Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the "not necessarily" that is the problem. Open carry does intimidate regards of the wearers intent.
.
Texas law is clear, good luck proving intent. Doesn't matter if some sissy wets his diapers in fear, unless the firearm was displayed in a manner calculated to create alarm.
Quote:
However if the firearm is displayed in a manner "calculated to cause alarm." Then it is "disorderly conduct" (which defines an offense, in part, as "displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm").
Just because you felt alarmed doesn't mean the firearm was displayed in a manner calculated to cause alarm. Your inappropriate feelings don't mean squat in Texas.
In OC protests, it's calculated to do the opposite, to show that guns can be carried openly without shooting them. If handgun OC was legalized in Texas, these rifle OC stunts would disappear.
Guns have no place, and serve no useful purpose, in a modern society.
The bottom line for any sort of gun 'carrying' individual--legal or illegal--is that they introduce the opportunity for someone to get hurt or killed.
When was the last time you heard or read an article which lauded the involvement of a gun because it caused some good? Virtually never (I am sure the NRA has a list of the events).
More often, the 'news' is that someone was shot or killed in a domestic disturbance, in an argument, in 'defending' themselves, or through an accidental discharge of a loaded gun.
The only way to resolve the gun issue is to eliminate them from the public hands. It will take a hundred years to get the 'pipeline' cleaned out, but it has to start somewhere. Put the 'recreational' guns in a preserve where you check them out, and check them in, and genuine gun folks can do their thing. For the rest, sorry, but whatever 'rights' you thought you had have been usurped by the knuckleheads (the Chipotle crowd, for example) who are irresponsible and have contributed to an unacceptable level of injury and death.
Blah, blah, blah, I hate guns and everything to do with them. They have no purpose and we are too civilized to even own them. Take them away from everyone but the facist police and all will be fine because I trust them more than life itself. Make guns a receational thing that involves jumping through hoops simply because I feel this way. Forget about your rights garanteed in the Constitution because I usurped them. I also surrendered all of my rights because I am a lemming.
Well actually scarab, it's a pretty sad way to go about life if you have to strap on a weapon 24/7. Glad I don't feel the need for that & believe me, I don't live in the safest utopia either.
Scarab, you sound like a pretty sensible individual and quite frankly, not one of the scary types who is walking around with iron strapped to their body.
But, I don't think your comparison holds water.
The seatbelt, smoke detectors, sled and bike helmet...those things protect you, and are very unlikely to hurt me. Even in the "wrong" hands it is hard to argue that I live in fear of dying from an errant helmet.
But a gun? That is a whole different story. The shootout begins, the gun is stolen, or you accidently discharge it, and I have a very real possibility of getting hurt, or worse. Maybe not you, per se, but there are plenty of guns in some real moronic hands, and plenty of guns in the hands of criminals to whom my life, or your life, don't matter as much as getting their hands on ten bucks in order to score the next hit. Armed, unarmed, they don't really give a hoot when they shoot you. History has shown...especially recent history, that your chances of defending yourself with a gun are slim to none. More than likely it is going to escalate a situation where you might have otherwise escaped, but once the gun was introduced, it became a lethal challenge.
Sorry, I stick with my thesis that we have outgrown guns except in a sporting environment and there are plenty of ways to control their sale from manufacture to secure range.
If you don't have one or are afraid to pull it if you do own one.
but I certainly won't risk anything to help someone who might have voted for Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
I have been mugged once, by three savages in their early teens; no conviction. Once is once too many.
They are crying for help, and the citizenry only enables them. They want to carry guns so they can kill every "savage in their early teens", mow then down on sight in a h ail of automatic gunfire, before they kill and rape every citizen. Identify those who "might have" voted for Obama, before they fulfill their oft-repeated promise to take all guns away from all Americans immediately. Defend only the good citizens who "might have" voted for Romney.
These people are not just walking the streets, they are in online forums screaming for help, and they would lash out with gunfire, without remorse, on the slightest suspicion, and we are just laughing at them. Is there not one single responsible, sane gun owner to recognize their sociopathology and come on here and say, OK, calm down a little bit, before somebody gets hurt?
Far less lethal? Maybe plastic ones...I can lay you open from crotch to sternum and you would wish I had shot you with a gun as your guts are hanging out. I can pierce your heart with a single stroke. It depends on who has the knife, how they were trained and if they are comfortable with it.
...And no doubt faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!
As a supporter of the 2nd amendment I get why people are flexing their rights.......to ensure they keep them.
Gee, and I thought all it it took was a pen and a piece of paper....District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
Now that I think of it the south decided to flex its muscle in order to maintain slavery even though no one in the government believed that it had any right to do anything about it in the first place and we know how that worked out, which leads me to also think that a person can flex their rights to the point that other folks find such rights so odious the publics sensibilities that the public loses any taste for retaining those rights.
That which the Constitution giveth, the Constitution can taketh away.
The OP sent a letter. The OP got a canned response. The OP thinks a business is going to choose to deny service to entire large groups of law abiding citizens because of a little written tantrum she threw.
Are you attempting to compare a homogenous country like Norway, to the US in the same sentence to try and prove a point? I will have to bring your post up to our monthly meeting at the Harvard-Yale-Princeton Club. It will bring quite a chuckle. Thanks.
Did you miss the irony?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
