To be fair, constitutional carry never stood much of a chance in the Lone Star State. Whether or not the [perfectly legal] demonstrations by “Chipotle Ninjas,” the “occupation” of legislator Pancho Nevárez’s office, and the thinly-veiled threats against legislators by Open Carry Tarrant County leader Kory Watkins moved the goal posts further away, permit-less open carry is DOA at the state house. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry kicked the last bit of sod into the grave with these comments [via texastribune.org] . . .
[Perry] said he prefers concealed handguns for “a more practical reason.”
“I don’t want the bad guys to know if I’m carrying,” he said. “I don’t want to be the first person shot if something’s going down.”
Well, good for you Rick! There are plenty of TTAG readers who agree with you re: concealed carry’s tactical advantages over open carry. The question is whether or not Americans should be able to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms without government infringement. Rick says no.
Perry said he was “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept,” adding that those who carry guns ought to be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”
“We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”
Well, there goes Perry’s support amongst the People of the Gun for his presidential aspirations – discounting the nose-holding vote factor. By the same token, say bye-bye to all hopes of Constitutional Carry for this session of the Texas legislature.
There’s good news: permitted open carry stands an excellent chance of making it to the Governor Abbott’s desk, who’s declared his intention to sign it. Stand by for our eventual series: Open Carrying in Austin. Should be fun!
He gives us privileges. Mighty white of him.
Amen brother
Why is nobody ripping on Perry for not exercising proper weapon handling, especially in front of the camera by not having his finger off the trigger? That’s a basic in a couple of areas that he clearly missed. (1) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, because…..ALL GUNS ARE LOADED. And (2) don’t look like a douche bag in front of a camera. You don’t scratch you ass, rub your balls, pick a booger and eat it, fart on a live mic, or stand like a clown with your finger on a trigger of a firearm.
We’re supposed to give this clown serious consideration?
Trigger discipline does appear to be an issue in the pic. And apparently muzzle discipline (not necessarily talking about the pic).
Where the Hell IS he? Looks like a city street in downtown Austin, waving a gun around? WTF? I would never again see the light of day.
Takes him out of the race, for me, and I liked him! I wonder if his attitude is the reason we never heard a suggestion of OC until he was on his way out.
If he can’t carry TX (which I doubt he could, after this), he is presidentially toast.
You know, I should add “If this is confirmed”, in there. I’ve been lied to before by antis.
Unless you live in Iowa or NH he was never going to be IN a race. Not going to go anywhere in Iowa at least. Again. Not all bad but a dope in largish field of better candidate. His only chance at anything is if the RINOs give up and the RINO duds and move microscopically to the right and adopt/mold Perry as their “conservativeish” candidate. Bushy3 and the fatboy aren’t likely to go anywhere in 16 so this may be an outside chance.
That is proper control of a single action without the hammer cocked. He probably just finished twirling it. Are you going to criticize the actors at a cowboy action competition?
http://youtu.be/gzvREaIJvG8
He is starting a Marathon. You objections regarding trigger safety are moot because he is in the process of firing a blank loaded pistol to start a race.
@PaulGL: Thanks for that, safety is a good and necessary thing, but we seem to be getting a lot of folks going off, well, half-cocked about some of the pics posted here.
“Why is nobody ripping on Perry for not exercising proper weapon handling, especially in front of the camera by not having his finger off the trigger?”
Yesterday I gave a SHOT show gun rep grief for having his finger practically glued to EVERY gun he handled on on camera, I was blown off with “No guns on the convention floor can fire” when the POINT was the totally casual way of his handling guns leads me believe he probably does that all the time.
I still think he has some Ron Jeremy DNA in him…
As far as I can tell, it’s a single action revolver. I carry one every day and have been proficient with one since childhood. Although cringe worthy in a PR photo, placement of his finger is fine.
I am not a smart man, and I know it doesn’t make his unsafe ha fling skills right, but isn’t that a single action revolver Making it a little less of a big deal
And how is the other 99% of us supposed to know he is starting a race? Yes I will criticize him because all I see is a douche bag pointing a firearm in a urban setting with his finger on the trigger. Perhaps there should be a caption under the photo that says: Rick Perry starting the blah blah race in Austin etc
Or be aware that about 99% of the time any of us pass judgment on anything there are important facts we don’t know.
It looks like a single action revolver. Even if it wasn’t a starter pistol and he wasn’t starting a race, his finger being there would be within the realm of proper handling for a single action revolver.
“We give…”
More evidence that Republicans and Texan pols are bluer than most want to admit.
Pretty sad when Texas legislature listens to an Ex-Governor….instead of the citizens of Texas. Move on Perry, you are old news, Move to Kalifornia……where you belong.
We use the term Blue Dog democrat to describe, a democrat with a voting, sponsoring, or supposed aire of, hmm, non-statist ideology, who tends to break from the statist/communist/progressive/socialist pack that are democrats.
The Rick Perry’s, The Mick Huckabees, the Chris Christies, the Bushes, the Pat McCrorys and Steve Troxlers need a need descriptor, beyond that of RINO.
Say…
Red Rat Republican? I dunno, come up with something catchy.
Well, that does it, equating the 2A with driving is a deal-killer for me. That’s what I don’t like about CC “permits” or “licenses”, that’s exactly the mentality it leads to. And yes, I expect Perry just shot down a large portion of his potentially most vocal support for whatever political future he might have in mind ,with that idiot remark.
He was the top of my hopefuls. Perry and Walker both have great financial and tax ideas and experience to run on. However, Equating carrying firearm to a driver’s license is a drop dead stop for me. I am not a single issue voter, but that is a deeply left point of view and it’s disconcerting to hear that come from a Texas Republican. Time to look a little harder a Scott Walker I guess.
I like Walker so far, haven’t seen much on RKBA, his section of the country tend to be grabbers regardless of party, at least to me. Christie for example. I gather Bush2 never actually cared about RKBA, simply promised to sign CC if the Leg passed it, which he did, to his credit. That is the LEAST we should look for, that any candidate not get in the way.
Here’s the thing with the drivers license thing. I don’t need a licence to buy own or drive a car. No background checks, no limitations on capacity or size. Nothing. What I do need a license for is operating a vehicle on public highways. That’s it. The comparison to guns even ignoring any constitutional arguments is flawed because there is no and has never been a license to operate a firearm. A CC permit is a permit to carry. A background check is a permit to buy. A registration for a gun is in no way the same as a registration for a car. In my fairly gun friendly town it is still illegal to discharge a firearm in public, a ccw dose not change that and lacking a cow dose not make a self defense use less legitimate. IMO if there was truly a licensing system and registry that paralleled the system for cars I would be happy to sign up! Imagine for the first time in history being able to “operate” a firearm in public for no more reason than you might have for taking a Sunday drive through town with no backlash from the law!
Yep. The widespread embracing of any license to bear arms leads to the wholesale exchange of the right for a privilege. It’s a disastrous trend for the nation and I hope more realize it.
The open carry demonstrations really hurt their potential for open pistol carry.
To the anti gunners, the open carry rifles “looks scary”
So let’s scare them some more and maybe they will be so scared of guns that they will have no choice but to allow us to open carry more guns!
The key to winning them over is getting them to trust you.
It’s like proving guns are safe by pointing it at someone’s kids and pulling the trigger. (I’ve seen this done! Twice!)
Stop acting like jerks with firearms!
The only jerk with a firearm here is… Rick Perry.
zing!
Actually, given his recent legal troubles, I’m not sure he can legally carry a firearm….
I’m really diggin’ Ted Cruz now.
Cruz
Walker
Huckabee
Huckabuck? Really?
Big +1000000 Michael. Too bad none of them stand a chance. Never was a big fan of Perry. Isn’t this pretty much what Dick Metcalf said to get excommunicated?
