Texas Pro-Gun Crusaders Take Extreme Open Carry Approach

[M14 Shooter]

If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger. The scope of danger to be assessed ranges from accidental discharge to (more unlikely but still in play) the most extreme possibility that he is a James Eagan Holmes type psychopath intent on murderous mayhem.

Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.


See above.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.

We're saying that it is not fair that the public has to contend with this individuals risks without exigent cause. We're saying a show demonstrating 2ndA rights is not exigent cause.

Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.

What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.

The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

 

[Contumacious]

You've been reading posts by PC? We have a Federal Court System! That is a fact; your spin is ridiculous, though I suppose you've only parroted one of the conservative lunatics on AM Radio.

Dream on.

I guess that supports your inertia if you can't handle, or refused to acknowledge, the truth.

What truth? You're either brain washed by the propaganda or a liar.

And, BTW, FDR didn't pack the court, which anyone who had taken US History and passed would know.

Well, a Constitutional crisis was averted by the Justices giving into the welfare/warfare state demands.

In 1933 the SCOTUS rejected the welfare/warfare state by ruling that Constitutional taxes were those extracted to support the government. After the FDR debacle the Justices ignored their own definition in order to accommodate the socialists scumbags.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Thus, your starement is imeaningless, and irrelevant as a response to my post.

But then, you knew that when you posted it.
Why you chose to be meaningless and irrelevant is beyond me, but you apparently enjoy it.

Heller is no more settled law than was Dred Scott...

1: Heller was affirmed in McDonald, which went further to state that the 2nd protected a fundamental right of the people.
2: Until it is overturned, it is law.

... and many of us today believe the Heller decision (5-4) was Dictum too.

If that's the case, you don't know what "dictum" means.
See:
Dictum - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Entry 2

You hate the fact that The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Too bad. You can refuse to accept this fact, but it just means you choose to be wrong.

I'm not opposed to an individuals right to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a firearm and would agree with Scalia in the narrow matter Heller brought before the court had Scalia not gotten so far afield.

Obiter Dictum, 'Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case. A remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, "by the way", that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before the court or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.

Time will tell if Heller becomes a landmark case and is cited in other cases sure to go before the Supreme Court. Remember, it was decided 5-4 and the dissent is worth reading.

See:

SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER

 

[Freewill]

Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.


See above.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.

Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.

What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.

The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

What was the reason for them to the open display guns that are clearly out of place? I think you will say that it does not matter it is their right. But you also say that the mother sitting there with her children is irrational because she thinks that these men are a threat. Does she have the right to feel threatened in a public place? Is it irrational for her to think that people that carry guns have the intention of using said guns? If not then why in the hell would they carry them? Just to jerk around the system?

I really wish that you and those people who are flaunting their guns in everyone's face would realize how detrimental they are being to all of us that want to own guns.

What I would think would be a more interesting show is for them same four to go to the hood and enter a rib shop with those same guns. It would be their right to be stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heller is no more settled law than was Dred Scott...

1: Heller was affirmed in McDonald, which went further to state that the 2nd protected a fundamental right of the people.
2: Until it is overturned, it is law.

... and many of us today believe the Heller decision (5-4) was Dictum too.

If that's the case, you don't know what "dictum" means.
See:
Dictum - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Entry 2

You hate the fact that The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Too bad. You can refuse to accept this fact, but it just means you choose to be wrong.

I'm not opposed to an individuals right to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control a firearm and would agree with Scalia in the narrow matter Heller brought before the court had Scalia not gotten so far afield.

You so agree that your constant refernce to "the well regulated miltiia" is meaingless.
Good.

Time will tell if Heller becomes a landmark case and is cited in other cases sure to go before the Supreme Court.

Yes... because ther's a possibility that no other 2A case will referce Heller or McDonald.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

What was the reason for them to the open display guns that are clearly out of place?

It doesn't matter. They legally exercised their rights to do so and need not justify their decision or action to anyone.

But you also say that the mother sitting there with her children is irrational because she thinks that these men are a threat. Does she have the right to feel threatened in a public place?

That's a rather silly question.

Is it irrational for her to think that people that carry guns have the intention of using said guns?

Pretty much eveyone that carrys a gun has the intention to use it.
The irrational fear is that which creates the immediate reaction that they intend to use them to cause harm.

 

[reconmark]

Gee, think of the money we could save if we eliminated all police agencies. We could all defend our homes and businesses and there would be no need for courts or attorney's. Might makes right - it works in Somalia, doesn't it Reconmark ?

I wouldn't know what works in Somalia...do you???....

Dred Scott unsettled???...please grow up.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.


See above.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.

Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.

What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.

The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

 

[Andylusion]

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

 

[Freewill]

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

It is interesting considering they say that gay marriage is a constitutional right when in fact marriage of any sort is not mentioned. The left just uses the constitution when it fits their agenda, but then again so do those on the right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

You'll find that the majority of people complaining about this "extreme" exercise of 2A rights will tell you about 100 different reasons why the LBGT people have every right to do what they do and you have no place to complain.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

It is interesting considering they say that gay marriage is a constitutional right when in fact marriage of any sort is not mentioned. The left just uses the constitution when it fits their agenda, but then again so do those on the right.

