What problem does open carry solve?

[solus]

The problem is in the original question. You start with a false premise, so anything you say to defend can easily be attacked.
Texas is not granting a new right under law. They are removing restrictions upon an existing right. The question should be, "What harm will removing the restriction on OC of handguns cause."
Opponents have thought much on how to phrase the argument, to put every advantage to their side.

you are correct hovercat, the OP's statement is a false premise, and the additional information added by the poster 14 posts into the thread just serves to add further confusion.

however, i must disagree with your statement, as i have taken the liberty to bold...the Texas legislature is not removing restrictions but rather imposing further restrictions on the OC'g of the state's citizens to OC a firearm by 'making' the citizen get a privilege card if they wish to OC a handgun.

ipse

 

[solus]

Your incivility speaks for itself.

You probably haven't noticed but with the exception of you and a handful of anarchists or anti-religious bigots (who can't seem to leave off topic subjects off a pro-RKBA board), I get along fine with most folks, including quite a few where we regularly disagree. But a few of you have such enormous egos that you can't take the slightest disagreement as anything other than a challenge to your manhood.

Your user name is very apt. You are the walking embodiment of much of what is wrong with the RKBA "community". With 95% agreement on RKBA, you'll take 5% disagreement, make it personal, and carry it forever, rather than working together where there is agreement. You can't see the 5% as good faith disagreement, or even mistake. Nope. To you it is personal affront, malice of the worst kind, high treason against your theology. Thankfully, your numbers are small and shrinking as mature and sensible men recognize what is needed to make social, political, and judicial advances to our RKBA.

Charles

fixed it for ya piper as it sounds like a kettle ringing...oh an name calling again charles, quite immature of you don't you think...sigh!!

ipse

 

[Citizen]

Bringing up your monetary donation was beyond the pale. If you do not know that, and do not understand exactly why such a thing should never have been mentioned, you are more lacking in social skills and understanding that the most autistic engineering savant in Silicon Valley. Of course, such a gross lack of social understanding would explain mistaken belief that anarchy would be a better form for society than government.

Charles

Oh? Well if it so obvious, then it should be easy for you to explain.

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why it was OK for him to go around being needlessly antagonistic or insulting to potential helpers. Realize, he either had the donor list and knew who they were on OCDO, or didn't. If he knew, then he was deliberately disregarding their help and being needlessly antagonistic. If he didn't have the donor list or the connect to OCDO usernames, then he was being needlessly antagonistic and insulting to people who might have been helpers.

So, go ahead and explain to me why I should endure the needless antagonism and needling little insults of somebody I helped.

 

[deepdiver]

the Texas legislature is not removing restrictions but rather imposing further restrictions on the OC'g of the state's citizens to OC a firearm by 'making' the citizen get a privilege card if they wish to OC a handgun.

Very interesting perspective, solus .

I too think of it as an incremental removing of restrictions, initially only benefitting those with a CC license/permit but hopefully, as OC becomes more common, the license requirement is removed and OC is completely decriminalized.

I'm not sure how I follow your perspective though ... right now if you want to carry a handgun OC, the state says tough, NO. If this passes and you want you carry a handgun OC the state says, Ok, but get a CC license. I'm not sure that a licensing restriction/requirement for an activity could be argued as more restrictive than a flat prohibition of an activity. What am I missing?

 

[utbagpiper]

Oh? Well if it so obvious, then it should be easy for you to explain.

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why it was OK for him to go around being needlessly antagonistic or insulting to potential helpers. Realize, he either had the donor list and knew who they were on OCDO, or didn't. If he knew, then he was deliberately disregarding their help and being needlessly antagonistic. If he didn't have the donor list or the connect to OCDO usernames, then he was being needlessly antagonistic and insulting to people who might have been helpers.

So, go ahead and explain to me why I should endure the needless antagonism and needling little insults of somebody I helped.

A donation, freely given, is freely given. To bring it up again as some kind of chit to be cashed in, means it was never freely given--despite claims to the contrary--and was instead given with some intent of it creating some on-going obligation.

Make a loan, go into a business partnership, or even form a friendship and one may rightly have an expectation of an on-going obligation of some sorts. Ditto if help is given with expressly understood conditions as one might do for a child attending college.

But a free-will donation is a freewill donation. The donor should expect NOTHING in return; and the recipient should feel zero obligation. Any other arrangement is not a freewill donation, and if a donation was made under pretenses of being a donation when the donor really held some expectation of obligation, then the donor acted dishonestly; he imparted the money under fraud on his own part.

