“Liberty is not the sword. Liberty is the scale. It’s a balance. One person certainly has the freedom to carry a firearm. The other person has the freedom to live free of fear. I feel like concealed carry strikes the right balance between the two. And open carry tips the scales unnecessarily.” – Texas State Rep. Diego Bernal in Bernal and LaHood team up against open carry [via expressnews.com]
Constitutionality issues (and stupidity issues) aside, that is an extremely UGLY sign. It – ahem – assaults the eyes!
I know. It’s great isn’t it?
I think it’s perfectly appropriate that if they want their store to be a gun free zone that nearly half the storefront has be covered in those idiotic compliance signs. Am I right? There are some places that won’t even have room for their own logo on the door if they actually post the correct signage.
The best part is, if they want to block both concealed and open carry they have to post both that sign and the 30.06. Both equally large and ugly signs.
Lets hope they don’t.
Actually, they don’t. Such a ban only requires that you, the open carrier, be provided notice of the property’s ban. That notice may be either written or oral.
Written notice, posted in a conspicuous place and communicated to all comers generally, is called effective notice and must conform to the official sign’s specifications. Individual, personal notice directed at you, may be either written or oral; neither of which must comply with an exact standard.
So a business can have an “illegal”, out of compliance sign up front, which you laugh at and blow right by. However, once the property owner or someone with apparent authority to act on the owner’s behalf sees you and says “Hey you, open carry is prohibited here!”, then you’ve been given notice, regardless of their goofy sign.
Be careful out there and don’t get into trouble by playing cute.
Quote “However, once the property owner or someone with apparent authority to act on the owner’s behalf sees you and says “Hey you, open carry is prohibited here!”, then you’ve been given notice, regardless of their goofy sign.”
That’s how it already is, for both open and concealed carry in the state of Texas. Once a business gives individual notice you must leave, if you do not you are then in violation of criminal trespass.
What I stated is correct, if they want to block all carriers from entering, both open and concealed, they must post both signs. If there is no sign you are free to enter, until asked to leave.
I’ve already seen both signs posted together. One of the local hospitals has them both. One takes up the top half of one glass door, the other takes up the bottom.
I know there is a group that thinks this is to punish business that don’t allow open carry, but real world here: stores have so much signage stacked up around their entrances, it really does need to be obvious and standardized enough that your eyes can pick it out from all the other clutter.
Besides, the two signs stenciled on the static side of a glass door (which is pretty ubiquitous to business entrances) does not aesthetically look bad. What it says about a business’s philosophy is another matter.
No, Chris, what you originally stated was incorrect for being incomplete. You said it depends on posting both signs……and left it at that. You didn’t mention individual notice, whose forms of communications are very different from group notice via signage. That’s incorrect because notice may be provided individually and directly by other means. You only acknowledged that fact in your response to me, not in your original post.
You don’t get to post something incorrect, be corrected by someone else, come back and acknowledge their correction, then claim you were right all along.
Geez, if you’re being this cutesy and squirrelly with me just pointing out a fine line in the law, I can just imagine the hissy fit you’ll throw at some establishment when you’re caught illegally open carrying. Have fun in jail.
To other readers: please verify the laws for yourselves with a credible, professional Texas legal source and never rely exclusivelybon what you read on Internet blogs and boards.
Jonathan – Houston,
My first comment had nothing to do with individual notice as it had nothing to do with the post that I replied to.
The post that I replied to was about THE SIGNS alone and their design to BLOCK carriers from entering. There is no way you can say that I am wrong based on your lack of reading comprehension.
On a side note, I have no intention of carrying openly. Your response involving the ASSumption that I will, and suggesting I will get thrown in jail for doing something wrong, is flat out nonessential to the topic at hand.
The thing that I don’t like about the passage of open carry (which I wanted passed, mind you) is the 30.07 signs.
With the publicity that open carry got, some businesses are going to research how to ban open carry then post the signs…. and post 30.06 signs banning concealed carry too. Instead of being blissfully ignorant with “out of sight, out of mind”, concealed carry will be more limited.
Wrong again, Chris. Keep playing cutesy. You’re just making a fool of yourself.