You are so right it’s exactly like pointing guns at people and pulling the trigger. Well, maybe, if you take away the “pointing” part and the “pulling the trigger” part. Still you nailed it! Our rights are far too precious to be exercised. We need to ice these babies down and take a few days off. You know to make everyone happy and make Mr.Perry sleep sound at night. Yes yes all of those things are what I worry over.
Exercising a right is great, but you can do it without smashing it into other peoples faces on a non stop daily basis.
Just like religious beliefs, it’s one thing to practice them, it’s anouther if you try to convert everyone around you to it.
Completely wrong comparison there. OCT was not doing the equivalent of forcing others to convert, not by a long shot. It was more like they were carrying obnoxiously large and ostentatious crucifixes in protest of the law of the land. That law being that if they wanted to carry convenient smaller crucifixes they had to both hide them from public view and ask for a permit from the government to do so. Or like sitting in a seat the law says you can’t, or like attempting to vote when the law says you can’t, or exposing more than your eyes when the law says you can’t. No freedom is won by appealing to your oppressors.
Exercising a right is great, but you can do it without smashing it into other peoples faces on a non stop daily basis.
Exercising the right to bear arms is not “smashing it into other people’s faces.” Good grief!
Just like religious beliefs, it’s one thing to practice them, it’s anouther if you try to convert everyone around you to it.
I take it from your statements that if someone practices or observes their religion in public, they are trying to “convert everyone around” them? I open carry all of the time in public and pray too. Does that mean I’m smashing my religion and my right to bear arms in everyone’s face each day?
And yet the man said… “I don’t want the bad guys to know if I’m carrying,” he said. “I don’t want to be the first person shot if something’s going down.” 😉
OMG yes. In some areas, Open Carrying in Austin might as well be Open Carrying in California.
That will be delightful.
Perry just handed me the shovel I needed to put some dirt on his seeking the Office of POTUS. If he can not observe his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution, he is just another RINO. A right should not be taxed. Infringed is clearly defined and the Government is out of control.
This open carry supporter is ready for the call to arms!
No legislation will ever address every situation. Will Hunters be required to conceal when they hunt? No way, not now not ever. I am a hunter, screw the carry permit concept.
Perry is a punk and needs to keep his ass in Texas. He should himself in the foot last time he ran with a Biden type misspeak. We have enough problems avoiding getting Bush-whacked with Pepe Bush running. Then again, maybe Perry can carry Ted Cruz’s briefcase.
We don’t want him in Texas either, but we certainly don’t want him in DC.
We put men on the moon in 1969. Let’s send Perry and Kory there now.
There are worse men on this planet than Rick Perry. Lets wait for it to stop raining before we rip the the leaking panels off the roof.
Rick Perry just lost any chance he ever had of getting my vote.
Rights are not a matter of preference, Governor. I would prefer you keep your pie hole shut about the manner in which other people exercise their right to keep and bear arms, but I recognize that you have a first amendment-protected right to shove your Texas-sized shoe in your mouth.
What part of shall not be infringed do you fail to understand, Governor?
Rights are not privileges, Governor. There is no natural, God-given, constitutionally protected right to operate a motor vehicle. There is, on the other hand, a natural, God-given, constitutionally protected right to keep and to bear arms – a right that derives from the fundamental right to life, and to defend one’s life.
The State does not give We The People the privilege to keep and bear arms; rather, We The People explicitly wrote into the constitution the denial of any authority by the State to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. We The People explicitly denied the State any authority regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms, specifically because of people like you, who either fail to recognize the difference between a right and a privilege, or else do understand that difference, and would attempt to use the power of the State to deny that right.
Small quibble. If natural rights actually exist then the right to travel freely and without restrictions must certainly be among them. Technology changes. When we first climded down from the trees or were created by a higher power(Choose which you prefer) we traveled on foot.
But now we have cars.
Freedom of travel is indeed a right; using an automobile for that travel is not.
Further, even if travel via automobile were construed to be a right, there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the government from regulating the practice, especially considering the quite valid claim that such regulation serves a compelling public interest.
Ahhh compelling government interests. Three words used repeatedly to violate the Constitutional rights of the American people.
Automobiles don’t pass the common usage test? If natural rights exist, and I have my doubts about that, then they should exist in spite of the latest technologies.
If the right to travel does not include latest technological advances, then why the right to speak, the right to bear and carry arms does?
The difference between driving and your 2A is the fact that driving is activity that puts people in danger every second when is exercised vs the passive carry of a gun. The best comparison will be between driving and shooting.
Also if you are driving without license and you are caught you will get a fine and that is all.
The right to travel is a natural un-enumerated right and can be exercised using any technology. It is regulated by State (not be fed) and it does so, because we the people delegated that to the State. I guess we can always take it back, however nothing explicitly prohibit the State from regulating it.
In regard to 2A shall not be infringed says all we need to know and that prohibits any government (fed or State) to mess with it.
Big difference.
“Also if you are driving without license and you are caught you will get a fine and that is all.”
Not in Florida.
Driving without a license will get you jail with repeated infractions.
+1..
Worthless, comparing drivers licensing to a Constitutional Amendment. He might as well join any one of the anti-gun groups and be their spokesman. And then continue to try and sell America the concept of your rights are “what I deem politically correct for me and my supporters.”
Amen to that. As I’ve said before, cars are private property (usually) in continuous operation on public property. That operation causes wear on public infrastructure which is partially offset by registration fees. Lanes lines need to be re-painted, potholes repaired, roadside garbage (which really irritates me) cleaned, stop lights maintained, etc.
Cars operated exclusively on private property need not be registered, insured, etc. In the same manner, guns are private property (usually) operated almost exclusively on private property. The government has no legitimate business “managing” my standard capacity 30 round mags that I use on private property.
I could be a libertarian without a whole lot of convincing.
Either: A) guns are like cars; or, B) they are not alike. Or, they are alike in some respects and not-alike in other respects. These are the possibilities. Maybe it’s worth-while toying with these ideas and see where we get with the Anti’s in the debate. (I hasten to say that I am not so deluded as to imagine that the Anti’s might change their opinions; they can’t. However, we might accomplish something with the uncommitted public by conducting an open exploration of these ideas.)
The 2A’s highest purpose – preservation of a free state – would be conserved if guns were like cars. That is, we have an unfettered right to keep as many arms of any kind on private property without a tax, registration or license. If the militia were called to muster the guns would be there because they would be little vulnerable to confiscation. If guns were like cars when operated on public property (roads, walkways, parks, forests) then they might be subject to licensing analogous to cars and their drivers. What might this mean?
Perhaps I might be obliged to register my carry gun(s); but, that doesn’t imply any obligation to register guns kept on private property. Guns are – under this supposition – like cars. I might be obliged to acquire a “license” (whatever that might mean) to carry on public property. A hunting license if I am hunting; a CCP if I am concealed-carrying; an “OCP” if I am open-carrying.
What might a “license” to carry mean? It could be anything. Some States require a hunter to take a hunter-safety course before being eligible to acquire a hunting license. (I don’t recall reading of any objections to this licensing). My late father told me that he never took a driver’s test in his entire life. He began driving at the age of 8. When Minnesota passed a driver’s license law he dutifully appeared at the court house where he was “examined” as follows: “Young man, do you know how to drive?” My father answered in the affirmative; whereupon, he was issued a license. Effectively, my father’s “license” was not a grant-of-grace by the State; rather, it was a registration of his permission to drive for the duration of his good-behavior as a driver. My Minnesota exam – some 40 years later – was more rigorous. Even so, it was not onerous. It required that I demonstrate competence and knowledge to a standard specified by a State agency. Just about anyone can pass a driver’s test. Just about any one can pass an NRA First Steps Pistol test. It’s debatable whether either examination makes the public any safer.
What does make us safer on the roads is the policing of licensed drivers and the revocation of the privilege of driving whether by a license revocation or a cancellation of insurance. What keeps us safer in the presence of guns is the self-policing of new-bees (and everyone for that matter) by our respected old-timers and RSOs. I.e., continuous demonstration of good-behavior. Whether the regulation of “prohibited persons” makes us safer can be debated.
