Hoping to override legislation that would relax existing state law by allowing concealed-weapons permit holders to visibly carry their weapons in public, the Florida Sheriffs Association announced its own measure Wednesday.
The proposal would protect concealed-carry permit holders from arrest if they accidentally display a firearm in public.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri — the FSA’s legislative chairman — says the measure clarifies Florida laws and diminishes the call to legalize open carry.
“The way we crafted this proposal is airtight and provides a fix,” Gualtieri said. “It states that no law-abiding, concealed-carry holder will ever face any sanctions for inadvertently exposing their gun.”
Gualtieri said the proposal is presented as an alternative to open-carry legislation bills and would help solve the “gotcha law” problem if someone’s gun was accidentally visible.
The proposal would require a person to intentionally and deliberately — “in a clear and obvious manner,” Gualtieri said — violate concealed-carry laws before they can be arrested.
The proposal also enforces a requirement that lets people explain circumstances surrounding their guns being accidentally exposed. If for some reason a concealed-carry holder is arrested, and it’s later proved their gun was exposed accidentally, the proposal calls for immediate expunction of the incident from their record.
“We don’t think it’s necessary to go from where we are today to full open carry,” Gualtieri said.
“The purpose of this is to solidly protect concealed-carry holders — I fully support everyone’s right to (lawfully) concealed carry. … We’re offering a solution so that people with concealed-carry permits aren’t going to get in trouble for something they shouldn’t get in trouble for.”
First, law enforcement has absolutely no business advocating one law or criticizing another. It isn’t any of their business, any more than it’s the business of, say, the local utility to weigh in on whether something like open carry should be legal.
Second, accidental exposure of a weapon isn’t the only problem associated with open carry. In a hot state like Florida, there are other reasons for open carry, like sweating your weapon when you are carrying IWB, rubbing your flesh raw when walking with IWB carry, etc.
Third, as we’ve discussed many times before, as a [sometimes] open carrier who lives in a traditional open carry state, the problems law enforcement allege to exist with open carry simply do not obtain. They’re misleading you. It isn’t the big deal they say it is, and blood doesn’t run in the streets.
Fourth (and this is perhaps the saddest thing we learn from the report), accidental exposure of a weapon is indeed an issue, and the Florida Sheriff’s association knows it to be so. That’s the only reason they have proposed this as substitute legislation. They want to placate weapons carriers, and they know that wasting court time for a shirt lifting in the wind is silly. Thus, they’ve been down this road before. They know all about arresting people for silly accidents that have no affect on anyone.
And they waited this long to do anything about it, and only proposed this law in an attempt to deflate open carry rights. How disgraceful. How absolutely contemptible.
“While I am concerned that America’s current gun laws are too relaxed, this does not mean that I oppose gun ownership,” Hess continues digging himself into a hole. “I have always enjoyed shooting as a hobby.”
Yeah, this guy’s a willing tool, meaning there’s really no need to fisk the rest of his propaganda screed, except to say that “law-abiding” is a relative term used to disqualify rights in “progressive” strongholds, and that trying to ban what he calls “military grade assault rifles” is an act of utter betrayal to the oath he swore. Evidently Hess is not ignorant of what that oath meant—he’s just contemptuous of it.
But if he is a former Marine, David has responded as best as anyone can. He is an oath breaker. His word means nothing. As for the appended note at the end of David’s column, sure there are former Marines. My son is one. What there isn’t is an ex-Marine. Unless of course you’re an oath breaker.
LIBERTY COUNTY -Investigators say a man “dry firing” a handgun resulted in the accidental shooting death of a Liberty County man.
The shooting happened on County Road 4893 in south Liberty County according to a sheriff’ office report. Deputies determined that Van Everett Wuhas, 21, of Liberty County, was “dry firing” a 9mm pistol when it fired striking Justin Taylor Gonzales, 20, in the right upper chest area around 5:20 p.m. Tuesday.
Lead Investigator Sgt. Billy Knox said it was determined that Justin Gonzales and Wuhas were very close friends to the point they call themselves “cousins”. According to Wuhas, his friend Gonzales was visiting at his home, alone when the shooting happened. He said Gonzales had just stepped into the same room as Wuhas when the pistol discharged and the bullet struck Gonzales. Wuhas immediately called “911” and reported the shooting.