You stated that the signs were all that mattered. That’s incorrect and if someone follows your incomplete and incorrect advice, they could get into trouble. Only after being educated by me on the alternative of being directly notified of no carrying, did you concede that point, but then claim you were right all along. Well.
That’s not how discussions work. Neither did I ASSume that you would open carry. (Ohhh….I see what you did there! You’re all butt hurt because you got corrected, so now you’re subtly calling me foul names? Very clever.) Frankly, I envisioned you injecting your know-it-all self into someone else’s OC situation, then arguing incessantly and mistakenly with the responding officer until you got cuffed and stuffed for disorderly conduct.
In addition to demonstrating why people should verify the law for themselves, you’ve also proven an edifyingly bad example of why people shouldn’t shoot their mouths off without knowing the facts. So you’re not completely useless. Congrats.
As always with the defeated, I’ll grant you a chance at dignity and give you the last word. (Hint: the dignity direction is to remain silent now and just move on, but you’re free to play the hand however you wish.)
I’ll copy what I replied so you may read again exactly what I said. This time please try to use some reading comprehension skills to read exactly the words that were typed.
“The best part is, if they want to block both concealed and open carry they have to post both that sign and the 30.06. Both equally large and ugly signs.
Lets hope they don’t.”
I see no where in this short reply where I said anything about signs being “all that matter”. I clearly state “If they want to block”. Barring initial entry to an establishment via signage is blocking. Asking someone to leave is not blocking as they have already entered at that point.
You can envision me doing anything you would like, however given the fact that you know nothing of me means that your fantasy is exactly that.
You state: “I can just imagine the hissy fit you’ll throw at some establishment when you’re caught illegally open carrying. Have fun in jail.”
That is making an assumption on your part as you previously had no information on my stance or plans prior to the statement.
Then you come back and change your fantasy to this: “Frankly, I envisioned you injecting your know-it-all self into someone else’s OC situation, then arguing incessantly and mistakenly with the responding officer until you got cuffed and stuffed for disorderly conduct.”
Again this is an assumption on your part.
I have nothing to go by in my knowledge of you other than your written words here. I have no idea who you are nor do I care to, however, I can make the assumption here that you really don’t know much about written communication and are incapable of the self realization needed to admit that to yourself or others.
‘The other person has the freedom to live free of fear.’
What if what you fear isn’t the open carrier, but the government? Can I be free from the government? Can I be free of the IRS? I’m free to be free from fear, right?
That why the Declaration of Independence mentions the “pursuit of happiness” and not “happiness.”
Fear and uncertainty come with freedom. You can’t have one without the other.
“If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
Of course, in practice, you don’t actually get safety in return for giving up freedom, and you trade one kind of fear for another and you are left with nothing.
Regarding the current piece, they can’t have people getting used to the idea that average citizens safely carry arms for personal defense.
Ah the old “unwritten” Freedom to Feel Safe amendment of the Constitution. Safety is your responsibility, not a right.
Anyone who uses the phrase “freedom from X”, or any of its variations, does not understand freedom. Ironically, those cowards who believe in “freedom from fear” are the most dangerous.
Freedom never means that someone else owes you something.
I can’t declare “Freedom from an empty wallet is my right” and rob you (or legislate your money to myself).
Freedom means you are free to pursue your own destiny – it does NOT mean that someone owes you the destiny of your choosing on a silver platter.
Freedom to live with the delusion?
If this were true, people who live in bad urban neighborhoods could sue the cities for violating their constitutional right to live without fear.
Lets extend this thought process. Concealed is good, open carry is not due to increased fear. Do Coppers need to conceal carry in order to reduce fear?
Exactly. There are no arguments simultaneously restrictive of individual firearms rights and permissive of officer firearms authority that don’t depend on the premise that regular people are fundamentally second class citizens.
Officers openly carrying, just like their badges, uniforms and menacing materiel, is intended to intimidate the populace precisely because they’re the only ones allowed to do it. Even more than open carrying itself, it’s that transformation of a right into a privilege and its allocation to a select few that is threatening and fearsome.
Contrary to that, the untrammeled exercise of individual firearms rights through regular citizens open carrying restores rights, propagates freedom and allays fears.
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
Ben Franklin
Incorrect.