So, Anti’s and legislators, would you consider the following deal? No regulation of guns kept on private property with registration of guns and licensing of bearers on public property?
There are two possible answers: No; and, Yes.
The Anti’s will say No, of course. They won’t settle for anything short of regulation of guns to the point of strangling the 2A entirely. Their highest purpose is the maintenance of a monopoly of force vested in the state. Such a debate would smoke-them-out in the public eye. The public would have to wake-up and recognize that what is sold as “common-sense” gun regulation is a death-march.
Legislators would be put on-the-spot. They would have to stand ready to ratchet-down the regulation of guns kept on private property (principally, the 4473 form retention period that serves as quasi-registration.) Then, we would consent to driver’s-license like licensing of public carry; i.e., Shall-Issue in 50 States, DC and the territories. If just one State/DC/territory balks at Shall-Issue then there is no-deal. One or more legislatures would (I expect) balk and refuse to adopt a Shall-Issue law. In such an outcome, our republican form of government would have spoken: Guns are NOT like cars after all! My license to drive is implicitly honored in 50 States, DC and the several territories; yet, my license-to-carry would – in this scenario – be denied by one or more legislatures.
IF – and to the extent – that the licensing of bearing-in-public were no more onerous than licensing of drivers, I would have no complaint. IF – and to the extent – that the suspension and revocation of a gun-bearing license were no more onerous than that for a driver’s license, I would have no complaint. What we would be left with is a debate over the PRINCIPLE of licensing (taxing or otherwise regulating) a Constitutional right.
The principle of regulating a Constitutional right is subject to debate by reasonable men. Taxing the right to vote was prohibited by Constitutional amendment; prior to this amendment, States were free to tax what we now consider a Constitutional “right”. By analogy, the principle of licensing (taxing or regulating) public arms bearing might have to be resolved by a new Constitutional amendment. Observe that guns and ammunition are subject to modest excise taxes; NFA firearms are subject to taxes intended originally to be onerous. The constitutionality of this taxing practice – too – might need to be resolved by a new amendment. Photo-ID as prerequisite to vote might need to be resolved by a new amendment.
I think I see a package of legislation for Congress. A collection of constitutional amendment proposals to resolve the issues of: Photo-ID for voters; taxing guns or ammunition; prohibiting regulation of keeping arms on private property while allowing licensing of public gun-bearing with strict scrutiny.
Facing such a package, Congress might see fit to pass a simple National Reciprocity bill instead.
You just set out the anti gun argument.
If you plan to use your gun in public then it should be registered, police patrolled, taxed, inspected, tracked with plates and serial numbers, must take a course and have a licence, etc.
Do you want more freedom or less?
Almost a grand slam Chip Bennett … although I do side with JWM about our unalieanable right to travel in any manner we choose.
Aside from that, bravo my friend. If you lived nearby I would buy you a coffee or beer or other beverage of your choosing.
Just a small correction: There are no god given rights, because there is no god, and there are no rights but the ones we grant ourselves. Think of it this way, if there were a god mighty enough to create a universe, and he gave humans the right to be armed, why does he allow America to be virtually the only country in which this right is relatively unfettered, and that being only in comparison to every other civilized country?
I’m not going to debate theology with you, especially not here.
Rights are God-given. Anything less justifies the actions of atheistic socialists in the last century, the death toll of which reached 8, if not 9, figures.
If a god grants rights, but men can take them away, then that god is puny, indeed.
Then who created the universe? You admit it would be a mighty feat.
America is unique because we recognized our rights granted by the creator.
Man doesn’t grant rights, he tries to prevent the free exercise of those rights in order to control other men.
To give man the authority to grant rights, gives him authority to rescind them. Believing in God is not required to believe in inalienable rights inherent in every human being.
No one created the universe. It, or the conditions for it to form existed always.
Wow! That explains everything!
Superstition explains nothing.
You can no more prove your faith than can I. But make no mistake about it, you only have faith.
On the contrary. I have a framework for understanding the workings of the universe that will never be betrayed by inconvenient facts.
@Vee, because God also gave man free will, the ability to think and to reason. And largely, man has squandered that ability. But not always.
Whether a right is God-given, or not, makes little practical difference; nor a legal difference. Those of us of the Jewdeo-Christian tradition believe that certain rights (speech, faith, self-defense) are God-given; others are not (e.g., grand-jury). In any case, enumerated rights have been adopted Constitutionally; and, these rights must be respected by the state (Federal, State and municipal) as a part of the social contract. No legislature, executive or even a simple majority of the People can lawfully annul these rights.
To make this point as respects the 2A, Congress has seen fit to make natural-born Americans “prohibited persons” if they renounce their US citizenship. Why do we not protest this denunciation of our God-given rights; rights guaranteed by our Constitution? The answer is – simply – because the Congress is FREE to defy God’s will (as we see it) because the Constitution guarantees the right to arms only to “the People”. By a renunciation of citizenship, a natural-born American forfeits this right. Congress is wrong – morally – but nevertheless its act is Constitutional.
Our problem is that a Constitutionally guaranteed right hangs by a thread if not supported by a simple majority of the voters. Think of all the rights violations suffered by minorities from the Reconstruction era through the Civil Rights era; a span of a full century. Chief Justice Taney’s infamous words: “. . . [negros] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect . . . ” prevailed until at least a simple majority of voters realized a change of heart.
Let’s concentrate on the practical legal problem: maintaining the support of enough voters for the 2A right to enjoy respect by our legislatures and executives.
So, on the opinion of a former governor, suddenly there’s no chance? Rick Perry isn’t in charge, and nothing has been voted on in the legislature.
No kidding. Forgive the (potentially) ignorant question, but how is the *former* governor killing constitutional carry / open carry? Isn’t Abbott the current governor? What are his thoughts?
The two open carry bills that Abbott fast-tracked are both permitted carry bills.
Ah. Still way better than CA, though.
All Abbott ever committed to was permitted “open carry”, from the get-go. If a “constitutional carry” bill landed on his desk he might sign it, but all he’s ever actually plumped for is carry with a permit. that’s why I never got too excited about it. But any loosening of unconstitutional restrictions is better than none, and most certainly better than more restrictions, which is what we would have gotten from Ms Windy
Perry had norging to do with it. No one was pushing constitutional carry. Abbot does not want constitutional carry and neither does the state legislature. Leave it to a Yankee transplant to get Texas politics wrong.
I resemble that remark! Plenty of voters were pushing for Constitutional Carry. Doesn’t that count? And one such bill was introduced.
Austin, the armpit of Texas. Or is it the crabs ridden crotch of Texas? Either works.
Move to Del Rio or Laredo for a few years and then try to repeat that.
…said Lawrence of Lalaland.
You’re a moron.
Larry berry….please….
Oh good grief. Are the Repugnics going to give us ANYONE worth voting for??? I’ve voted in every presidential election since I was 18 (1978) and most of the in between elections. But I think I’ve had enough. Both parties are the same as far as I can tell, and that includes the useless Supreme Court Justices they’ve been nominating for the last 16 years. I really have a bad case of “what’s the use”…
I’m still supporting Rand Paul and Scott Walker. They are both pretty solid on gun rights, lower taxes, smaller government, balanced budgets, repealing Obamacare, and freedom in general.
If elected, Scott Walker would be the first President elected since Harry Truman in 1948 not to hold a college degree. Truman himself was an oddity at that time, being the first not to hold a degree since perhaps the 19th century.
Now, in fairness, Walker is only about a year shy of his undergraduate degree, having dropped out to get a job when he was younger. He’s mentioned going back to finish up, but I don’t know how viable that is, given that credits usually are only valid toward a degree if earned within a certain time frame, say, ten years or so. And let’s be brutally honest: some of the greatest fools we’ve each known in our personal and professional lives, as well as who’ve been President, hold college degrees. Sometimes, multiple degrees from the most prestigious of universities. So let’s not place too much stock in that.