Gonzales was conscious but obviously in critical condition when medical staff arrived. Life Flight was called and Gonzales was air lifted but died while in flight to the Houston hospital.
So apparently he wasn’t really dry firing the gun, huh? There go those gun safety rules, defenestrated straight out the window.
I ended my story by saying that I felt the only way to move forward in this debate was to talk to people who did get the gun thing. That I wanted to understand the other side because, truthfully, I’d never tried to before.
A handful of gun owners — individuals with political views very different from my own — apparently read all the way through. They got the sentiment and took me up on my request and wrote to me. Because I’d prompted the discussion, I realized I needed to follow through, so I wrote back. And we’ve been talking.
I’m not claiming that I’ve begun some sort of revolution. The back-and-forth is slow going, but we’re communicating. In some instances, the conversation has remained focused on gun policy, while other email threads have morphed into discussing personal life beyond the issue at hand.
Writing to gun owners humanized the issue for me. After feeling so hopeless, the emails made me feel better. They were the only thing that did. Talking to people who owned guns and were willing to discuss that with me in a reasonable and respectful way had some immediate, and surprising, results.
I began to get “the gun thing,” as I’d dismissively termed it. A few who wrote to me pointed out that when you live in a rural community and calling law enforcement does not necessarily result in a prompt response, owning a gun for personal safety seems prudent. I’m a product of East Coast city life and — naively, shortsightedly — had never considered this.
But here’s the thing, Cara. You never really advocated or even intended to advocate disarming everyone. You never really believed in gun control for everyone, because you didn’t advocate disarming cops. That’s a problem. That means that you believe in guns, just in what you consider “the right hands.” You want the government to have a monopoly of force, and for others to be left defenseless against criminals and, yes, against their own government as well.
The example you cited about people in the countryside is shameful, and not only should you never have brought that up, your detractors should have kept their mouths shut because they don’t believe in gun rights either. Gun rights are just that – rights. They are no respecter of persons or location. Urbanites need self defense just as much as rural folk.
As for the cops you assume would be there is you call them, you do understand that they are under no legal obligation to protect you, don’t you? Not according to Warren v. D.C., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and other decisions. Legally, the police can wait until your neighbors smell your rotting corpse before sending in the medical examiner, while they go eat doughnuts. Besides, given typical response times, the crimes are over by the time police respond.
On a larger scale, guns protect men and women from awful people like ISIS, who get off on beheading defenseless women and children, or the Taliban, who want to perpetrate female circumcision and destroy school books so that children can’t learn to read. Guns enabled our own revolution against a tyrant in England, and guns ended Hitler’s reign of terror in Europe.
You see, you know that guns are a tool with magnificent utility, an equalizer of the evil and the innocent, of the criminal and the righteous. But you still want the innocent and the righteous to be defenseless, and that says something deeply troubling about your values. I suggest a deep, quiet period of soul-searching before writing about this again.
And before you do write again, you should get up with someone like me, who can sit for several hours and show you how our side safely handles firearms, and how they can be safely deployed at the gun range. It simply isn’t enough to write emails back and forth. You aren’t really fully engaged in this issue yet. You’re just nibbling around the edges.
Let’s dispense with the notion that jihad is interpreted in many different ways by many different Islamicists, and can mean many different things, such as an internal striving for something. In order to understand Islam, one must understand abrogation. I am turning to John Guandolo.
One of the facets of sharia (Islamic Law) that turns the light bulb on in people’s minds more than anything else seems to be the moment they grasp the Koranic concept of abrogation and progressive revelation.
Islam teaches that Allah (the god of Islam) revealed Islam to mankind throughout history progressively. Allah revealed the Law to Moses which predicted the coming of Mohammad. Those who did not accept the Law of Moses were lost. When Allah revealed the Evangel to Jesus, which also foretold of the coming of Mohammad, it abrogated the Law of Moses, and those who did not accept it were lost (hellbound). When the final seal of the prophets – Mohammad – came and revealed the Koran to all of mankind, it abrogated all that came before it, and those who did not accept it were lost.
According to Islam, the original Law of Moses and revelations given to Jesus were corrupted by the Jews and Christian Priests and, therefore, do not exist on the planet today in their “original” form. In other words, Islam teaches that all Bibles in the world today are corrupt because the fore-tellings of Mohammad were all intentionally removed.