The correct quote:
“Those who would give up *essential* Liberty, to purchase a *little temporary* Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
The adjectives used by Franklin are specific and necessary. The quote becomes inapplicable to people in a society without them because we all give up a small level of liberty on a daily basis.
His point was directing the reader to what is essential and what might be a myopic tradeoff.
How many times has he rolled over in his grave after 9/11?
Liberty comes from the sword, as only the strong have any chance of being free.
The Statue of Liberty doesn’t hold scales. That would be Mother Justice. The scales weight evidence in a fair trial. Fear is not felt in equal amounts nor should it be.
You do not overcome fear by avoiding that which makes you afraid. You overcome fear by confronting it, dissecting it and stepping beyond it.
Those who fear guns (and the people who carry them) would do themselves a tremendous service to take an introductory handgun course. Know guns. Handle them. See them dismantled into metal and springs. Discover the 4 rules that enable one to tame the beast. Meet the instructors and students and talk to them about why they are in the course. Remove the mystery and destroy the illusion that holds power over you.
You’re welcome. 🙂
But your process requires that the person who is afraid of firearms actually has to do something themselves … you know, take responsibility for themselves. Why do that if your government will try to force everyone else to act?
Yep. That sign will surely keep someone away who is intent on harming folks with a firearm. Oooohhh…scary sign.
They. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
It’s an anti-law-abiding gun owner sign. They don’t want gun owners (who have no ill intent) in their shop. They don’t like you and/or fear you. It is a sign only for gun owners with no ill intent.
Someone intent on harming them with a gun doesn’t care about signs that say “no guns allowed.” As if a criminal intent on killing someone is going to cancel their plans because a sign on the door says no guns allowed. Freedom hating liberals are not that dumb. They know this isn’t going to stop them. This is to stop you – the ammosexual; The gun fetishizing penis compensating, testosterone deficient coward who doesn’t want to embrace victimhood. They don’t like you and they don’t want you around.
Which is fine. It’s their shop and their rules. If I don’t like it – I can frequent another establishment.
In Texas law, to keep people from carrying in a private business, a specific type of sign with specific wording must be posted. There is one for concealed carry and there will be a slightly different one for open carry, once it starts in January. Businesses must post both signs to keep out all those with carry permits. Or they can just post one or the other. Still, as you said, it does nothing to keep out criminals who don’t care about signs, or the law behind the sign.
Regardless of signage, businesses still retain the option of providing you individually with notice of their ban. Telling you personally, “Hey, no guns allowed in here!”, will suffice.
‘No Open Carry’ signs are likely to trigger next Texas gun debate
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150621-signs-barring-open-carrying-trigger-the-next-texas-gun-debate.ece
A freedom to live free of fear? WUT? Free of fear from what? Anything? Everything? Some specific list of things? Does free from fear of heights count?
Has he even attempted to think through how nuts that concept is? Never mind. It would involve rational thinking. I just answered my own question.
In the next session, I predict that there will be a few Dem bills that will go nowhere….UBC, mag limits, AWB and attempts to repeal both open and campus carry.
There is a problem with a couple of the fundamental conservative issues in the state, local control and property rights. I predict that gun control efforts will be focused exploiting this gap. I think they will attempt to loosen the 30.06/7 requirements, by getting the Texas Association of Business (TAB) to push for it. The other push will be to restrict open carry to rural areas, giving urban areas over x population the opportunity to opt out. Big city police chiefs will push for this as part of officer safety, and will try to coopt all the different race baiters into supporting it… to de-escalate things.
Just my predictions.
If I may summarize your point:
They never give up. We win (passage of law that increases a limit on government), they respond by trying to ramp back up government control.
They NEVER say, “Hey, ya’ll got us. Your version of the way forward has more support. This is issue is settled. Let’s move to something else.”
This points with clarity to the conclusion that the issue is NOT guns, but control. Passage of Open Carry in TX is an example of them losing some control. They can’t have that, and will fight tooth and nail to get it back and increase it.
Yes.
This time it will be thinly disguised as rights issues in an attempt to pit pillars of conservative thought against each other. Property rights and government reach.
I’ll streamline it even further:
We win something, they scream “Do over!”
They win something, they declare “This is settled law.”
Nailed it!
Yep.