Quite simply, Citizen, you've demonstrated that you violated the NAP by acting fraudulently.

It is also boorish, rude, and uncouth.

Do you need further explanation? Are anarchists so opposed to any rules they are unable to deal even with voluntary social mores?

As for your supposed mistreatment at from skidmark, you might grow up and learn the difference between disagreement and actual insults or antagonism.

For example, you've repeatedly accused me of "disrespecting" you or not "treating [you] as an equal" because you dislike my "debating style". Such assertions are ludicrous and juvenile.

I would suggest you go attempt to redeem yourself by frankly admitting the gross social faux paus you've committed, and asking frankly for forgiveness. But with this post I see you've doubled down in justifying your conduct.

Good luck with that.

Charles

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I would suggest you go attempt to redeem yourself ... asking frankly for forgiveness.

Sure, the instant Skid frankly apologizes for needlessly being antagonistic and needlessly using insulting little barbs to not only myself, but everybody else he's done it, too.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Oh? Well if it so obvious, then it should be easy for you to explain.

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why it was OK for him to go around being needlessly antagonistic or insulting to potential helpers. Realize, he either had the donor list and knew who they were on OCDO, or didn't. If he knew, then he was deliberately disregarding their help and being needlessly antagonistic. If he didn't have the donor list or the connect to OCDO usernames, then he was being needlessly antagonistic and insulting to people who might have been helpers.

So, go ahead and explain to me why I should endure the needless antagonism and needling little insults of somebody I helped.

Don't waste your time, he is using your disagreement with Skid for his own pleasure. From this point on I will no longer address him directly, he lost that privilege. That does not mean he will silence me, he will just have to deal with his own rude behavior on his own.

Your problems with Skid are your own, and I will not stick my nose in. You are both adults, and can both work it out without the help of somebody who is trying to garner support for their war against the other party.

 

[utbagpiper]

Sure, the instant Skid frankly apologizes for needlessly being antagonistic and needlessly using insulting little barbs to not only myself, but everybody else he's done it, too.

I think you missed my point. And you didn't even bother to thank me for explaining basic manners nor the application of the NAP to you.

Should I be highly offended?

Some are always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Don't waste your time, he is using your disagreement with Skid for his own pleasure.

No. But I have no problem agreeing with someone when there is agreement, despite past disagreement, unlike some others it seems.

From this point on I will no longer address him directly, he lost that privilege. That does not mean he will silence me, he will just have to deal with his own rude behavior on his own.

I do hate losing privileges. Bad llama, bad.

It isn't quite as nice as being ignored, but I suppose will have to do.

... You are both adults, .

Assumes fact now is significant question given Citizen's conduct.

Charles

 

[solus]

Very interesting perspective, solus .

I too think of it as an incremental removing of restrictions, initially only benefitting those with a CC license/permit but hopefully, as OC becomes more common, the license requirement is removed and OC is completely decriminalized.

I'm not sure how I follow your perspective though ... right now if you want to carry a handgun OC, the state says tough, NO. If this passes and you want you carry a handgun OC the state says, Ok, but get a CC license. I'm not sure that a licensing restriction/requirement for an activity could be argued as more restrictive than a flat prohibition of an activity. What am I missing?

alas deep, in our hearts, we know from our own experience(s), these restrictions once placed on the books are neigh impossible to remove.

couple things come to mind...remember steath is pushing a gofund push to assist '...holding DPS accountable' where the DPS allegedly harassed OC'ers. now that the amendment preventing that type of harassing type of activity from LE apparently has been removed from the current legislation attaching OC to the privilege card. therefore even more Lonestar citizens who believe they have gone through the goat rope for the card and privilege to OC now face the prospect of even more harassment as LE ensure those OC'g have the card. bottom line this hasn't fixed anything, if you OC w/the card, you could be harassed, and w/o the card you could be harassed...how is is an improvement?

second it perpetrates a profit center for the state.

i do not expect a rise in the privilege card issuance nor a proliferation OC'g from the general public who already have their cards, but rather a spike in those type of individuals who are looking to incite through their blatant interactions with the police and looking to gain their 15 minutes of utube fame. i am afraid it will be much to do about nothing.

ipse

 

[FreeInAZ]

Snipped .....Don't waste your time, he is using your disagreement with Skid for his own pleasure. From this point on I will no longer address him directly, he lost that privilege. .