According to Islam, the message of the Koran was revealed to Mohammad via an angel over a period of approximately 23 years – progressively over time.
The Koran is organized into 114 chapters called “Suras.” These suras are not organize chronologically, but generally by size of the chapter from largest to smallest with the exception of Sura 1 which is only several lines long.
Three times in the Koran (2:106, 16:101, 17:106) Allah says that whatever he reveals chronologically later abrogates (overrules or cancels) what he previously revealed. Allah commands Mohammad to bring the community of people from their unbelief to full compliance with sharia progressively in stages. This is exactly what we are seeing on the ground today across the world. The Muslim community is slowly moving from living however they want to live to living in communities that are adhering to the sharia to a greater and greater degree.
According to Islam, Mohammad first received revelations in Mecca for a period of thirteen (13) years. He was completely rejected as a “prophet” by the religious scholars (Jewish, Christian) of the time. During those years only approximately 200 people converted to Islam – in 13 years. This is the time of “tolerance” where Mohammad had to tolerate the non-Muslims and there were no revelations of jihad.
Then Mohammad made the hijra to Medina, and was called to become a political and military leader. There he raised an army and gained many converts to Islam as he began to get revelations of jihad. First Mohammad received revelations of defensive jihad, then limited offensive jihad, and finally, the command to wage jihad as a permanent obligation until the entire world is under sharia.
Allah said it last (chronologically) in the Koran, then Mohammad said it, and then Mohammad did it. This is why there is no gray area in sharia as to the permanent command for all Muslims to wage jihad until the entire world is under sharia when they have the strength and ability to do so.
The Law of Jihad provides for how jihad can be waged by Muslims depending on where they are and their abilities.
Bringing greater sharia adherence to the world via jihad is the Muslim Brotherhood’s entire focus of all they do, and the stated objective of all of the jihadi organizations on the planet.
Christian doctrine includes the notion of progressive revelation, but not the bastardized form in Islam. In Biblical doctrine God’s revelation is progressively more complex throughout the scriptures, but there is never an abrogation of God’s revelation or a changing in His expectations for us or how He saves mankind. In the Holy Scriptures there is consistency. In Islam there is contradiction. Islam was and is a political faith concocted by a syphilitic pedophile for the purpose of keeping his band of fighters together. It isn’t original or unique. Everything in is fabricated, stolen or otherwise concocted for the sole purpose of exercising dominance over other men and taking their women and wealth. You may or may not share my theological views, but hold on for a moment and you’ll see the relevance of this for your life.
Since it is an ideology of domination, it has a doctrine of justification (Allah’s warriors are just and righteous to steal the riches of their conquests), no doctrine at all of forgiveness, grace or love, and an eschatology of victory. Whereas Christianity makes it clear that the elderly, the sick, widows and orphans have a special place in God’s heart, Islam in its unmitigated darkness targets the weak, infirmed and defenseless. It targets the weak of mind for its pernicious doctrines, and the weak spirited for domination.
The city authorities covered up what had happened for as long as they could. They didn’t want to acknowledge that young women had been molested under the eyes of their police, and they especially didn’t want to admit that most of the gropers were recently-arrived “refugees” from North Africa and the Middle East. It wasn’t until last Sunday that the news of what happened was splashed across the headlines in Germany and the rest of Europe. And it took several more days to learn that Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, and other German cities had experienced the same sort of incidents on New Year’s Eve. Later we found out that the same thing occurred in Helsinki, Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Oslo, and Stockholm. I’m certain that we’ll eventually hear of incidents in other major European cities that have a significant “refugee” population.
In each city the modus operandi seemed to be the same: a large number of young men, often intoxicated and setting off fireworks, preying on young women in a coordinated fashion, as if the whole thing were planned and organized in advance. Which it may well have been – but in a distributed fashion, not with a central command structure.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not order his troops to carry out attacks. But he didn’t have to – this is Islam, and any good Muslim who has paid attention to what is preached in mosques and instructed in madrassas knows exactly what to do.
Not to mention what is preached in the Koran. The Baron indirectly adopts my own label for Islam and its cipher-like zombies: Star Trek’s the Borg.
The third layer of purpose is more subtle. To understand it, you have to understand Islam as an organism, as a hive mind that acts through many agents but with a single program.