Still, it seems strangely out of place for a President not to have graduated college. If nothing else, there’s that lack of shared experience of a major life accomplishment. In his case, it wouldn’t cost him my support, per se, but it’s a resume gap that does pop up in my mind when I consider his candidacy.
Are you saying that he did not complete multiple years of liberal indoctrination? Sounds to me like this guy has possibilities.
Are you claiming that the current POTUS actually graduated from a college? You know, like *earned* a degree in anything? As I understand it he was lucky to finish high school with fantastically average grades.
Perhaps. Although, if you’ve been raised properly by your parents, you have enough swifts about you to endure even a liberal bastion and get a quality education without succumbing to indoctrination. Some of these places are bad, really bad, but c’mon, they’re not gulag re-education camps. College does expose you to an awful lot of ideas and arguments, even poorly structured ones, that you can experiment with, deconstruct, reconstruct, and counter. There’s a lot of blather on a college campus, but there’s also much value, too. You get out of it what you want to get out of it, which depends as much on the student’s intentions as the school’s.
Walker’s college is Marquette University in Milwaukee. I’m not familiar with it, myself, but it ranks #311 out of 880 colleges ranked by niche.com for liberalism. Their methodology is outlined on their site, but basically it’s a poll of 50,000 students at those 880 schools self-identifying their political leanings. I’d guess, and it is mostly just a guess, that it’s about as liberal as a typical college, which is to say more so than most other institutions in our society, but probably not suffocatingly so.
If Walker can demonstrate serious thinking, a capacity to discern important patterns and glean useful insights from complex interconnections, and craft sustainable solutions to problems, then he’ll have demonstrated what only a minority of college graduates can, anyway. So a degree won’t matter as long as he has the skills a degree is supposed to represent.
Larry, I wouldn’t vouch for Obama’s diplomas any more than I would his birth certificate! Not saying yea or nay either way, because I don’t know, just that I don’t trust anything out of him and wouldn’t go out on a limb for the guy.
Both Rand and his father are HORRIBLE on foreign policy though. Isolationism was a bad idea before the world wars and is a bad idea now. Yeah, it’s expensive to be the world police, but if we aren’t the ones doing it, nobody will. NATO is a joke and can’t field actual soldiers, Russia would rather take over the world than police it, and China isn’t interested.
R* Paul’s idea is just to sit back and do nothing while large groups of horrible people do unimaginable things because stopping those horrible people makes them our enemies. Here’s the shocking news: They already were our enemies!
I’m not a fan.
Personally, I’m thinking of using my write in to simply vote “no.”
I can’t vote for Perry. He’s a mormon, and if he’s willing to believe that crap, he’s simply not enough of a critical thinker for me. That and the wife would murder me for voting for anyone who rides with a dog on the roof of his car. She’s an animal rescuer and I can’t think of a time she’s been more angry at a politician than when she read that story.
I can’t vote for Bush simply because his name is a boat anchor. Personally, I liked his brother, but it looks like we’ll be facing Hillary “What difference does it make” Clinton, and a large portion of the country will vote for her over Bush III even if the tape of her laughing at the thought of getting rapists off makes it’s way to the mainstream.
Christie is actually a democrat and a thug. He’d stab his mother in the liver if it gave him more power. Not interested.
Palin is a joke, Jindal can’t escape the south, Carson can’t win the south, snf Graham is just a dork. Unless Kalashnikov comes back to life with a us citizenship somehow, I just don’t see myself giving enough of a crap to vote for anyone who’s actually thinking about running.
Rick Perry is not a Mormon, you’re thinking of Romney. The dog story was also Romney.
Paul and Christy just shot themselves on the vaccination issue. They’re out.
You want fair tax and pro gun, you have to go with Cruz, or Huckabee.
I don’t think he will run but the guy that fires me up is Allen West.
You meant Romney, not Perry, I take it. Perry isn’t a Mormon, and wasn’t involved in any made-up controversy about carrying a dog in a dog carrier (having seen dozens of dogs leaning out of pickup-truck beds while zooming down the highway, that was pretty thin gruel, controversy-wise, IMO).
I could go for West!
Probably best that you sit this one out.
That must be a pearl handled Colt he’s waving around.
One might even say he’s clutching those pearls?
“Pearl handled pistols are for sleazy pimps in New Orleans whorehouses.” Something to that effect was said by George Patton. Who carried ivory handled pistols.
So much for “Let’s just hope that former Texas Governor Rick Perry’s the next President of the United States”, eh, Robert?
Perry was an empty suit as Governor and proved it during his aborted “Ooops!” presidential campaign. All hat and no cattle, as we say ’round these parts. He really is dumb as a box of rocks. This complete and utter lightweight has had this charmed and accidental career in politics that’s lifted him like gossamer in the breeze. Meanwhile he views himself as some majestic hawk masterfully riding a thermal.
Rick Perry was a Texas Democrat state legislator back in the 1980s. He actually endorsed Al Gore’s also-aborted 1988 presidential candidacy. It was only when Texas started heavily trending red in the early 1990s that ol’ opportunistic Perry jumped ship and hopped on the GOP bandwagon, to mix metaphors. Pure. Pol.
That’s about the best summary of Perry I’ve seen. It should be his Wikipedia entry.
You hit the nail on the head. He’s not particularly intelligent, and he’s a pure political animal. Anyone who expected him to be a 2A “true believer” hasn’t been paying very close attention.
Our “betters” speak.
“I’ll continue to have my armed body guards that can go into any GFZ, my private schools for my children guarded by armed men with PDW’s; ie- standard capacity hand guns and M-4’s with thirty rnd. magazines; but for all you useless eaters and breeders; go suck eggs”.
Perry carries his own heat, I’ll give him that. But again, once they start equating the right to bear arms with the privilege of driving cars, they have lost me. It’s not a difficult concept, the courts have been affirming the difference for decades, the only reason to do it is deception.
He might throw his had in the ring, but the republicans recognized their party’s presidential-nomination process was broken with the loss of Mitt Romney. They won’t take a chance with Perry. Dem have what, Hillibeast? Christie? The republicans are going to bring a republican star to the table, not a washed out controversial nitwit.
They want to win, not lose again. They rode the wave of victory last election and that ride isn’t going to be wasted on Perry.
I’m not so sure you can teach an old dog a new trick.
The money is still going with the establishment. Bush is getting all the support from the beltway. The recent victories are grass roots victories and yet there has been zero acknowledgement from the GOP of this fact.
The intelligentsia, Krauthammer, Medved, et al still don’t get it. Michael Medved says Conservative voters have shown up at the polls in increasing numbers since 2004 and Romney received more support than McCain. He blames low independent turnout for the losses, yet in the same breath claims we need to continue to run moderates if we are to win the Presidency. WHAT?!
My take is, if you run a RINO, Conservatives hold their nose and vote but the independents don’t care to vote because they see both candidates as acceptable.
How about a new strategy of running a Constitutional Conservative (AKA right wing nut) and force the indies to choose. Some of them will go to the dark side for sure but I believe we will pick up far more on the Conservative side. We just have to show that it matters.
Like Bill Whittle says, we can’t be ashamed of our message.
Cut out the PCBS. Stop walking on eggshells. Stop worrying about offending Liberals, environmentalists, atheists, illegal immigrants, unions, the Bar Association, gays, The Nation of Islam, blacks, women, Pro Choice, Code Pink, feminists, Hispanics, or any special interest. I’m not saying to antagonize any group. But avoid all false efforts to pander to them.
Stay on topic with fundamental Conservative principles.
Lower taxes
Tax reform
Economic growth through less regulation
Decentralized Government on everything not national defense related, eg, education
Take National debt seriously
Rather than shutting down the Government (which I don’t think is a bad thing), shut down specific parts permanently: DEA, ATF, DOE, IRS…….etc Hey, a guy can dream.
Well, you pretty much mirrored *MY* dream!
Concealed carry offers no advantage… Only pretenders who get off on sneaking about with a hidden gun try , and fail, to support this argument on ever occasion it is presented.
