direction would probably be a bunch of things that would be very unpleasant for everyone.

Like I said, it's not gonna happen because millions of Texans are suddenly convinced to start loving guns more than they already do, because we talked them into it or something. "Society under seige", or something like it, is what it would take. And none of us would want to see that.

[boomerang]

It wasn't that long ago that some people weren't comfortable with Negros drinking from the same water fountains as Whites. There are still people who aren't comfortable with interracial marriage. That doesn't mean we should make laws based on intolerance and prejudice.

[lawrnk]

not comfortable with OC.

[kw5kw]

not comfortable with OC.

When the time comes, don't.

[Owens]

Got to thinking on this some late last night.....dangerous I know.

Most not comfortable with it? I'm not sure of that. It is just entirely possible that there are people who aren't comfortable with it, but I somehow can't get past the thought that it may a regional thing.
Example: People in Houston or Austin may not be as at ease with it as say, folks in Alpine or San Angelo. Granted, we couldn't have carry laws based on county or municipality.
I just think there are a lot more people open to the idea of CC.

It would be interesting, if not educational, to see an unbiased survey regarding all this.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Got to thinking on this some late last night.....dangerous I know.

Most not comfortable with it? I'm not sure of that.

I am. If most were comfortable with it, it would be legal and we would be doing it.

Think blue jeans.

It is just entirely possible that there are people who aren't comfortable with it, but I somehow can't get past the thought that it may a regional thing. Example: People in Houston or Austin may not be as at ease with it as say, folks in Alpine or San Angelo. Granted, we couldn't have carry laws based on county or municipality. I just think there are a lot more people open to the idea of CC.

OC is much more accepted in rural areas, and especially out in the fields. Not so much in urban areas. And by definition, that's where most of the people live.

It would be interesting, if not educational, to see an unbiased survey regarding all this.

I'd like to see a survey too, but I do not think the results would be favorable for OC fans.

It's just a different world these days.

[KBCraig]

If most were comfortable with it, it would be legal and we would be doing it.

"Most" are surprised to learn it's not legal. I've never talked to anyone, pro- or anti-, who didn't think open carry was legal in Texas.

Just part of that cowboy lore, I suppose.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Eight pages of posts on a subject that had everyone making jokes for the first page or two. This is unbelievable, especially since there hasn't been one single new point raised.

Chas.

[NcongruNt]

Eight pages of posts on a subject that had everyone making jokes for the first page or two. This is unbelievable, especially since there hasn't been one single new point raised.

Chas.

I have come to accept that there is going to be an "open carry" thread festering somewhere in the first page of this section of the forum. Once it finally falls off the first page, another one is started soon thereafter. I have simply stopped clicking the thread, because I know that it's going to be the same thing... over and over and over again. The exception is when I get really bored, or can't sleep, or both (like now), and see if anything new has been brought to the table, which it inevitably hasn't.

I started to type up a response to try and contribute something to this thread, but really - there's nothing new to say on the issue. While I agree that open carry is right and good, I do not think that it will happen on any kind of appreciable scale in any realistic period of time (such as our lifetimes), barring a complete upheaval of society. This very well may happen, but I suspect there will be much more significant things to worry about than open carry of arms. Honestly, trying to push legislators to make open carry legislation is a waste of time, money, and energy. There are significant other areas that need the attention of our legislators without people pestering them with requests that they know cannot be put into law in the present political and social climates.

[Liberty]

Eight pages of posts on a subject that had everyone making jokes for the first page or two. This is unbelievable, especially since there hasn't been one single new point raised.

Chas.

I have been watching Fox and Friends this morning and the same observations can be made. Both the thread and Fox and Friends are mildly entertaining, but probably not very informative to those who have been paying attention for a while.

[boomerang]

If someone is tired of hearing the same things over and over again, they should avoid television for the next nine months. Between the writers strike and the elections, it's worse than any discussion here.

[Liko81]

So violating a law is not wrong? Violating a law is not immoral?

The things I learn on this forum.

Legal and moral are two different things. There are moral arguments on both the consequentialist side (an act is wrong because it produces an undesireable result for society as a whole) and the categorical side (an act is wrong because it produces a logical contradiction if the act were universally accepted as right) that support the idea that to act illegally is immoral, but arguments can be made in both systems of moral thought that NOT following a law is morally acceptible if following the law is morally prohibited.