This organism is now expanding into new territory, feeling its way as it goes, assessing the presence of the enemy and attempting to determine the strength and nature of his response to the incursion. One way to test the enemy’s mettle is to target his women.
This army of “refugees” made a statement on New Year’s Eve in Cologne (and in Vienna, Salzburg, Zurich, Oslo, Stockholm, and elsewhere: Islam is here, and we’re claiming your women. After all, Verse 16.71 and other verses assert:
And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny?
And thousands of right hands were making their claims of possession in Cologne and other European cities that New Year’s Eve. Probing, Fondling. Raping.
Britain’s The Daily Mail has extensive coverage of the assaults and the aftermath here.
So, we know all about German and European women. But, where are all the German and European men? Have they been castrated? Turned into eunuchs by their education and political upbringing?
One of them might answer: “That’s not fair! We’re not afraid of Muslims. We know they’re bigots. But we don’t want to be called Islamophobes, or bigots, or ‘right-wingers.’ We’re very upset. We don’t know what to do.”
Then, gentlemen, you can kiss your country goodbye, and your womenfolk, too.
Society in western Europe is on the verge of breaking down amid chaotic violence caused by economic dislocation, mass immigration and terrorism. This is not the view of some ‘crazy survivalist’ but of the head of the Swiss Armed Forces.
Lieutenant-General André Blattmann has issued a warning to the Swiss people that society is dangerously close to collapse and advised those not already armed as part of the Swiss Army reserve to take steps to arm themselves …
“The threat of terror is rising, hybrid wars are being fought around the globe; the economic outlook is gloomy and the resulting migration flows of displaced persons and refugees have assumed unforeseen dimensions.”
Europeans are buying guns, but as long as the most sought-after item is OC spray by women who are rightly afraid, Europe hasn’t found the soul to defend itself, and probably will not survive. The men are confused, halting and befuddled. It took a committed Christian continent to repel the Islamic assaults of history, and Europe today is so secularized and morally hideous and obscene that the most significant reaction Germany can muster to a rape victim is to harass her.
As Texas officials spar with Obama administration lawyers over refugee resettlement, Amarillo is building Muslim “ghettos.”
Under federal refugee programs, the North Texas town has become home to more than 1,000 Mideast migrants – giving Amarillo the highest refugee ratio in the country.
“Our education system is overloaded with kids who can’t speak English. We have something like 22 languages spoken in our schools,” said William Sumerford, a local taxpayer activist.
City Commissioner Randy Burkett is considering a plan to halt further refugee settlements. Burkett could not be reached, but Mayor Paul Harpole isn’t optimistic about the city’s authority to push back.
“We’ve been a giving community, and it’s a huge disservice to bring in refugees in numbers that we’re not able to handle. We create small ghettos,” Harpole told Watchdog.org.
These ghettos won’t be acceptable for long by the Muslims. We’ve seen what happens to women who are ambushed by hordes of Muslims, and it’s awful for them.
Take note of one Frenchman who is accosted by a Muslim criminal in broad daylight, the only thing stopping him being that the Frenchman toted a handgun. Also take note of the swaggering, strutting, arrogant demeanor of the criminal, perceiving himself to be dominate in a strange land because of birthright.
The common theme should have become more pronounced by now. By birthright (or conversion), Muslims are taught to see what’s yours as theirs, women as chattel, and men as kafirs to be conquered and killed. Islam doesn’t coexist. Islam is an invasive organism that tests, prods and penetrates to find weaknesses in the host organism. It’s goal is to take over the host, consume its wealth, and conquer its people.
The migrant situation is going to get way worse, and we’ve only seen the beginning. The number of migrants has reached 60 million, with many still in transit. Let me repeat that for emphasis. Many of the migrants haven’t even yet arrived. They are still in transit. It may sound repetitive and redundant to keep saying it, but be ready to use weapons to defend yourselves, your family and your tribe. Practicing with your weapons is necessary, as necessary as having weapons and ammunition. But also necessary is the mental and spiritual steel and resolve to kill in order to effect self defense. While it may seem odd to bring this up, apparently it isn’t such an odd observation for Frenchmen or Germans.
While it may interesting to study and practice maneuver warfare and small unit combat tactics, techniques and procedures, MOUT and CQB techniques, the most likely first employment of a weapon you will ever face will be with your handgun and/or tactical knife. Remember Herschel’s Dictum. Always carry, always be prepared, keep your head on a swivel, and know with certainty that this is headed our way.
