No, Pogo, I was saying that the (as you phrased it) so-called and subjective 'human judgment' is the point which is moot, in this instance, because it is just that - subjective.No, Pogo, the point doesn't fly over my head.
I merely assert that the point is moot, and I speculate that it will not be allowed by Gun Rights folk to be effectively utilized by Gun-Grabber folk to advance their agenda.
Big difference.![]()
I would have thought that that much was obvious and did not require explicit articulation.
Can a red herring be moot though?
There is no point of contention that open carry is the law in Texas. That's not what the story is about. The actual story is about human judgment. Not the law.
We've even got one guy here (Sarge) who insists that while one set of citizens should have no restrictions on their carrying of firearms, another set of citizens should have restrictions on how they view that.
Now that's scary.
Consequently, when faced with subjective and diverse opinion on the matter, one is obliged to fall back upon fact (of law, in this instance) rather than anecdotal and subjective opinion as to what is and is not appropriate.
You and others are free to view it in any way you wish.
As are those who are busy counterpointing you in this matter.
And, view what you will, none of that signifies.
That particular jurisdiction still enjoys Open-Carry privileges (rights).
Gun-grabber opinions on the subject are apparently not going to be allowed to dominate in future discussions about subsequent and related legislation.
This is, in all probability, and in the larger scheme of things, a good thing.
Subjective judgment it is, as judgments must be. But that is the point of the story. Moreover the law has no bearing on subjective judgments, so falling back on it is of no avail in judging the judgment. One has only circumstances: what happened in the moment. What the law is has no bearing on one's reaction to those circumstances; it only prescribes (or doesn't prescribe) a remedy in the event they were wronged. In this case there is no law (or wrong) to apply, therefore the nature of the law is moot.
IMHO.