You may need to brush off your copy of the Constitution and check out the ninth amendment. Or here I'll save you a few minutes;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

If you know that even hetereosexual marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution then you probably know that many fundamental rights were not specifically enumerated. Such as;

The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to Privacy
and as you say, The Right to Marriage

So of course there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or limits the right of Gays to marry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think anyone who posts a M 14 shooter is a single issue voter and not very bright (actually a very dumb POS; of course that is my right and my opinion).

 

[Freewill]

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

It is interesting considering they say that gay marriage is a constitutional right when in fact marriage of any sort is not mentioned. The left just uses the constitution when it fits their agenda, but then again so do those on the right.

You may need to brush off your copy of the Constitution and check out the ninth amendment. Or here I'll save you a few minutes;

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

If you know that even hetereosexual marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution then you probably know that many fundamental rights were not specifically enumerated. Such as;

The Right to a Jury of Your Peers
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
The Right to Privacy
and as you say, The Right to Marriage

So of course there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits or limits the right of Gays to marry.

Of course the historic definition was never between a man and a man until recently. So if there is nothing, as you say, in the constitution that prohibits or limits gays from marrying then there is no right even if you want to say there is. Further if it is not in the COTUS then those types of matters are to be left to the individual states. So if you want gay marriage to be a right then quit tying your wagon to the black civil rights movement and let the people decide through a constitutional amendment. But my guess is that you don't want that because in almost, if not all, instances when the people were allowed to choose, it didn't go well for gay marriage.

BTW, note I didn't say anything insulting towards gay marriage. Marriage is between two people, period. The benefits that derive from marriage can be had by other means. But mostly the benefit of protecting a woman who marries from her husband just dumping her is not really required in gay marriage.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think anyone who posts a M 14 shooter is a single issue voter and not very bright (actually a very dumb POS; of course that is my right and my opinion).

That's only because you havent been able to defend any of your points or negate any mine.

 

[Freewill]

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational.

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights"

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

And those who do are just like those in your face guys carrying AR15s. They do a disservice to the very cause they say they are supporting.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Freewill--Of course the historic definition was never between a man and a man until recently. So if there is nothing, as you say, in the constitution that prohibits or limits gays from marrying then there is no right even if you want to say there is. Further if it is not in the COTUS then those types of matters are to be left to the individual states. So if you want gay marriage to be a right then quit tying your wagon to the black civil rights movement and let the people decide through a constitutional amendment. But my guess is that you don't want that because in almost, if not all, instances when the people were allowed to choose, it didn't go well for gay marriage.

BTW, note I didn't say anything insulting towards gay marriage. Marriage is between two people, period. The benefits that derive from marriage can be had by other means. But mostly the benefit of protecting a woman who marries from her husband just dumping her is not really required in gay marriag

You've missed the effect of the Ninth and now the Tenth Amendment;

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

Those unenumerated rights I mentioned are Federal rights. You're talking about powers that are not delegated to the Federal government which fall to the States. You must know that the Federal Government at times is expected to protect peoples rights, even the unenumerated ones, from infringement by the States.

Don't try to push your knowledge of the Constitution beyond its limits.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Yes, indeed. That is the crux of the matter.

You dildos enact gun free zones knowing full well that the James Holmes types are going to ignore your mandates.

.

To my post.

Too much pride to admit that you are wrong?

.

To argue with a wall.

 

[SmedlyButler]

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

You'll find that the majority of people complaining about this "extreme" exercise of 2A rights will tell you about 100 different reasons why the LBGT people have every right to do what they do and you have no place to complain.

in private agree with me that the real puerile exhibitionists aren't doing the movement any good. Online sometimes groups close ranks and won't show any cracks in the party line. I've kept silent at times to give a fellow lib room to rant. That goes for conservatives as well doesn't it?

 

[candycorn]

It may be that certain people react as they do because they don't know that carrying a rifle in the open is legal - in which there's a further layer of ignorance upon that fear.

Depend on who does it.

Some of the LBGT crowd who turn Gay Pride parades into public freak shows? They're demonstrating and exersizing Rights as well. I think they should show some respect.

Isn't it funny how using ones constitutional rights, to the left, all depends on which group, and which rights, as to whether or not they support it.

Parades take place on the street. You can watch them or not. You do not pay for them or pay to attend them. If I'm at a Chili's and a bunch of people walk in with weapons, I won't feel comfortable; I'm unaware of their qualifications to use force, their training with the weapons, their ability to think clearly during a fire fight, etc... If they have a uniform, you can at least assume there is a minimum threshold of training involved. So I pay my tab, leave a tip, and get out of there as soon as possible.

By the same token, if I'm in a Chili's and a bunch of homosexuals walk in and begin kissing one another, I won't feel comfortable with that either. I'd likely pay my tab, leave a tip and exit the restaurant.

It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment right of self expression or the 2nd amendment right to pack heat. It has to do with my comfort level in this case. I suspect that the majority would share my viewpoints and restaurants and other businesses have every right to enforce these rules.