That, in a nutshell, is what Liberty University students heard from Jerry Falwell Jr., in the wake of the shootings in San Bernardino in December. Falwell — president of the evangelical Christian college and son of the late Moral Majority founder — told students, “If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in and killed them.” Adding that he was carrying a weapon in his pocket, he encouraged students to take Liberty’s concealed-carry training course.
[ … ]
Yet when it comes to linking lethal weapons to the “gospel of peace,” Falwell and Ramsey have nothing on Texas.
One pastor’s message to attendees of a 2012 Keller church conference went well beyond the suggestion that Christians consider gun ownership. “You can’t be a Christian if you don’t own a gun,” pastor Dr. Gary Cass told attendees at the Deliver Us From Evil Conference. “How can you protect yourself, your family, or your neighbor if you don’t have a gun? If I’m supposed to love my neighbor, and I can’t protect him, what good am I?” While Cass told me recently that there is some hyperbole in these statements — in that gun ownership alone is not sufficient to guarantee salvation — he does believe that self-defense “is a God-given right and duty.”
The notion of pastors packing heat and encouraging their flocks to do likewise strikes many Texas Christians, myself included, as peculiar — even, well, un-Christian. After all, the core teachings of Jesus himself suggest a very different message.
Although his country was under oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus taught nonviolence — “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” — which is not exactly a forceful call to arms. Jesus also instructed his followers to love their enemies.
But, of course, the Bible is a big and complicated book. Some Christian gun advocates cite a puzzling passage in which Jesus tells his disciples that if they don’t have a sword, they should sell their cloak and buy one. In an email to me, Cass even cited this passage as evidence of a biblical right to self-defense. However, many biblical commentators, including the evangelical InterVarsity Press, interpret Jesus as referring to spiritual “swords,” not physical ones. Even when Jesus was arrested, and the disciples asked him if they should defend him with their (physical) swords, he told them no. Based on my studies as both a scholar and a Christian, I believe that if Jesus taught us anything, he taught us that the godly life is one of peace, nonviolence, and love.
[ … ]
… the Second Amendment enshrines what Aledo Christian conservative David Barton has called “the biblical right of self-defense.” The Second Amendment’s “ultimate goal,” Barton contends, “is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you,” whether from a neighbor, an outsider, or “your own government.” However doubtful it is that the Founders wanted to allow rebellion against the very government they were creating, this “insurrectionist idea” is very popular in Christian Americanist circles.
Oh good. Yet another derogatory phrase for Christians who believe in living according to the Bible: “Christian Americanist.” So this makes twice I’ve heard the author, David Brockman, claim that he is a scholar. But if you’re going to make that claim, you have to live up to the hype. Frankly, Brockman fails miserably.
Why is the passage about Jesus telling his disciples to get swords puzzling? I thought Brockman was a scholar. In fact, first of all Jesus told his disciples to find swords for self defense (the command is placed in context of having a purse and bag which they didn’t previously have, and being self sufficient in the absence of Jesus who was soon to give His life for His people). Second, the command sets up the disciples to rely on God’s mercy and grace. It was against Roman law for anyone but Roman soldiers to have weapons, and Jesus was commanding that they break Roman law. Finally, this command sets up Peter for good instruction when he slices the ear off one of the Roman soldiers (referred to later by Brockman). Jesus explained to Peter that His kingdom wouldn’t grow by the power of the sword (contra false religions like Islam). Jesus had to die and be raised again for His people, and Peter was getting in the way.
Brockman – if he is the scholar he claims he is – should know all of this. He should also know that the founders set up a system that was intended to be curtailed by the power of weapons, for that is exactly what they did. They curtailed the power of tyrants in England, and were it not for weapons, there would have been no victory.
But the biggest failure is Brockman’s ignorance concerning the case for biblical self defense. I’ve explained it before.
I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying. As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue. Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.
God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless. “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.” I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.
God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries. Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them. God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse. He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls. God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right. It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image. It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.
We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden. There is no one who doesn’t concede this. That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment. Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned. But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify. For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice. We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds. Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so. Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).