DING! DING! DING! "We have a winner ladies & gentlemen!!!" Finally, some here are learning not to feed the wildlife that typically lurk in the dark recesses of forum 'troll bridges'

:thumbsup:

 

[Citizen]

I think you missed my point. And you didn't even bother to thank me for explaining basic manners nor the application of the NAP to you.

Don't really understand the Non-Aggression Principle, do you? There was no aggression against Skid from me. How exactly are words physical force in this context?

 

[utbagpiper]

Don't really understand the Non-Aggression Principle, do you? There was no aggression against Skid from me. How exactly are words physical force in this context?

Most recognize the NAP to also cover fraud. Certainly you don't think it is ok to rob Granny of her life savings simply because the crook used fraud rather than physical force.

I aptly explained your use of fraud relative to a supposed "donation" but to which you demonstrably attached some on-going obligation.


Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

DING! DING! DING! "We have a winner ladies & gentlemen!!!" Finally, some here are learning not to feed the wildlife that typically lurk in the dark recesses of forum 'troll bridges'

:thumbsup:

I tried to treat him as just a misguided member, but it is clear he looks for an argument, and if one does not exist he creates one. I know charter boat captains who do not troll as well as he does.

 

[Citizen]

Most recognize the NAP to also cover fraud. Certainly you don't think it is ok to rob Granny of her life savings simply because the crook used fraud rather than physical force.

I aptly explained your use of fraud relative to a supposed "donation" but to which you demonstrably attached some on-going obligation.

Charles

<chuckle>

No you didn't aptly explain anything. You simply asserted, in defiance of all logic and probability, that I made those donations years ago planning to use them against a guy who at that time wasn't needlessly antagonistic or insulting toward me.

Moreover, you ignore that I expressly stated I had withheld slapping his face until pushed too far.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

I mean, really? Did you really think your nonsense assertion was an apt explanation? Really?

<chuckle>

 

[WalkingWolf]

<chuckle>

No you didn't aptly explain anything. You simply asserted, in defiance of all logic and probability, that I made those donations years ago planning to use them against a guy who at that time wasn't needlessly antagonistic or insulting toward me.

Moreover, you ignore that I expressly stated I had withheld slapping his face until pushed too far.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

I mean, really? Did you really think your nonsense assertion was an apt explanation? Really?

<chuckle>

YES he does! Starting or keeping a flame war going is one way to get people to read extremely boring postings. Stop falling for it, I am sure Skid is not falling for it. I have no doubt he sees what he is up to, and has enough integrity not to kiss up to him to get to you. As you can see it is getting very lonely for him around here, more and more members are tired of this folly.

 

[utbagpiper]

No you didn't aptly explain anything. You simply asserted, in defiance of all logic and probability, that I made those donations years ago planning to use them against a guy who at that time wasn't needlessly antagonistic or insulting toward me.

Moreover, you ignore that I expressly stated I had withheld slapping his face until pushed too far.

Whatever you think you intended years ago, you that you withheld "slapping his face" until he pushed too far means you have considered using it but didn't...until he really deserved it in your eyes.

Whether the fraud was at the time of donation, or in the act of presuming to change the terms since then, it is clear you deliberately pulled out your donation as a form of social chit against him.

That you have now tripled down in asserting that conduct was appropriate demonstrates you have not the slightest concept of social etiquette. He disagrees with you a few times and so you are entitled to bring up a years old anonymous donation as if it should prevent such disagreement. Boorish doesn't begin to describe such conduct.

But your latest catch-phrase of "do you make this up as you go along" is almost clever.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I think you guys are missing the fundamental perspective shift. The problem is the belief of those who wish to prohibit open carry, because the premise for their belief is inequality. Abolishment of the prohibition is part of the solution, as it institutionalizes liberty in our law, in contradiction to the identified problem. ETA but I appreciate the feedback

Sort of like when Paul was talking to the Greeks who believed in many gods....bringing it to common ground?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

deleted will refrain from replying to the dishonest windbag.

 

[solus]

Oh look, it's my pet troll coming to crap on another one of my threads. Bad troll! Go to kennel! Bad! *squirts with water*

i find it quite amazing stealth, the same name calling wasn't hurled at hover when he originally articulated the same words. tis a fascinating watching the true personalities emerge when members are challenged.

so stealth, can you show me where i miss misspoke which has caused you to have a hissy fit so your ego has lowered your mental age to playground rants of taunts and hurling 'nasty' names your parents told you not to use?

you yourself stated in post 14:

quote: It's been noted to me that it might help to provide context to the question.. unquote

quote: Sorry, I definitely should have provided context in the OP! unquote

ipse