It’s pretty easy being a Dem in Texas. There are very few swing districts, so those that are in, are in pretty safe seats, as they don’t really have too heated of Dem primaries. There are of course a few notable exceptions, but by and large, much less chance of being primaried as a D vs R. So you can spend your days throwing barbs and showing how hard you’re working for the Dem party line, to impress the DC, NY and CA libs.
” The other person has the freedom to live free of fear.”
I think this concept was invented by FDR and has been propagated by liberals ever since.
Yes–and in typical liberal fashion, elevated to Constitutional status.
One of the two great lies perpetrated by Franklin Roosevelt in his Four Freedoms speech. The other was “Freedom from Want”. Note that both of these ‘freedoms’ use the word “from”, while the other two traditional freedoms use the word “of” (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship). This is a critical point because one can only be free from something if someone else is forced to sacrifice their ‘freedom’ and ‘want’ to secure it. A better word for this is ‘socialism’. Another danger presented by “Freedom from Fear” is deciding who gets to define ‘fear’. Political correctness, hate speech, and micro-aggression are just a few examples of the fruits of this type of perverse thinking.
F-%#!FDR. Another four letter word that stands for voluntary enslavement.
One must remember that it’s the atheist LibSocs who have perverted the not-in-the-Constitution “separation of church and state” (1st Amendment actually reading: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) into “freedom FROM religion,” as well as the 2nd Amendment into meaning that ONLY the National Guard is “the militia” and, therefore, only the government has the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms.”
Why can’t I be a LibSoc athiest and support the 2nd Amendment again?
The sign should be accompanied by a picture of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand.
It just dawned on me that an ostrich with its head buried in the sand also has its butt up in the air…exposed, as it were.
The democrats animal should be an a ostrich with its head buried in its own ass.
Or most correctly:
http://best-wow-player.com/forums-3.jpg
Liberty is not a scale or a sword. The good state rep is confusing his analogies. Justice is a sword and a scale. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying: Justice is a blindfolded woman with a scale in one hand and a sword in the other.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Golden_Lady_Justice,_Bruges,_Belgium_(6204837462).jpg
What the good state rep is implicitly referring to is positive and negative liberty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty
Which he is still applying wrong. Freedom from freedom is not freedom.
“The other person has the freedom to live free of fear.”
The other person can make the decision to live free from fear at any time. It cannot be assigned arbitrarily to whatever fear they have succumbed, or nobody would have any freedom. If I have fear of a particular person speaking on a particular subject that I don’t like – should I be afforded freedom from his freedom of speech? Of course not. intolerant progressives want to redefine what tyranny is and apply it to people who could be carrying guns for the purpose of self defense – which is inherently comical.
Maybe they should read the book “The fear of freedom.” Freedom obviously isn’t for everyone. Some people (like intolerant progressives) don’t want freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom
Among other things, a sad commentary on education or whatever when a legislator, who is at minimum supposed to understand law and the Constitution, spouts drivel like that. How do these people get elected?
He’s a Latino running as a Dem in San Antonio. That’s it.
In a solidly safe blue district.
How? Because most people are childlike: they want what they want when they want it, and anyone else be damned. He represents people who are especially egregious examples of this.
People don’t care what the law is because they don’t care about any objective process balancing competing rights. Their version of the law is simply an official imprimatur legitimizing whatever their own personal preferences are.
This is why democracy doesn’t work in many third world countries. Nobody there respects anybody else’s rights. They vote just to amass enough likeminded hooligans to compel their countrymen to acquiesce under color of law. “Democracy”, as practiced, is merely the continuation of civil war by other means.
“’Democracy’, as practiced, is merely the continuation of civil war by other means.”
That’s a take-off from Von Clausewitz’s “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
Meanwhile:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
— Benjamin Franklin
Liberty is not a scale or a sword. The good state rep is confusing his analogies. Justice is a sword and a scale. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying: Justice is a blindfolded woman with a scale in one hand and a sword in the other.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Golden_Lady_Justice,_Bruges,_Belgium_(6204837462).jpg
What the good state rep is implicitly referring to is positive and negative liberty – Which he is still applying wrong. Freedom from freedom is not freedom.
“The other person has the freedom to live free of fear.”