Far from a mere right, it is a duty. Forsaking this duty is equivalent to turning over Brockman’s own children to criminals, rapists, thieves and abusers. God isn’t impressed with Brockman’s fake morality, a morality that pretends Jesus is a bohemian hippie flower child. And I don’t think Brockman is the scholar he thinks he is.
Around these parts we speak the name of Eugene Stoner only with hushed reverence and awe. I wish he had had more success pushing his fully automatic, crew-served area suppression weapons on the armed forces.
Appears the new open carry laws in Texas, which have expressly allowed guns onto College campuses and into psychiatric hospitals, are back firing against open and concealed carry enthusiasts. Private business and property owners can ban firearms from their property by either posting signs, or verbally informing armed people they are not welcome to carry their weapons. Firearms enthusiasts are finding a lot of new signs around Texas.
Ooo …, “backfiring.” Sounds serious, yes? Their source is The Trace.
“Got an email from work telling us that not only are 30.07 signs going up over the weekend on our office building but 30.06 as well. What makes this even more frustrating is I have yet to see a single open carry,” wrote a user with the handle LTUME1978, before predicting in a subsequent comment that, at least in Houston, “Once the signs are up, they are not ever going to come down.”
That original post generated more than 100 replies, and numerous theories. Some Texas CHL users speculated that the increase in notices barring concealed weapons may be due to a revision to the existing 30.06 sign that was ushered in by the new open carry legislation. Older 30.06 signage was rendered obsolete by the change — and signage is something that Texas gun rights advocates actively police.
“Just as easy to have both 30.06 and 30.07 signs made at the same time,” a user named Distinguished Rick replied. “We have lost more than we gained,” he added. “I have had my CHL 20 years this year and I hardly ran into any legal signs back then. This has woken up the anti-crowd in a big way. So now the genie is out of the bottle and I don’t see a way to put it back.”
A user with the handle bmwrdr echoed his concerns: “Before the OC [open carry] movement started everything went smooth, now we see more and more 30.06 signs erected.”
Another user, posting as flowrie, theorized that the backlash generated by the open carry movement, which was itself driven by the gun rights group Open Carry Texas (OCT), was so spectacular that it may as well have been an opposition plot. “OCT has hurt much more than helped. I insist on carrying when taking my young son and wife to the movies, but that is now becoming more difficult. I do not really oppose OC, but the way they went about it was unwise and just down right ignorant. I too wonder if some of them are anti-2A [Second Amendment]. If I were anti-2A, that’s how I would do it.”
“We were free to carry concealed at far more places before than now. You have the exact same ability to be safe carrying concealed as openly. Except that now you can’t do either in many places. So you’re not safer at all. Open carry is not a right. It’s a dress code and comfort issue. You were already freely bearing arms before 1 Jan. You’ve given up safety for comfort and lost and freedom [sic] for all of us.”
“The immature, selfish actions and the loud, belligerent mouths of a few have hurt many,” Oldgringo concluded. “It’s true, all that glitters is not gold.”
What a bunch of whiny little bitches. If it takes some time to work through the details of this, then so be it. If you have to continue to work through concealed and open carry rights issues, then so be it. If you have to petition businesses or otherwise withhold your patronage in order to persuade businesses to honor your rights, then so be it. A business who indiscriminately posts signs prohibiting both open and concealed carry isn’t worth my patronage anyway.
Shouting down the advocates of open carry is turning your criticism on the wrong people when you’ve got culpable establishments to target. Open carry advocates didn’t force businesses to put up signs prohibiting concealed carry. Other states have learned to deal with this, and Texas will too. Settle down. Mind your manners, grow up and stop being little girls over this.
The cartels’ weapons of choice are high-caliber rifles, including AR-15 and AK-47-type semiautomatic rifles, which can be easily converted into fully automatic machine guns. The cartel’s gunrunners often buy firearms legally in the United States, either at gun shops, gun shows, or in private sales. The firearms are then illegally shipped across the border.
usually ‘High-Caliber’ is used to reference impact power, which until the late 19th usually meant larger ammunition. that changed as aerodynamics became better defined, and rifle power became less about bigger ammo with more gunpowder packed behind.
“Impact Power.” “Aerodynamics became better defined.” It’s sort of like that little puppy who is just learning to walk but still bumps into things, vomits and shits on the rug. Maddening, but in some weird, freakish way, adorable nonetheless.