How I damaged gun rights today

[Redhorse]

Argumentum ad populum, appeal to the masses, etc.

Just stating my observations.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I will also say that I have met gun owners and non-gun owners alike who share my sentiments concerning this.

Same here. What does that mean?

 

[Redhorse]

Same here. What does that mean?

That there's obviously a difference of opinions here. You've seen non-gun owners who are ok with this? Most people I've conferred with don't look at it too favorably.

 

[ATM]

That there's obviously a difference of opinions here. You've seen non-gun owners who are ok with this? Most people I've conferred with don't look at it too favorably.

Whether their opinion of an action is favorable or not, principle still leads many people to support even actions they do not personally favor.

It is the difference in underlying principles that I'd be curious to hear about, opinions are a dime a dozen.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

That there's obviously a difference of opinions here. You've seen non-gun owners who are ok with this? Most people I've conferred with don't look at it too favorably.

What it means is it has absolutely no bearing on exercising our God given rights. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Rights aren't subordinated to popularity.

 

[Redhorse]

What it means is it has absolutely no bearing on exercising our God given rights. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Rights aren't subordinated to popularity.

I never said they were. However, it's the populous that elects our officials. Now if some favorable outcomes came from these protests that came to outweigh the negative publicity that followed them, then it would make for a different argument. I'm not saying such a possibility is out of the question, I am saying that some positive actions do need to take place in order for such protests to be effect. It's like any protest really.

Furthermore, I'd just like to say that as we all know, due to the negative publicity that followed these protests man companies banned all firearms in their establishments. Now, of course we know that those bans hold no weight of law here in Indiana, however, they do in other states where these corporations have other stores. If all firearms are banned in those said establishments, are t gun rights ultimately hurt? And once again, I speak of the ones where gun bans hold the weight of law. I just want to finish with I know that the right to carry is a God given right, however, if it is effectively against the law then I'm sure lawful gun owners (as we all profess to be) aren't going to carry in those places. I fail to see how such a protest in Texas adds gun rights if they damage them in other states where such bans are enforceable.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I never said they were. However, it's the populous that elects our officials. Now if some favorable outcomes came from these protests that came to outweigh the negative publicity that followed them, then it would make for a different argument. I'm not saying such a possibility is out of the question, I am saying that some positive actions do need to take place in order for such protests to be effect. It's like any protest really.

Furthermore, I'd just like to say that as we all know, due to the negative publicity that followed these protests man companies banned all firearms in their establishments. Now, of course we know that those bans hold no weight of law here in Indiana, however, they do in other states where these corporations have other stores. If all firearms are banned in those said establishments, are t gun rights ultimately hurt? And once again, I speak of the ones where gun bans hold the weight of law. I just want to finish with I know that the right to carry is a God given right, however, if it is effectively against the law then I'm sure lawful gun owners (as we all profess to be) aren't going to carry in those places. I fail to see how such a protest in Texas adds gun rights if they damage them in other states where such bans are enforceable.

Which companies BANNED firearms from their establishments vs simply asked customers to not bring them in? Also, do you have "gun rights" on private property? Do you have First, Second, etc. Amendment rights protecting against infringement from property owners?

 

[Redhorse]

Which companies BANNED firearms from their establishments vs simply asked customers to not bring them in? Also, do you have "gun rights" on private property? Do you have First, Second, etc. Amendment rights protecting against infringement from property owners?

I'm pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms. I'm of the opinion that you are responsible for your own self defense and if you go to a public place to spend money you are still just as responsible. Besides, aren't we talking about God given rights here? Don't tell me now you guys are going to tell me how wrong I am because property rights now come into play. If so, the while debate about open rifle carry in a public place is now defunct. It can't go both ways guys. If you're going to throw in how private property rights now trump other rights reserved to the individual citizens then how did the OC Texas protest have any clout whatsoever? I'm not sure I understand your point questioning what rights we have on private establishments since you disagree with all my previous points.

 

[cce1302]

I'm pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms.

I know we're already over 200 posts into the topic, but don't you think you should have figured all this stuff out before you got into it?

I mean, I like a good discussion as much as the next guy, but you're passing so much bum scoop in this thread it's comical that you're still coming back for more.

 

[jcwit]

I know we're already over 200 posts into the topic, but don't you think you should have figured all this stuff out before you got into it?

I mean, I like a good discussion as much as the next guy, but you're passing so much bum scoop in this thread it's comical that you're still coming back for more.

No more so than those with the opposing view!

 

[Redhorse]

I know we're already over 200 posts into the topic, but don't you think you should have figured all this stuff out before you got into it?

I mean, I like a good discussion as much as the next guy, but you're passing so much bum scoop in this thread it's comical that you're still coming back for more.

And the fact that you didn't comment on my last point is hilarous. First, you disagree with me about my stance on the open rifle carry fiasco then you try to say that private property rights trump personal gun rights (I'm assuming that those questions at the end of your previous post that I quotes are the rhetorical in nature) and have yet to clarify what you meant when I clearly stated I was confused. And what right isn't of yours to tell me that my points are "bum scoop" and imply that yours are pure wisdom from God? Yes, I have my stuff figured out sir, as far as I knew it's how you had a civil discussion. Now that you try and not only question my credibility, but flat out insult me (mostly because you disagree with me) I'm beginning to question any validity you have beyond this point. I learned long ago that insulting the ther side of the debate/discussion is the same as admitting defeat in which it was my understanding that the point of this discussion wasn't to win some petty contest. I must ask you to clarify your last post. I was under the impression that I was replying to your opinions with opinions of my own becasue we were discussing the controversial matter at hand but the fact that you say that it's "comical I keep coming back for me" imply a that this is in fact not a mature conversation in the slightest.