The other person can make the decision to live free from fear at any time. It cannot be assigned arbitrarily to whatever fear they have succumbed, or nobody would have any freedom. If I have fear of a particular person speaking on a particular subject that I don’t like – should I be afforded freedom from his freedom of speech? Of course not. Intolerant progressives want to redefine what tyranny is and apply it to people who could be carrying guns for the purpose of self defense – which is inherently comical.
Maybe they should read the book “The fear of freedom.” Freedom obviously isn’t for everyone. Some people (like intolerant progressives) don’t want freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Freedom
“The other person can make the decision to live free from fear at any time. “
A most EXCELLENT point.
Sadly, however, that decision requires the first step of taking personal responsibility for one’s own life.
That’s not the Statist Lifestyle this Dem rep is selling.
Bravo fine sir or ma’am!
TTaG staff: this HAS to be the topic of a stand alone post!
Bernal’s statement has no basis in law, logic, or common experience. Freedom from fear? Come on, as one of the great lines in cinematic history has it, “Only the dead have no fear.” But he’s a Dem legislator, so naturally he considers that a proper foundation for making law.
The other great quote along those lines is attributed to Plato.
“Only the dead have seen the end of war”.
Man, define freedom. A “right or power” do do something? Well if you lack the power to feel free from fear, that seems like a personal problem. If you are asserting that you have the “right” to live without fear that’s fine, but it’s still a personal problem. No one can make you feel safe, that’s a choice you make yourself, seeking the aid of trained professionals if necessary.
There was time when wiser people feared the gun they couldnt see.
There was a time when an openly carried handugn was a more elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
Hokey religions and openly carried weapons are no match for a good concealed weapons. at your side
Yep. Hide the fact that your are a free individual, be like the other unarmed prey and the criminals that hide their weapons.
Let the armed enforcers with their openly carried firearms, badge and uniform be the only example of lawful use of weapons(mostly) that the general population has as an example to point to.
ThomasR,
schernobyl and I were bantering a small snippet of the Star Wars movie script — replacing open carry for Star Wars light sabers and concealed carry for Star Wars blaster guns.
Fear is an emotion, fear of a holstered gun is about as rational as fear of heights, mice, or spiders. It is something to overcome, not catered to.
Unless you are comfortable living in a Candy Ass Nation, need to Open Carry as soon as legal and often. I’m not inclined to indulge candy ass sissies, who don’t seem to understand they have been in the presence of legally armed citizens.
“Fear is an emotion, fear of a holstered gun is about as rational as fear of heights, mice, or spiders. It is something to overcome, not catered to.”
That’s the reason Col. Jeff Cooper created the term Hoplophobia: the irrational, morbid fear of guns.
“Hoplophobia may cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, more, at mere thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Often helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as ‘desensitization,’ often useful in treating many phobias.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoplophobia
Let’s pretend for a moment that there exists such a thing as a “freedom to live free of fear”, and that exercise of such freedom can be used as grounds to control how someone else comports himself, that is, to deny that person the freedom to carry a firearm openly.
What of that person’s “freedom to live free from fear”? What if the would-be open carrier exercises his own “freedom to live free of fear” by openly carrying a firearm? Why is his freedom any less important than the person who would deign to control his actions?
What if I am afraid of clowns? Does my “freedom to live free of fear” then compel all clowns not to appear in public, lest they violate my “freedom”, by causing me fear?
What if I am afraid of silver cars? Does my “freedom to live free of fear” then compel all owners of silver cars to refrain from driving in public, lest they violate my “freedom”, by causing me fear?
If you want to live in a world in which society attempts to restrict the liberties of others, that you might exercise a “freedom to live free of fear”, then, in the words of Samuel Adams:
If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Fear – an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat
I am unaware of any natural, civil, or Constitutionally protected RIGHT to live without FEAR. Here we are again talking about feelings and not the law. Feel free to feel however you want to feel. Just don’t make it my problem. Notice that fear is an emotion (irrational in my opinion) caused by a belief and not by reality. So these people want to control the rest of us not based upon reality, but based upon their belief in reality. Now that sure seems a common sense definition of insanity.
Sooooo … what is the “proper balance” if my requirement to live free of fear is carrying a handgun openly?
And to own scary “high-capacity magazines” to live free from the fear of running out of bullets?