Open carry PREVENTS. Conceald Carry doesn’t. It can’t. Out of sight, out of mind. Duh.
Be the first one attacked? So, a hidden gun taht nobody knows is there, you can whip that out and scare them off or shoot them. So, bad guys are not happy about you having a gun… But if they see it on you, well, it’s like a magnet and they come right after you… Not only does this defy it’s own logic, it’s also never, ever, not even one time, ever hapened…. Becasue it doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t happen becasue it doesn’t make sense… Same reason I’ve never jumped off my roof, flapped my arms and flown away… Reality just doens’t work that way.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Especially when the cure invovles discharging a firearm in a public place… I’d rather just advertise the fact that I have a gun, not wait until it’s too late and I have to dig out out of cover and shoot it in a public place…
Does this count as part of never? http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practicing-open-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/
I would say it doesn’t really count since it came out later the gun wasn’t loaded. Bringing an unloaded gun to a gunfight is probably less useful than bringing a knife to a gunfight.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/dean-weingarten/gun-stolen-open-carrier-wasnt-loaded-required-law/
Not really, the guy wasn’t “open carrying” his gun, he was showing it off to someone–a stranger, I think, that he met in a public place at 4AM. IIRC, the gun was also unloaded.
I remember you making this assertion after Deans blog on it.
Two things –
I suppose that he could have been lying about how he had been carrying the weapon since he didn’t have a CCW yet. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/10/another-unicorn-open-carrier-robbed-by.html , but it is clear that the robber knew that he had a gun.
The robber probably had know way of knowing it wasn’t loaded. It still should have been a magical deterrent according to Dustin’s implication.
If he was showing it to someone, he wasn’t presenting it as in a self-defense situation, nor was he carrying it ready to deploy. I don’t know exactly how he was holding it when the bad guy got the drop on him, but it is pretty clear that he was not “carrying” in the sense of someone openly carrying a gun as a self-defense measure and maintaining a defense-ready posture. So no, I’m not gonna count that as a random criminal specifically targeting a random open-carrier because he sees the gun. And that’s putting aside the fact that the whole situation smells of a set-up from the get-go.
I’ll buy that as a reasonable position.
Dean said that there had been two open carriers robbed in his article. I don’t know what the second one was. Do you?
Well, to be fair, the article says open carry twice in the first sentence.
The two cops in New York were assassinated while open carrying. I know, they’re cops, so it’s all different. Is it, though? The two cops at the CiCi’s pizza place in Nevada were murdered point blank, too; also the only people in the room open carrying. Then across the street at the Walmart, the concealed carrier cleared leather and moved to confront the male of the murderous pair. At that point, he was essentially open carrying and the female of the duo murdered him and nobody else in the Walmart.
I get the arguments on both sides and there are strong points for both. Whether to OC or CC comes down to the actual risks you face, your perceptions of those risks, your relative ability to present your sidearm from either carry option, and your personal preference. None of those variables add up to a one size fits all solution. So I would advise anyone contemplating the OC vs. CC debate to listen up, read up, think hard and assess their own situation and what would work for them.
Really, the only absolute in that debate, is that the underlying right to open carry is your own. Decisions and debates about whether to do so are, well, debatable.
That Walmart case should have gone differently. I would have either stayed out or, if he looked actually dangerous, drawn and fired, then instantly checked for accomplices. At least one of them would be down, not a clean getaway. And yes, I mean shot him in the back. Warnings are for suckers.
The cops weren’t chosen because they were carrying guns. They were chosen because they were cops. Not really an apt example. Wal-Mart guy–well, not really, he was CCing until he drew down. That’s not going after someone OCing, that’s going after someone who is threatening your partner. Not quite the same I think.
And yet, the NY assassin didn’t go after unarmed meter maids? Neither did he shoot any non-sworn employees of NYOD. Nope, not buying it. Guns = power. I get, and even acknowledged, that it’s not exactly the same as targeting an OCer along the way to another crime. Still, the fact remains that they did target openly armed people, people with lethal firepower, because of that power, and that’s the underlying principle you’re missing.
Same with the Boston bombers: they targeted that cop specifically because of the firearm. In that case, he had a weapon they wanted. Had a non-cop OCer been available, they’d have targted him, because of the firearm.
In Walmart, I already said the CCer became an OCer once he drew. It’s that visible firearm which ipso facto is the threat to the partner, even more than his proximity to or movement toward that partner. The proof? Other shoppers were closer to the partner and in that instant their movements could just as easily been interpreted as action against him. And yet, only the now-OCer was shot.
It’s the firearm that transformed him into not simply a threat, but a credible threat, and that’s why he was immediately shot. That’s the underlying principle. Ignoring the underlying principles and their applicability, while awaiting picture perfect examples, is disingenuous.
the CCer became an OCer once he drew
It’s the firearm that transformed him into not simply a threat, but a credible threat,
Perhaps a small point or perhaps not, drawn handgun =/= open carry. They represent whole different threat levels. Would they have shot the gun bearing victim if he was merely open carrying? Perhaps or perhaps not. Once the handgun was in is hand, it wasn’t a case of open or concealed carry since it was a drawn weapon posing an immediate threat to one of the assailants. We will never really know if she would’ve ignored him if he had been carrying openly, hadn’t drawn, and instead headed out of the store like just about everyone else. We also won’t ever know if he would’ve been shot anyway just for being there between them unarmed as his presence alone would’ve posed a degree of threat to them and their plan.
because of that power,
Had a non-cop OCer been available, they’d have targted him, because of the firearm.
These are still only your assumptions. Although you make a compelling case, they are not proven.
It’s the firearm that transformed him into not simply a threat, but a credible threat, and that’s why he was immediately shot.
A drawn firearm. It doesn’t equate with open carry. You are drawing a conclusion about OC without enough data, IMHO.
Other shoppers were closer to the partner and in that instant their movements could just as easily been interpreted as action against him.
I missed this the first time. Yeah, if she ignored other people closer to her and him then it’s a good bet that it was the drawn firearm.
No, Jonathan, he didn’t go after unarmed meter maids, because unarmed meter maids didn’t shoot Michael Brown or [allegedly] choke out Eric Garner. C’mon, he was after cops, not OCer’s who just happened to be cops. I get that he was not deterred by the fact that they had firearms, but they were specifically targeted because they were cops like the ones that did Brown in, by an obvious mental case. I’m not going to say that trying to stretch that incident into an example of run-of-the-mill criminals particularly targeting OCers is “disingenuous”, but I will say it is mistaken. And if any CCer becomes an OCer if he/she happens to have to present their firearm–then the only point to carrying a gun is if you are ready to OC at some point. I’m not seeing how that militates against OC.
Dustin, advantage or no is a question. The fact that the govt has no authority to make that decision for you or me, either one, is not a question. And of course someone may steal your gun if it is exposed, or if it’s concealed and he is mugging you at the time, he can steal my 18K Rolex, too. That has nothing to do with anything, especially discussion of unconstitutional laws.
Precisely. It doesn’t matter whether Perry likes CC or OC. The point of the article is that he intimated that carrying is a “privilege” extended to you by the state. BZZZZZT! Wrong answer, Rick! Very wrong answer.
So much for Texas being the “bastion” of gun rights. I’ll keep my consititutional carry thank you very much.
Seriously though, Lost all hope during the 12 republican “debates” and Perry ranked right up there with Palin, The real reason McCain lost in 08.
I’m gonna laugh my ass off when a GOP president gets elected and promptly bans assault rifles. Course they have to not self destruct like they did during the 2012 run up.
they’ve been pandering to people willing to believe them for years. They have no intention of protecting gun rights, they just use you just like they use fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and ‘pro-life’ advocates.
Anything to get in office, fuck you when they’re in it.
That might happen, but I’m not gonna stand on one foot waiting for it. I seriously don’t see how anybody can read the news with any kind of comprehension and continue to believe that there is no difference between national R’s and national D’s vis-à-vis guns.