 

[Redhorse]

Read this and understand my position. There are some forms of open rifle carry I agree with, however, ports arm and at the ready is impractical. Please read the article before responding.
Open Carry of Long Arms - A Law Enforcement Perspective | The Truth About Guns

 

[1911ly]

01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01100100 01101111 01101101 00100000 01000110 01101001 01110010 01110011 01110100 00101100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101110 01100100 01100101 01101101 01101110 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101110 01100110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01101001 01110100 01111001

01001001 00100000 01100001 01100111 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 00110001 00110000 00110000 00100101 00100000 01110010 01101111 01100011 01101011 00100000 01101111 01101110 00100001

:-)

 

[85s10]

Looks like a heated and interesting discussion here on rifle carry. I am really not sure that the "general" public is fully comfortable with OC. I know if I am in a store and a dude walks in with an AK-I am looking for a way out of there. I do not him or his intentions.

 

[cce1302]

And the fact that you didn't comment on my last point is hilarous. First, you disagree with me about my stance on the open rifle carry fiasco then you try to say that private property rights trump personal gun rights (I'm assuming that those questions at the end of your previous post that I quotes are the rhetorical in nature) and have yet to clarify what you meant when I clearly stated I was confused. And what right isn't of yours to tell me that my points are "bum scoop" and imply that yours are pure wisdom from God? Yes, I have my stuff figured out sir, as far as I knew it's how you had a civil discussion. Now that you try and not only question my credibility, but flat out insult me (mostly because you disagree with me) I'm beginning to question any validity you have beyond this point. I learned long ago that insulting the ther side of the debate/discussion is the same as admitting defeat in which it was my understanding that the point of this discussion wasn't to win some petty contest. I must ask you to clarify your last post. I was under the impression that I was replying to your opinions with opinions of my own becasue we were discussing the controversial matter at hand but the fact that you say that it's "comical I keep coming back for me" imply a that this is in fact not a mature conversation in the slightest.

You are damaging your own credibility by saying you're "pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms." Seriously, this late in the game it's ridiculous to not know that they didn't "flat out ban firearms."

I haven't been insulting at all. I can't help that it's funny that you don't even have the basic facts straight yet you thunder on.

And I didn't say you're "coming back for me," I said you're "coming back for more."


Also, I believe the "previous post" you keep referring to was SteveM4A1's post, not mine. An inability to differentiate between people you're arguing with doesn't boost your credibility either.

 

[88GT]

Whether their opinion of an action is favorable or not, principle still leads many people to support even actions they do not personally favor.

It is the difference in underlying principles that I'd be curious to hear about, opinions are a dime a dozen.

And this is how we can separate the men from the boys. Or in this case, the ones who based their position on one of liberty or just cowardly fear of the reprisal of popularity backlash.

Which companies BANNED firearms from their establishments vs simply asked customers to not bring them in? Also, do you have "gun rights" on private property? Do you have First, Second, etc. Amendment rights protecting against infringement from property owners?

Must spread the rep around. I have been beating this drum since this whole OC Texas thing started. The facts apparently are not relevant to some people.

I'm pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms. I'm of the opinion that you are responsible for your own self defense and if you go to a public place to spend money you are still just as responsible. Besides, aren't we talking about God given rights here? Don't tell me now you guys are going to tell me how wrong I am because property rights now come into play. If so, the while debate about open rifle carry in a public place is now defunct. It can't go both ways guys. If you're going to throw in how private property rights now trump other rights reserved to the individual citizens then how did the OC Texas protest have any clout whatsoever? I'm not sure I understand your point questioning what rights we have on private establishments since you disagree with all my previous points.

Property rights trump all other rights to the extent that I may disallow the free exercise of YOUR rights on my property.

Restaurants are not public places. They are open to the public for the purpose of transacting business, but they are still private property because they are not owned by a governmental entity.

If I'm understand the big picture, the OC Texas effort is aimed at highlighting the contradictory nature of the existing legislation.

Because the fence-sitters keep arguing that we will be losing rights and that the efforts of OC Texas are damaging the existing ones. Except that no legislation has changed and to my knowledge, no legislation has been proposed that would actually have the effect of reducing the rights of Texans to carry. And the restaurants have ALWAYS had the authority to prohibit firearms. Always. We don't have the right to carry a firearm in a private establishment. It just isn't there. The reason you don't understand it is that you probably have merged the concept of legislatively restricted rights with permissions issued by private property owners.

 

[jcwit]

Opinions are just that and nothing more, no matter which way one feels about this argument "which is what it has turned into, and not a discussion". Neither side can prove without a doubt which way it will go.


We all of course will have to wait which way the retailers post their doors/windows, and which way the rules and laws will go. In todays environment I predict an unfavorable outcome, but then I may be wrong for the first time. The laws of averages may finally catch up with me.

Only a fool can absolutely dispute the above. Unless they of course have a crystal ball that actually works.

 

[jcwit]

Another take.

Legalizing Pistol OC in Texas is Only Getting Harder | Shall Not Be Questioned

 

[jcwit]

Being as I find it impossible to edit my posts, guess I'll do it one at a time.

And another take.

Open Carry Texas breaks with Tarrant group whose gun toting scared eatery's workers into freezer | Dallas Morning News

 

[jcwit]

And again

?Open carry? exhibitionists hurting cause