Question for Open Carry Proponents

[casingpoint]

The various state policies on handgun carry need to be made uniform by adhering to the federal regulation already in place.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it-Yogi Berra

[anygunanywhere]

The 2A is about OC. If you do not support OC you do not support the 2A.
Anygunanywhere

The fact that I don't feel the need for open carry doesn't mean that I am not a staunch supporter of our 2A rights.

You can support OC without "feeling the need" to do so.

I support al things second amendment.

I will buy a full auto if and when the BATFE is disbanded or there is no paperwork involved.

I doubt I will ever own a Barret .50 cal but if anyone wants one, have at it. I do not care.

If someone wants a RPG I do not care.

I support it.

What I do not support in any way shape or form are infringements.

Anygunanywhere

[tbranch]

What I do not support in any way shape or form are infringements.

Anygun,

I typically agree with you on many subjects. However, you've lost me on this one. To follow the logic, if I want a hand-fired tacitcal nuke, I should be able to have and carry one.

While I don't think OC is a bad idea, I really think there will be a huge backlash from the average civilian. They've all been brainwashed by the media and that will take years to reverse.

Tom

[KBCraig]

What I do not support in any way shape or form are infringements.

Anygun,

I typically agree with you on many subjects. However, you've lost me on this one. To follow the logic, if I want a hand-fired tacitcal nuke, I should be able to have and carry one.

Of course you should. Why shouldn't you?

[tbranch]

Of course you should. Why shouldn't you?

[srothstein]

What I do not support in any way shape or form are infringements.

Anygun,

I typically agree with you on many subjects. However, you've lost me on this one. To follow the logic, if I want a hand-fired tacitcal nuke, I should be able to have and carry one.

Of course you should. Why shouldn't you?

Haven't we gone through that debate before, Kevin? I think we are

[KBCraig]

To follow the logic, if I want a hand-fired tacitcal nuke, I should be able to have and carry one.

Of course you should. Why shouldn't you?

Haven't we gone through that debate before, Kevin?

Many times.

I'm not trying to stir that debate, because our obliging host, Mr. Cotton, Esq., doesn't want any talk of anarchy. But now and then, it doesn't hurt to tickle folks' brain cells, and make them wonder how the world would be if people were truly free to conduct themselves as free men.

The argument against private ownership of nukes is exactly the same as the argument against open carry, or concealed carry, or private gun ownership of any kind. When asked, opponents are offended at the notion that they would do anything improper with such an item, but "everyone knows" that there are those who would use them for evil.

From pointy knives in Britain, to handguns in Chicago, to Colt 1911 "machine guns" in DC, to .50 caliber rifles in California, to the mythical suitcase nuke, the argument in favor of banning inanimate objects is always that "bad people" will misuse them, thus everyone, including good people, must be deprived of them.

Sorry for the off topic (and possibly outside the rules) side issue, but I don't want the "nuclear option" to pass without comment. Arms are arms. Free men should never be disbarred the use of such.

Kevin

[kd5zex]

I'm not trying to stir that debate, because our obliging host, Mr. Cotton, Esq., doesn't want any talk of anarchy. But now and then, it doesn't hurt to tickle folks' brain cells, and make them wonder how the world would be if people were truly free to conduct themselves as free men.

The argument against private ownership of nukes is exactly the same as the argument against open carry, or concealed carry, or private gun ownership of any kind. When asked, opponents are offended at the notion that they would do anything improper with such an item, but "everyone knows" that there are those who would use them for evil.

From pointy knives in Britain, to handguns in Chicago, to Colt 1911 "machine guns" in DC, to .50 caliber rifles in California, to the mythical suitcase nuke, the argument in favor of banning inanimate objects is always that "bad people" will misuse them, thus everyone, including good people, must be deprived of them.

Sorry for the off topic (and possibly outside the rules) side issue, but I don't want the "nuclear option" to pass without comment. Arms are arms. Free men should never be disbarred the use of such.

Kevin

Well said, sir.

[tbranch]

The argument against private ownership of nukes is exactly the same as the argument against open carry, or concealed carry, or private gun ownership of any kind. When asked, opponents are offended at the notion that they would do anything improper with such an item, but "everyone knows" that there are those who would use them for evil.

Kevin,

First, I'm not against OC and did sign the petition.

However, there's a big difference between owning traditional weapons and an RPG. There's no real need for private ownership of RPGs. I guess if someone really wanted one, they could co through the same process required to own and register a fully-automatic weapon. Of course, that would be an infringement on our 2A rights according to some here.