☑ “D” – condemn some of our rights to execution by firing squad and the rest to life imprisonment.
☑ “R” – condemn some of our rights to life imprisonment and the rest to execution by firing squad.
Definitely different, but neither have our interests in mind.
Perry for President in 1916 !
Former Governor takea s more centrist position on controversial topic. I think his aspirations are clear…
“Well, there goes Perry’s support amongst the People of the Gun for his presidential aspirations – discounting the nose-holding vote factor.”
Somehow I suspect that he’ll get plenty of support if paired against Clinton. There is no discounting of the nose-holding factor.
yep–lotta that nose-holding going on. Perry might not expand recognition of the RKBA, but Clinton will go out of her way to contract it with yet another “assault weapons” ban and who knows what else.
It’s the slippery slope in action! We will be presented with gradually sh*ttier candidate pairs until we no longer have to worry about protecting our rights, because we won’t have any left.
Perry will never get the nomination, for the same reasons he didn’t get it last time.
He isn’t credible. Conservatives don’t believe he’s a conservative. It’s not just firearms, but illegal aliens, too. He’s in favor of amnesty. He’s in favor of in-state tuition for illegal who shouldn’t even be in the country. He scolded conservatives for having “no heart” if we don’t support freebies for illegals. He also has his own vaccination problem: mandating HPV vaccinations. That’s different from measles, because it’s not readily transmitted from an infected person to the general population, and it involves the reproductive organs of very young girls. Quite a taboo topic among conservatives.
He isn’t effective. So-called moderates won’t find any accomplishments of his to hang their hat on. The best he’s done is not screw things up too badly in Texas. That’s nice, in a state that’s already well run and where the Governor, by quirky state constitution, is a relatively weak office to begin with. However, that’s nowhere near enough in a President and in a country, where massive problems needs immediate and imaginative assiduity.
And Democrat crossover appeal? Zilch. Liberals are going to view him as local yokel Aggie with outsized ambitions and no business being on the stage.
Hey Rick STFU and MYODB !!!!!!!!!
Really! While I agree with his preferences, constitutional rights aren’t dictated by Rick Perry’s preferences. Hell we even have permitless open carry in PA, STFU Rick.
I didn’t actually catch Perry arguing against the legalization of OC (permitted), just that he didn’t choose that method. I don’t agree with the permitting, either, but he seems to be being run down here for opposing legalization at all.
re: Cars vs. Guns False equivalence much?
A CHL/CWP/LTC/whatever doesn’t give you the right to USE a gun in public whenever you want. For that you need to go to the police academy.
Police academies give rights?
And another RINO outs himself…
Driving is a privilege.
2A, however, confers a RIGHT.
Perry: “Same thing!”
Naw, Rick, it ain’t.
TX is not going to allow anyone to carry a gun without first getting an expensive permit. TX doesn’t have a state income tax, you see, and they’ve gotta pay for all that stuff somehow. So instead they make it up with other random fees and the like–vehicle registrations, property taxes, and stuff like CC permits. Constitutional Carry basically means TX loses out on a big chunk of revenue, and I’ve never known a politician to kill a tax willingly.
I kinda doubt TX breaks even on CC licenses, I recall during the runup there were a lot of people trying to make sure it did not. As it should be. If the majority of citizens insist on licensing, they should be paying for that licensing.
I dunno, when I was doing DL hearings, DPS was reminding their operatives that every successful suspension meant a $100 reinstatement fee. I expect they feel the same way about the CHL fees.
What is it now, $45 every 5 years? Rumors of that going to 10 years? I’m not thinking it’s a big moneymaker, but then I don’t know how much the state spends on a renewal, either. Shoot, I just sent off a check for $65 for the state to send me a window sticker for a car, good for ONE year, essentially no other processing cost.
Personally, I’m not happy about paying a fee for a State CCP as a matter of principle. However, in PA I pay only $21 and there is no training requirement. Not bad enough to complain about.
It occurs to me that – tactically – paying substantial (but not excessive) fees to States can serve our interests in promoting Shall-Issue. PA doesn’t make a profit on $21. States that charge $300 are gouging us on a Constitutional right, at which rate, I object. Now, consider those States that charge about $100 or so. Assuming they make $80 profit, gun-rights people are supporting the State’s budget deficit; i.e., they are valuable to that State’s politicians. FL and UT actively promote sales of permits to out-of-stater’s; revenue lost by States that charge more or won’t-issue (to their own citizens or to residents of other States). Generally speaking, competition and profit are social “goods” in my opinion.
I doubt that any State’s legislature can be “bought” by the profit from selling CCPs. Nevertheless, at the margin, if profits from CCPs tip a few legislators’ votes our way that’s good for the 2A. The more States with Shall-Issue and the more States solidly behind Shall-Issue the stronger the support for the 2A.
If-and-when there is uncontested support for the 2A we can then take up a vigorous objection on principle to excessive (if any) charges for a CCP. We can cite the Constitutional amendment prohibiting the poll tax as president.
Constitutional carry dead because of former Governor Perry? You’ve got some serious issues if you actually believe that.
When the open carry obsessed squirrels in Texas go on off and obsess even further about so called “constitutional carry”, it’s obvious they’re either completely ignorant of or in complete denial of the power vested in the Legislature by Section 23, Bill of Rights, Constitution of the State of Texas, which was adopted on February 15, 1876.
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
The Texas Legislature is vested with Constitutional authority to regulate the carrying or “wearing of arms”. There is no Federal or State case law that interprets the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Section 23 of the Texas to mean that citizens have a right to carry or “wear” firearms anywhere, anytime, in any manner they choose with no restrictions. That has never been the law and never will be the law in Texas. No amount of preaching to the choir or threats of murder and insurrection from the open carry obsessed or squirrels like Kory Watkins and C.J. Grisham is going to change that.
Texas is pro gun and has common sense firearm laws with few restrictions on carry and possession of handguns, rifles, and shotguns, that will never change. If Texas adopts open carry, that’s fine, if not, that’s fine as well. If the Legislature one day adopts more restrictions, you can bet it will be a reaction to the in your face brandishing of long guns by idiot activist groups like Open Carry Tarrant County and the New Black Panther Party.
While there are ALOT of things I believe Rick Perry is wrong about, he is right about the practicality of concealed handguns. In all but the rarest limited circumstances, it defies common sense to openly display a firearm and cede any possible tactical advantage by giving a criminal predator the heads up of who is armed and who is not.
If any Open Carry legislation actually survives this 84th session in Texas to become law, I predict little will change. Most folks who actually carry a firearm for defensive purposes will continue to carry concealed, and a relatively small number of folks lacking common sense will opt for open carry. Open carry in rural areas won’t be a big deal, but there will be few locations in business or urban areas that will allow open carry on private property. The only change of any significance is that armed common sense challenged folks will be easy to identify and observe.
Yo, Ted, I can read. Regardless of case law or other BS, the 2A CLEARLY AND UNEQUVOCALLY states 1. Keep and BEAR, and 2. Shall not be infringed. Using fancy word games and tricks and dodges does not change 2A, and I have not seen anyone try to amend it to ALLOW infringement.
Fact is, to someone who can read, 2A is the only one of the BoR which prohibits states from enacting their own rules, the others restrict the Fed govt only. 1A, for example, really makes that clear by stating “CONGRESS shall make no law”, leaving it quite obvious it intended to allow, for example, Utah to declare Mormon as the state religion, and allow polygamy. Somehow we have been tricked into allowing the status of these BoR items to be completely reversed.
Well Larry if that’s the case, I wouldn’t even bother worrying about those pesky federal and state statutes, just ignore them, and if authorities ever dare to question your command of constitutional law, you should “CLEARLY AND UNEQUVOCALLY” set the police, prosecutor, judge, jury, and your defense attorney straight in the courtroom with that compelling Kings X 2nd amendment argument. If that doesn’t work you can always fall back on plan B and go with Kory Watkins inspired murder and insurrection threats to overcome the rule of law.