The Kantian (categorical) argument would be based on the Golden Rule: The theory of law is that laws are established because they benefit people or entities who would otherwise be at an unfair disadvantage, and limit those who would otherwise have an unfair advantage. If you were to break a law it would put the person protected by the law at an undesireable disadvantage. If such actions were universalized (it's OK for everyone to break laws) you would inevitably be placed at a disadvantage which you yourself would not wish to be in because someone else had broken a law. It is it creates a logical contradiction to desire to perform an action whose results if performed relative to you would be undesireable (the Golden Rule); that's the basis of the Categorical Imperative. Therefore obeying the law is always right in a Kantian world view.

This would seem to put Kantian theory in conflict with itself in certain cases; however consider this argument's fundamental tenet; that the law is created to benefit those at a disadvantage. A law which puts people at an unfair advantage or disadvantage to other people does not fit the theory. That puts the law in question in conflict with the fundamental tenet of the argument concerning law in general, and thus the argument is inapplicable and a new argument is required that considers a situation in which a law does not conform to the theory of law. In that situation you would find the opposite applies; you would not want a law to be followed by others if it put you in an unfairly disadvantageous situation. Thus you should not follow a law that puts others at a disadvantage. Similarly, you would not want a law followed which put someone else unfairly ahead of you; thus you should not follow a law that puts you unfairly ahead of others.

From a consequentialist standpoint, an act is always judged in hindsight by its actual consequences, and decided upon before performing it by its forseeable consequences. It is important that such consequences should take all parties into account, otherwise it's simply nihilism. You are faced with the choice of obeying the law or breaking it. If the forseeable consequences of obeying the law are worse than the consequences of breaking the law, or alternately if the consequence of breaking the law is better than obeying it, then breaking the law is morally permissible.

For instance; the Nazis made being a Jew a crime, thus by hiding a Jew in Nazi-controlled territory you were aiding and abetting a criminal and thus a criminal yourself. However, to obey the law and not shelter a Jew meant thhat that Jew would inevitably be murdered. It is morally required by consequentialist thought to act to prevent murder if there is a chance of preventing it, because the consequence to society of a living innocent person is preferable to that of a dead innocent person. Therefore, it is actually morally required by consequentialism to break such a law forbidding the hiding of Jews, because the only alternative results in an (in)action whose consequences make it morally prohibited by the same system.

[mgood]

Since I'm new, I have not seen the older threads on the subject.
I intend to search them out and see if I missed anything. From the comments of the veteran members here, I assume that I have not.

The right to keep and bear arms is being infringed. We all know that. We are trying to keep the government from legislating new infringements and at the same time actually making some headway in rolling back infringements that have existed for some time.

Small steps.
We are winning.
Scaring the general populace is not in our best interest in this war.
As has been noted here, many claimed that legal concealed carry would result in "blood in the streets" and "gunfight at the OK Corral." Obviously, that has not been the case.
More and more states have enacted "shall-issue" laws since Texas did. Progress.
Reciprocity. Progress.
Carry in vehicles. Progress.
More people, whether they carry or not, are accepting the idea that people around them are armed. Some of them will notice that there has been no increase in gun violence over minor issues, almost none by CHL holders.
Open carry may eventually be legal, if we keep moving in the direction we're going. But it may take many years. As people become more comfortable with the idea that people around them are armed, and concealed carry becomes more and more common, and more people become comfortable with it, we gradually move toward a society where everyone knows many are armed and no one really thinks about it. THEN it will gradually become irrelevant whether or not the weapons are concealed. And we can have serious consideration of legalizing open carry of handguns.

Long guns are legal to open carry. Hardly anyone does. I don't hear stories of gang-bangers strolling around with shotguns and rifles. They probably prefer to have their weapons concealed in most cases for a number of reasons.

Many people's first thought about those of us pushing to rid our country of infringements on the right to bear arms is that "those people think machine guns should be legal." I'm not sure they shouldn't. Certainly a reading of "shall not be infringed" supports this. But it's too big a step for most people to swallow. Concealed carry was a big step we made. Open carry might be a little too far to push at this time. But that's just at this time. Someday, assuming we don't abuse our right, that time will come.

Zombies:
I'd think the lady in the picture would eventually get the muzzle clogged up with crud. It may blow her other leg off when she tries to fire that thing. But it looks like a grenade launcher under the rifle. I'd think a grenade launcher would be an excellent weapon against zombies.