TexasCHLforum.com

It seems some of you folks equate being anti open carry with anti-gun. Big mistake...IMHO. You have instantly alienated half of the folks who support the right to keep and bear arms. Keep up the good work. I can assure you that your not ever going to get the right to open carry by insulting half your potential support base. Most folks think the very idea of everyone strutting around with a gun on their hip is absolutely ridiculous in modern society.

03Lightningrocks wrote:It seems some of you folks equate being anti open carry with anti-gun. Big mistake...IMHO. You have instantly alienated half of the folks who support the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't see that....but I do see it as the difference b/t having the 1st Amendment right to practice all religions vs. the right to practice religion in a way that the gov't approves.....

Personally, I support Open Carry as the first step to eventual Vermont/Alaska-style carry laws (concealed or open w/o permit) being passed in Texas. The fact that the Texas Legislature isn't even talking about this type of gun law is somewhat confusing and very embarassing.....

I look forward to the day when Texas IS as independent and free as Texans think it is....

Astro wrote:Most would implie that more than half of the states require no permit for open carry and I do not believe that in a second.

I haven't been to every state but I have been to several where a handgun carried openly in a holster was legal and got less notice than eyebrow or lip piercings.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Most folks think the very idea of everyone strutting around with a gun on their hip is absolutely ridiculous in modern society.

Maybe that's true but I don't think "sportsmen" who oppose a handgun or EBR for self defense can be called "pro-gun" with a straight face.

roberts wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:It seems some of you folks equate being anti open carry with anti-gun. Big mistake...IMHO.

Maybe that's true but I don't think "sportsmen" who oppose a handgun or EBR for self defense can be called "pro-gun" with a straight face.

Thanks for making my point. You just intentionally misconstrued what I said. The statement you just made is NOT the issue. The original issue is about OPEN CARRY. NOT self defense. As long as this oc "movement" wants to keep acting ridiculous, it will NEVER happen. Trust me...I know of what I speak.

Funny thing is, if you are in favor of OC, it is YOUR job to sell it to the public. Selling does not mean ramming it up their noses.

roberts wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Most folks think the very idea of everyone strutting around with a gun on their hip is absolutely ridiculous in modern society.

Maybe that's true but I don't think "sportsmen" who oppose a handgun or EBR for self defense can be called "pro-gun" with a straight face.

Sad but true. We not only have to struggle against the prejudices of the antigun extemists but also the lukewarm gun owners who think it's OK to ban semiauto rifles or restrict law abiding people from carrying guns or have ten round magazine limits or ban folding stocks etc.

Captain Matt wrote:I like when gun groups speak out against government restricting people keeping and bearing arms.

Bart wrote:

roberts wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:It seems some of you folks equate being anti open carry with anti-gun. Big mistake...IMHO.

Maybe that's true but I don't think "sportsmen" who oppose a handgun or EBR for self defense can be called "pro-gun" with a straight face.

Sad but true. We not only have to struggle against the prejudices of the antigun extemists but also the lukewarm gun owners who think it's OK to ban semiauto rifles or restrict law abiding people from carrying guns or have ten round magazine limits or ban folding stocks etc.

You fellers see just how ridiculous your getting???? Now you are making the attempt to relate folks who appose OC to folks who appose semi-auto rifles....keep it up guys....just keep adding more and more folks to who your alienating. Your not going to get what you want this way...nope....not going to happen.

You may debate the post, but you may NOT attack the poster. Keep it on the issues, or your posts will be deleted and the thread will be locked.

03Lightningrocks wrote:You fellers see just how ridiculous your getting????

boomerang wrote:

Bart wrote:

roberts wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:It seems some of you folks equate being anti open carry with anti-gun. Big mistake...IMHO.

Maybe that's true but I don't think "sportsmen" who oppose a handgun or EBR for self defense can be called "pro-gun" with a straight face.

Sad but true. We not only have to struggle against the prejudices of the antigun extemists but also the lukewarm gun owners who think it's OK to ban semiauto rifles or restrict law abiding people from carrying guns or have ten round magazine limits or ban folding stocks etc.

You fellers see just how ridiculous your getting???? Now you are making the attempt to relate folks who appose OC to folks who appose semi-auto rifles....keep it up guys....just keep adding more and more folks to who your alienating. Your not going to get what you want this way...nope....not going to happen.

Yep...just keep right on proving my point. Way to sell that open carry agenda.

Happy to help.

Bart wrote:

roberts wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Most folks think the very idea of everyone strutting around with a gun on their hip is absolutely ridiculous in modern society.

Maybe that's true but I don't think "sportsmen" who oppose a handgun or EBR for self defense can be called "pro-gun" with a straight face.

Sad but true. We not only have to struggle against the prejudices of the antigun extemists but also the lukewarm gun owners who think it's OK to ban semiauto rifles or restrict law abiding people from carrying guns or have ten round magazine limits or ban folding stocks etc.

I think that the "All or Nothing" mentality being thrown in the public's face is simply self-defeating. I don't oppose open-carry, and I certainly don't support open-carry as it is something that I do not intend to practice.

I look at it as an issue kind of like how I choose to dress. I might like to walk around on a daily-basis with a polo-shirt and blue jeans on, while you might like to walk around in speedos and wear a beanie. I don't support your choice of attire, in fact I think you have alot of moxie wearing it in the first place, but I don't oppose it either (except maybe aesthetically). I just don't plan on strutting around in speedos.

Crossfire wrote:You may debate the post, but you may NOT attack the poster. Keep it on the issues, or your posts will be deleted and the thread will be locked.

Come on folks, please knock off the personal attacks or this thread is getting locked.

Chas.

Looking back to the original post about GOA jumping in, I think it was the right thing to do.

I think it's good to have gun groups that advocate eliminating infringements on bearing arms. Even if it's not in the group's legislative roadmap for 2009, I think it's important to have a long term vision. To "have a Dream" as MLK said. I respect groups that say the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed even if we have different views on how to bring that Dream into the Day.

Gun owners have the moral high ground and I'm not ashamed to support that basic human right.