Smart mouth you got there. If such ever comes to pass, I won’t be worrying about judge, prosecutor, or anyone else except the JURY!!! And, regardless of your smart mouth, they can decide the TX constitution and those particular laws are BULLSHIT, and say “not guilty”, and it’s over. If not, you can pay the taxes to feed me and house me for however long. Enjoy your slavery, or learn to read.
@LarryinTX: Don’t waste your time and save your blood pressure by not responding to the troll known as Ted Unlis(ted). I believe he might be a long standing Topix troll. Every now and again, I forget and respond to some of the nonsense but leaving Ted in that little corner by himself works best. 😉
“I won’t be worrying about judge, prosecutor, or anyone else except the JURY!!!” You might find such a shallow argument comforting in your world Larry, but good luck with that in the real world. That sort of delusional bluster sure worked well for C.J. Grisham when a Bell County Jury found his dumb@$$ guilty.
he is right about the practicality of concealed handguns. In all but the rarest limited circumstances, it defies common sense to openly display a firearm and cede any possible tactical advantage by giving a criminal predator the heads up of who is armed and who is not.
😀
Oh wait, you were serious?
ROTFLMAO!
There you go again John, it’s been a while since you last response. The similarities of ignorance and bluster by the open carry obsessed who are completely consumed and uncontrollably obsessed with the Constitutional Carry Crusade and unstable fringe of society we know as the Sovereign Citizen Movement is striking. If nothing else John, you are predictable. How much back and forth this time before you once again vow to never respond?
Lol, Sovereign citizen’s movement.
“These theorems are logically induced so they are true. No matter they are induced from axioms that I made up and others don’t agree with.”
100% correct logic can lead to a wrong or pointless conclusion if the initial axioms are wrong or in dispute. Correct logic leading to a conclusion doesn’t prove the truth of the starting axioms either. Sovereign citizen’s debate trick is they confine debate to the logic used to induce the conclusions and either avoid debating the axioms (simply defining them as “true”, asserting “this is the reality I choose to argue in, where I am right”), or make a circular argument to pretend to prove the axioms. It is rhetoric without substance, logic used like a stunt or magic trick meant to back people off debate of the axioms or exhaust them from bothering to.
Hey Don, you realize those tactics are taught in debate classes, right? I have never figured out the value of a class which deliberately teaches people to deceive others.
Ironically, there is great value in such a class that “. . . a class which deliberately teaches people to deceive others.” It should be a mandatory component of a mandatory civics class taught for many years and as early as possible.
A small percentage of the population has some natural talent for deception and for political control. We call this segment “politicians”. The majority of us shun the dishonorable practice of politics. And so, we the majority are ill prepared to exercise our civic voting duty at the ballot box and in the public square. We are led as sheep not by a good shepherd; but, rather, by a bad shepherd interested only in sheering us and ultimately – when we can no longer produce wool profitably – then to sell us for slaughter.
These techniques should be taught not with the intention of propagating the practice of deceit but instead to prepare children to tune their BS-detectors. Just as we teach our sons the techniques of proper and improper use of guns not to make criminals but to prepare them for their civic duty whether in the military or militia.
Oh come on now John!. Give us a scenario when it is tactically advantageous to open carry, let’s make it interesting and use some high crime city in Ohio as an example. How about CLEVELAND? Why not? How exactly do you benefit tactically in Cleveland while outnumbered in a neighborhood teaming with criminal predators that you have no way of identifying, how many of them there might be, and since they always conceal their weapons, no way of knowing which of them is armed, but they all know you’re packing because you’ve got your favorite high cap semi-auto pistol proudly displayed in that holster on your hip along with two mags in the mag pouches. How exactly does that work John? Are you depending on the deterrent effect? Maybe opt to try and find a way so none of them can see your armed and then get the hell out of that neighborhood? Tactics used during the Battle at Rorke’s Drift? Just curious John because I never want to pass up the chance to learn something new.
This debate – whether OC is tactical in the context of carry-as-a-right – is foolish! Why is any Person-of-the-Gun engaging in it?
Some speech, some printed arguments, are tactically imprudent. Do we engage in a debate as to one’s right to speak/print remarks that are poor tactics? To do so would cloud the issue of rights. To debate tactics of speech/press is perfectly fine; but, it’s a separate debate. Likewise, OC/CC is a separate debate from carry rights.
The community of PotG is divided on the relative merits of OC vs. CC. We should be alert, from this fact, that the canons (pardon the pun) of armed tactics are not yet closed. (They will never be closed.) It is highly likely that there are cases where OC is tactically superior.
The Idaho mother’s tragedy inspired one such thought. Perhaps women escorting children should OC for tactical reasons. The first anti-OC argument – ‘Shoot me first!’ falls apart. No bad-guy would be crazy enough to shoot a woman escorting children; to do so would simply draw fire from others (if not from her). A woman escorting children would not be so foolish to initiate fire thereby drawing fire from a bad-guy. She would only return fire if her children were threatened by fire first. The ‘tactical’ argument simply reverses in this particular context.
Women – especially those escorting children – have holster issues we men don’t much think of. Their clothing doesn’t lend itself well to CC; and their draw is more inhibited from a CC holster. If we had a rational social attitude toward carry it ought to be that women should be encourage to OC and men to CC. Women OC’ing would not frighten either the horses or the squeamish; particularly women OC’ing while escorting children. Some men, by their appearance, might frighten the squeamish (albeit not the horses); so, let’s encourage these to CC so the bad guys can’t tell whether their chosen venue happens to be gun-free. Men waring suits, clerical collars, hunting garb (in seasonable times), cowboy boots+chaps+10-gallon-hats should be encouraged to OC. (By example, the gun-phobic Mexican government permits OC by civilians wearing a “charro” (gaudy horseman’s) costume. So attired, Mexicans may open-carry .44 revolvers (which are otherwise illegal even in the home), provided they are not loaded. Why is an OC practice legal in Mexico prohibited in Texas?)
What are the Anti’s doing with their objections to OC? They are driving women to CC in ways that are tactically disadvantageous for them and their children! What is their logic? Because they are more afraid of a woman (with/without children) OC’ing then they are with her CC? They would rather take the risk of her fumbling her gun drawing from CC? Rather take the risk of her toddler finding her gun in her purse/car?
I’m NOT proposing any change-in-law here. I AM proposing a political tactic – OC by WOMEN with children (CC by MEN) that would likely serve to sway public opinion on carry.
The rambling response from MarkPA offers a snapshot of the distinction between citizens who lawfully carry concealed for defensive purposes as opposed to the Open Carry/Constitutional Carry Obsessed and their need to be the center of attention while using a lame free speech argument as justification to carry firearms anywhere, anytime without restrictions.
Such shallow and unrealistic logic is eerily similar to the irrational obstinance the Sovereign Citizen Movement uses when refusing to recognize any government authority such as taxes, licensing, or regulatory authority.
The political advocacy and idiocy of those who fancy themselves as champions of the Constitutional Carry crusade in Texas have only succeeded in alienating and pissing off a large number of members in the Texas Legislature which has been vested since 1876 with unquestionable constitutional authority to regulate the carrying or “wearing” of firearms, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment of Section 23 of the Texas Constitution is going to change that.
Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution
Adopted February 15, 1876:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
My rambling response didn’t disparage advocates of either OC nor CC. Too many of us, like Ted, feel compelled to emphasize their antagonism toward one side of a debate rather than to concentrate on the issues. Ted doesn’t bother speaking to any Issue I raised; Ted’s response is: “rambling”, “their need to be the center of attention”, characterizing a free speech argument as “lame”, “shallow and unrealistic logic” “eerily similar to the irrational obstinance of [another group he despises]”, “idiocy”, “fancy themselves as champions of the . . . crusade”, “unquestionable”.
As it happens, I share with Ted some negative sentiments as to the political efficacy of OC of long-guns in Texas; I differ from Ted in that I refrain from disparaging those with whom I have some tactical disagreement.