I fear so many assailants upon me at my home that I can’t pull the trigger fast enough, and that dispatching them will wake the wife.
You listening, ATF?
Even if they lived in a padded cell, these idiots would still be terrified all of the time.
“Live free from fear”? Let’s see that guy do something that might actually make things safer, like take on the narotraficantes. No, of course not, he’d rather waste time and effort going after the handful of LAW-ABIDING (as proved by having a carry permit) people who are going to open carry there in Texas. Just more political bullmanure.
There is no such thing as safety. It does not exist in nature nor among men.
Tried to read this further but couldn’t due to express news forcing me to have an account to simply read an article…….ahh no way. If this is where news is headed then it’s not for me.
I see we are back to FDRs four freedoms.
Freedom from want.
Freedom from fear.
Freedom from the Constitution and government of law.
Freedom from Freedom.
You hear this wordplay around the word “fear” all the time. A lot of people seem to have FDR’s famous quote, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” in mind when they contrive these stupid conflations.
If a person is carrying concealed, then we should fear everyone whom we cannot readily observe is carrying a firearm on his/her person.
If I pass an MDA demonstration I should fear those two or three women because they might be carrying concealed and take a shot at me because I am wearing an NRA-Logo cap?
If a person is carrying openly we should fear him/her because he/she obviously has a gun in public.
If I see a person openly carrying a pistol in Wal-Mart, I should fear him/her because he/she might suddenly have an attack of paranoia and shoot me because I am wearing sunglasses in the store and he/she cannot see my eyes?
If no one is carrying either open or concealed, we should fear that someone, criminal or psychopathic, IS carrying and will shoot us all.
So, I should never go out in public because I cannot know when a criminal or psychopath is going to pull a gun and shoot me?
How ridiculous does this have to get?
Making guns a “fear-icon” really means you are projecting basic paranoia of people and have no belief that anyone is a good person who intends you no harm. It’s either mass mental illness or a primitive belief in some form of magic that endows objects a power they simply do not possess. Do You Do Voo Doo?
In his Novel “Dune” Frank Herbert wrote what has been called the Litany Against Fear –
“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
I do not think you can appreciate your endowed “unalienable rights”, when you are ruled by fear. Yes, there are times to be alert, thoughtful and cautious when danger is palpable, but to let your fear control your thinking and beliefs is to be the walking dead (which probably accounts for the popular Zombie obsession).
Whether others carry openly or concealed or not at all makes no difference to me, but I will admit that if I could get a CCW in Commiefornia, or carry openly, I would feel safer…you never know when a criminal or psycho with a gun is lurking about…
Ignorance is bliss, I guess. These people, so dumb!
You are free to choose not to be afraid. Just because you’re afraid of an inanimate object does not mean you have the right to devoid others of the right to own that object, especially since carrying a gun is a step that many use to ensure their freedom from fear.
Freedom to live as a deluded lunatic? Cool…
Fear is a feeling, not a fact. All manner of messed up mental problems can generate fear unreasonably, that’s why no one has a right to a feeling. Pretending to be afraid of a thing as an excuse to persecute others is a common tactic. Again, displaying why no one has a right to feelings.
‘the right to live free of fear’….. sorry, that sounds like feel good, collectivist, anti-liberty gobbledegook.
A captive democrat and a former drug dealer- doing gun control propaganda. Why am I not surprised?
http://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/texas_legislature/article/Bernal-sails-to-victory-6086428.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nico_LaHood
New Democrat DA LaHood wants to stop jailing drug criminals in DaHood:
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/01/changing-of-the-guard-lahood-takes-office-as-bexar-co-da/21172711/
Yep. That will work to stop criminals from using guns. And signs. Signs will definitely stop criminals.
Justice is a scale…
I see this scaredy cat attitude in Indianaland. Are these ladies afeared when they see an armed -up cop?
I always thought FDR was talking about freedom from fear of the Gestapo coming to take you away in the middle of the night.
Or the KGB or the ATF or the IRS.
It seemed like America was the country where you would be secure from the secret police coming to take you away.
Not freedom from seeing someone with a gun
That kind of ” freedom from fear” makes sense.
There is no such thing as a right to be free of fear when doing so infringes on someones rights.
Comments are closed.