Poll: Do you support open-carry in Texas?

[Oldgringo]

nitogen wrote:

Personally, I think I agree with Oldgringo, I do NOT want any loony to be able to own a gun, just like I personally find some speech offensive and disgusting.

Absolutely! There are time honored restrictions on who can own a firearm as there are on what constitutes freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc. Felons, juveniles, chemically dependent folk, dopers, etc. are not allowed to own (carry) guns. Likewise, one's freedom of speech does not allow slander, violating 10 year old daughter rule, defamation of character, making gun/bomb jokes at the airport, etc. Oops! Did I mention airports? I'm sorry, the founding fathers didn't have to deal with airports.

Open carry is fine and I have no problem with it for me...and maybe you. However, it's just not for everybody.

Your listing of specific individuals who you think should not carry is certainly more specific than "bunch of loons". I do, however, think that your original post meant that your definition painted a much more broad picture of who you would not like to see armed.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves even those who the government decides are ineligible. We give the government its power and authority. The government does not give us rights.

Anygunanywhere

**sigh**

[Abraham]

I have been somewhat ambivalent about this for awhile until recently.

No, I don't support O.C.

The list of negatives associated with this idea are limitless...

[tarkus]

I support open carry for the same reasons I support open free speech, open freedom of the press and open religious freedom. I also support the right for people to conceal their guns and keep their religious views private if they want.

For all the people who support concealed carry only, do you think religion should only be legal if it's concealed?

[03Lightningrocks]

I support open carry for the same reasons I support open free speech, open freedom of the press and open religious freedom. I also support the right for people to conceal their guns and keep their religious views private if they want.

For all the people who support concealed carry only, do you think religion should only be legal if it's concealed?

Cool...then by this logic, we should all be allowed to walk around naked in public, scream fire in a crowded theater and wear a T shirt with a swastika emblem on it in a Jewish Synagogue, all without being charged with creating a public disturbance.

[tarkus]

Cool...then by this logic, we should all be allowed to walk around naked in public, scream fire in a crowded theater and wear a T shirt with a swastika emblem on it in a Jewish Synagogue, all without being charged with creating a public disturbance.

MACHINEGUNS IN AIRPORT VENDING MACHINES!

[flintknapper]

I have been somewhat ambivalent about this for awhile until recently.

No, I don't support O.C.

The list of negatives associated with this idea are limitless...

Question is: Is that list valid....or just the same kind of "the sky is falling" stuff that preceded concealed carry?

[edmart001]

I voted for unlicensed OC. I think if the right is not to be infringed, anyone who can legally own a handgun should be able to carry it openly if they want to - and that way all the rest of us know he / she is doing so. However, if a person wants the right to carry concealed, I like knowing the the folks who may be carrying, but I'm not sure, have had the training and background checking required to get a CHL. If unlicensed OC were legal, I'd still keep my CHL in good standing and carry concealed 99.99% of the time.

[srothstein]

Cool...then by this logic, we should all be allowed to walk around naked in public, scream fire in a crowded theater and wear a T shirt with a swastika emblem on it in a Jewish Synagogue, all without being charged with creating a public disturbance.

With two out of three of these, you have made the classic mistake of thinking something is prohibited when it is not. You can legally yell fire in a crowded theater and wear a swastika in a synagogue. You may be held legally responsible for the results of your actions, but the act is not prohibited. This is the same as saying you can legally own a firearm but can be charged with aggravated assault if you shoot someone.

As for the first one, you are correct that it is prohibited. The arguments about that would require a different thread in a forum where there is no ten year old daughter rule.

[stevie_d_64]

For what it is worth, I believe we can safely shelve the idea since no one carried a bill for this issue in the legislature this session...

Since no one could, or would, draft up a suitable bill that took care of the fine details, to keep the cows in, dispite the open gate problem...

It appears it might be sometime before we can get folks to relax about the issue and minimize the absolute horrific idea about seeing Texans carrying openly a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes...

I'm not being critical at all about the discussion and debate here, no sirree...I believe it has been healthy, and both sides made valid points, pro and con...

It might be a while before it even rears its head again, considering the change in the political climate in Austin...

So I would say it might be a good idea to keep the pressure up and get all the Good bills for our cause pushed thru and passed this session, because it is more than likely this will be it for a while, we might have to be ready to go defensive and protect what we have next time...

Just my opinion...

[Oldgringo]

srothstein wrote:

...You may be held legally responsible for the results of your actions, but the act is not prohibited...

There is a Latin phrase for this and I believe it is, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" which translates as: "after this, therefore because of this".

IOW, once you're in the pokey, you're in the pokey and the arguments of why can be resolved in the classrooms and the courts. In the meantime, you're still in the pokey.

[03Lightningrocks]

Cool...then by this logic, we should all be allowed to walk around naked in public, scream fire in a crowded theater and wear a T shirt with a swastika emblem on it in a Jewish Synagogue, all without being charged with creating a public disturbance.

With two out of three of these, you have made the classic mistake of thinking something is prohibited when it is not. You can legally yell fire in a crowded theater and wear a swastika in a synagogue. You may be held legally responsible for the results of your actions, but the act is not prohibited. This is the same as saying you can legally own a firearm but can be charged with aggravated assault if you shoot someone.

As for the first one, you are correct that it is prohibited. The arguments about that would require a different thread in a forum where there is no ten year old daughter rule.

The point I was trying to make is that in REAL LIFE(beyond internet chat boards) all of our rights have limitations or constraints to keep anarchy from ensuing.

[Locksmith]

I read some, but I must admit I read less than 1/2 of the posts in this thread. I saw a couple of people who were worried that open carry would cause many more businesses to post 30-06 signs. This could be compared right along side of the earlier people against concealed carry who said there would be blood in the streets... "Maybe everyone will post signs!" Maybe they won't. Otherwise I respond with the following: Those places will likely become targets of bad guys. After several bad guys prove this for us, we can make commercials letting the public (and at the same time business owners) know that bad guys go around looking for these signs because they know there is little chance of themselves being harmed. Once the general public has been made aware of this, many business owners will likely change their mind about keeping that sign there because they don't want to lose business! Scare tactics can be used in many different ways, sometimes against us sometimes to benefit us. Another thing that could be done would be for a non gun owner to send a letter to a place of business who has posted a sign, and say: "Well I was going to frequent your business today, but then I saw that sign in your window that welcomes bad guys... Sorry but I wont come back to your business unless I see that you have removed that Bad-Guy-Welcome-Sign". Just some things to think about.

[kw5kw]

I haven't visited this forum for about a month so I just saw this today.
And as of my vote today 57% of the voters on this forum are supportive of Open Carry.

Does this surprise anyone? Because it doesn't surprise me.

[Morgan]

For all the people who support concealed carry only, do you think religion should only be legal if it's concealed?

If I say "imagine the world where everyone kept their religion to themselves" would that be breaking a board rule?

[Liberty]

I suspect that most of us don't feel strongly about it. even though we lean one way or the other. While intelectually I believe anything which removes restrictions on gun toters is a good thing, but the practical side of me understands that open carry as a rule is a bad idea. Something like parking lot bills and school carry is about saving peoples lives, and we tend to feel a lot more strongly about it. If only 57% of a gun group think its a good idea though, I don't believe it ever stands a chance in the legislature.