We've made huge gains in the exercise of our right to carry. I think many of us do not want to see it reversed because we continue to push for more and more too quickly. Personally, I think OC will happen in Texas and I don't think we'll have all the problems that are happening in other places at least in the more rural areas.

Tom

[srothstein]

Tom,

Kevin and I are both fairly big supporters of freedom. Neither of us want any more government interference than we can avoid. The point he made is that when you say no one needs an RPG but they could go through the process and register it like an automatic, you are agreeing with gun control. The amount may be different, but you have just agreed with the principle.

This is different from the tactical aspect of how we get to the point I want (repeal of Chapter 46 of the TPC and the parts of the USC defining guns and crime). While my ultimate goal is freedom, I knwo we are not going to get there all at once. Just as the other side has an ultimate goal of total control of people, but they cannot get there all at once. I am quite willing to go in small steps and use the gun-banners own tactics against them. This year we just ask for some small changes, like defining a school. Next session we ask for a few more small changes. It may take a decade or two, but we can get to total freedom if we try. I just keep remembering how long it took to get us in this mess we live in now, and it will take almost as long to straighten it out.

[mr.72]

I just keep remembering how long it took to get us in this mess we live in now, and it will take almost as long to straighten it out.

I don't think it will take nearly as long to straighten it out. And it's not just about gun control but about control over every aspect of our lives and the erosion of freedom that began with the industrial revolution.

But I don't think we are on the path to straightening it out yet. We are just rearranging our last two or three pawns on the chess board. We gain ground in one area, lose more ground in another. Save one pawn, lose two.

I won't elaborate any further.

[tbranch]

The amount may be different, but you have just agreed with the principle.

I do agree with the principle and I do not think anyone needs an RPG for personal defense or hunting. All of our freedoms have limitations. You can't exercise your first amendment rights by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and you can be arrested for using cetain profane words in public (it's from a thread in the off-topic discussion area). Why is the second amendment any different?

This year we just ask for some small changes, like defining a school. Next session we ask for a few more small changes. It may take a decade or two, but we can get to total freedom if we try. I just keep remembering how long it took to get us in this mess we live in now, and it will take almost as long to straighten it out.

While I don't think we will get to the total freedom you have in mind, I think we can continue to make progress in small steps. That said, we have to be careful not to push so hard that we scare the general population and lose ground. IMHO, OC fits into this category at this point in time. I think the sight of weapons will freak people out and we will have more problems for a while. If we can get through that period and not lose any ground we will have done well.

Tom

[drw]

I do not think anyone needs an RPG for personal defense or hunting. All of our freedoms have limitations.

Hunting and personal defense are not the only legitimate reason to bear arms. The ultimate purpose of the 2A is to provide the final "check and balance" against tyrannical government. For that purpose, I would say an RPG would be quite a valid tool to have. An M1 Abrams would be even better, if you could afford the $4 million price tag.

[Liberty]

I just keep remembering how long it took to get us in this mess we live in now, and it will take almost as long to straighten it out.

I don't think it will take nearly as long to straighten it out. And it's not just about gun control but about control over every aspect of our lives and the erosion of freedom that began with the industrial revolution.

But I don't think we are on the path to straightening it out yet. We are just rearranging our last two or three pawns on the chess board. We gain ground in one area, lose more ground in another. Save one pawn, lose two.

I won't elaborate any further.

Gee it seems to me that over the past 15 years we have made quite a bit of progress and I cant think of many setbacks...
Lets see Supreme Court rules unanimously that the RKBA is an individual right
Texas citizens after over a hundred year ban gain the right to discretely carry.
The Assault Weapons Ban runs out and isn't renewed.
Texas gain the right to carry in cars while on the road with clearly defined rules on our side.
We have gained almost unquestionable rights to defend ourselves if we are attacked. (Castle Doctrine)
It has become illegal for citys and countys to make stricter gun laws.
The SCOTUS is telling DC to knock it off with silly restrictions.
Seems as though they are making more and better guns.
Donkeys have to put up these big ugly honkin' signs to keep us out of their establishments

Now please tell me how where we have lost ground over the last few years. I don't understand. Cause it seems every time I turn around I see just a little more progress. Sometimes its just a little thing like a price reduction for veterans, other times its something huge like a Supreme Court decision. While there may be a few step backs I honestly cant think of one for the last 20 years all I can remember is progress.

[bdickens]

An M1 Abrams would be even better, if you could afford the $4 million price tag.

And you wouldn't have any problems with your morning commute either!