I reserve my 1A right to question whether a State’s Constitution could trump the Federal Constitution. For example, suppose a State’s Constitution prohibited voting by women or teenagers in violation of the Federal Constitution. Ted would seem to disparage me from “questioning” such a State Constitutional provision. (I hasten to add that I don’t hold a clear-cut opinion as to whether the 2A protects OC or allows regulation of CC. It seems to make sense to me that the 2A prohibits a State from proscribing both OC AND CC.)
I wrote only against conflating the TACTICS of OC with the RIGHT of OC. Each should be argued on its own merits. The debate by PotG could be conducted without ad hominem attacks on one-another (as well as our Anti opponents). We do ourselves a disservice by refusing to elevate our level of discourse.
Nevertheless, I honor Ted’s right under the 1A.
Ranger Rick lost me in 2012 when he jumped on the Romney ‘vulture capitalism’ bandwagon. Romney had his share of faults, but to attack him for Bain only shows one of two things. Either you don’t know a thing about economics and prefer crony capitalism (i.e. fascism) to free markets or you will say anything to get elected. If he would have won the nomination I would have held my nose and voted hoping for the latter. He couldn’t possibly be worse than what we got.
In this case he either doesn’t understand the difference between rights and privileges, or he’ll say anything to get elected.
I guess the Bill of Rights was renamed the Bill of Privileges when we weren’t looking.
Hate to ask the question, but did Rick give anything more than a personal opinion? I didn’t see him say he wouldn’t sign a popular bill, just that he somewhat disagreed with it. Very big difference for any politician. Way to (once again) exaggerate the untimely death of open carry, TTAG (it’s like 2-3 times a week now, “it’s all over!”)
Maybe it is true, that this is just sour grapes by a guy who, currrently charged with felonies, may not even carry concealed, let alone openly.
Another thing that would help is an amendment that strikes that little “but the legislature may regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime,” bit from the Texas constitution.
I don’t see why this is bad. Yes owning firearms is a right, but being able to carry one around is a different story. I mean I believe people have a right to that as well but not everyone should carry or even own a firearm. There are so many ignorant, idiotic people out there that think guns are no big deal. I used to be a Range Safety Officer and sooo many people would get pissed off because I was “ruining their fun on the range” when I would have to continously tell them to keep their gun pointed down range. They would get upset that I would have to stand behind them even though they would be completely unsafe and wouldn’t even notice after I told them what they were doing wrong… over and over and over and over.
Yes many people are unsafe morons with their tools and resources. Why does that mean it’s okay to infringe on your right (or should I say privilege) because someone else dragged you into a negative steriotype?
Yes owning firearms is a right, but being able to carry one around is a different story.
Isn’t it the right to keep and bear arms?
This particular discussion is about Texas, and like it or not John, the Texas Constitution applies.
Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution
Adopted February 15, 1876:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
That may be all well and good, but only insofar as it does not violate the second amendment of the US constitution, which explicitly bars the government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Also: I suppose it would be a safe assumption that the with a view to prevent crime clause compels the Texas legislature to document the crime-prevention efficacy of any and all proposed regulation of the wearing of firearms? If not, then the Texas legislature is not demonstrating the authority by which it enacts such legislation.
The TX OC case is clearly primarily political. It’s hard to work up much enthusiasm for the Constitutional aspect in TX.
So far, we haven’t had any success getting SCOTUS to take a right-to-BEAR-arms at all. SCOTUS has consistently rejected bear-rights appeals from the 2’nd, 3’rd and 4th circuits. Unless-and-until an appeal comes up that SCOTUS is willing to entertain, we aren’t going to have a simple resolution to the Constitutionality of the right to bear arms.
The next simplest avenue would be National Reciprocity. That, however, is unlikely to resolve the OC vs. CC question. It is only likely to open-up the Won’t-Issue States and loosen those states that won’t grant reciprocity.
The LEGAL distinction between OC and CC strikes me as silly. (I prescind from the tactical and comity issues.) With TX and FL on the one hand and Delaware on the other, we have an absurd inconsistency on the sensibility of State legislation. Delaware is perfectly happy for one-and-all to OC in their State but won’t issue CC permits to non-residents and has onerous requirements for its own residents. TX and FL cheerfully issues CC permits to residents and non-resedents alike, but won’t tolerate OC. Imagine 1/2 of the States welcoming OC and prohibiting CC with the other 1/2 welcoming CC but prohibiting OC! As absurd as this seems, it also seems likely to withstand Constitutional scrutiny (i.e., with SCOTUS, Congressmen, State legislators and the majority of voters).
In my opinion, TX is in a pretty good position in the struggle for gun-rights. They have Shall-Issue and OC for long-guns. They have neighboring States with more lenient laws on carry. Texans need to resolve a political dispute with their fellow Texans; and, I can’t think of better ground on which to air this debate.
Just because someone’s a dumbass doesn’t mean they don’t still have rights.
A lot of people are too dumb to raise a child, but nobody’s advocating that we sterilize the morons among us. The driver licensing tests in most states are laughably easy to pass, and serve as no guarantee against the irresponsible use of a car. Quite a few people are seriously injured by power tools every year – should Home Depot start doing background checks and competency exams before allowing you to buy an electric drill?
Freedom ain’t always pretty.
Funny thing about that ol’ concealed carry “privledge” bit: it was that same attitude from a judge that fueled Florida Carry’s case before the FSC. If the right to keep and bear is truely a right, and concealed carry is officially a “privledge”, then open carry must be constitutional, for there is no other way to carry. FSC hasn’t ruled yet…
Yes, I like that thinking. Hope for our Fla. friends the SCOFLAws like it too.
What is sad is driving upon the roads and the highways is also not a privilege given or taken away by the state but was deemed a right under the ability to pursue happiness. Having or accepting a license is a instrument and there is ways to protect such right, but few and far between will ever do so. I will not bother trying to prove the point- too many sheeple.
I always thought that the driving a motorized vehicle privilege was a pile of dog poo. Soooo…is riding a bicycle, riding a horse, or walking on the road or a sidewalk a privilege as well?
Wow!! Now I really know that he has no chance of winning the presidency. It is dumb to piss off millions of potentially loyal voters. He opponents are.going to rub that in until he pulls out of the race.
It seems to me to many use I don’t want to be the first one shot if I open Carry. which is a excuses to hide you gun like a criminal. there is no proof that’s a fact. I rather have faster access to my gun than have it covered under clothing
“…hide your gun like a criminal”. Interesting–for so many years that was exactly the sentiment of the country at large: only crooks hid their guns, so that they could get an unfair advantage over unsuspecting victims. So odd that now all the gun-grabbers purport to favor concealed carry. Or not, when you consider that, as pointed out elsewhere, concealed carry had indeed been long considered a “privilege” legally available only to a select few members of society (which is exactly how the antis want to see all gun possession); the rest of the law-abiding public, if they chose to carry a gun, could do so openly as a right. And now we see, at least in some states (including, sadly, my own), the full circle: now they want to make “open carry” a purchased privilege, just like concealed carry. Maybe i’ll just start carrying a long gun myself–an O-U shotgun, perhaps, so the PTB will mistake me for a Fudd and leave me alone (*sigh*)
Fast access along with eyes in the back of your head and you should be good to go Jeff.
“We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.” Hmmmm…maybe Rick, Bloomie, and Shannon should get together for an engaging evening, they might find they have a lot in common. Guns for the serfs is definitely a privilege.
Perry is an idiot. Yet, on this issue he is 100% right.
Well, in 100% idiot logic, maybe.
I really liked R. Perry.. But truth be told.. I’d have a hard time voting for him for President! Just because of his non-support of Constitutional Carry! On more than one occasion he acted like our Master than a leader… The Feudal System isn’t needed in America!
if any of you texan’s don’t like him or don’t want him , I live in New York and I will gladly trade you for our governor the oh great one himself , cuomo ! any takers ???
Comments are closed.