CDZ Texas Open-Carry Laws Blurred Lines Between Suspects and Marchers

[OldLady]

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

Think about that. Libs are gun owners. They want control, not Australia.

Dear you have called for the banning of all semi automatic weapons, that is not gun control.

Why won't you focus on controlling the people who get guns rather than what guns are available to get? I've pointed this out to you several times now. I own several fully automatic weapons, I will murder less people with those fully automatic weapons than others will kill with a .38 revolver. Yes your proposed solution is to take away my semi and fully automatic weapons rather than taking away that other person's .38 revolver. It's nonsensical.

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

Think about that. Libs are gun owners. They want control, not Australia.

Dear you have called for the banning of all semi automatic weapons, that is not gun control.

Why won't you focus on controlling the people who get guns rather than what guns are available to get? I've pointed this out to you several times now. I own several fully automatic weapons, I will murder less people with those fully automatic weapons than others will kill with a .38 revolver. Yes your proposed solution is to take away my semi and fully automatic weapons rather than taking away that other person's .38 revolver. It's nonsensical.

Sure it's gun control, sweetie.

No , it's banning of guns, and will NEVER happen. Even if Hillary got elected and was able to fully choose a complete Supreme Court, no law banning ALL semi automatic weapons would either be introduced, nor declared Constitutional if passed.

Your wishes are delusional, and you really don't offer any more help to the issue than a guy like M14 who takes the opposite stance that there should be ZERO gun laws.

As with almost every topic, the people , like me, in the middle, need to stand up and tell the fringes like you and M14 to just shut up and let us do something that actually fixes problems.

There is nothing in the Constitution stating what 'arms' one can bear. We have banned rifles that have a "full auto" option so why couldn't we ban semiautomatics? It doesn't mean you can't own a gun, just not that type. You may well be right that no Congress would ever pass such legislation, but I am at a loss as to why it would be unconstitutional.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

Think about that. Libs are gun owners. They want control, not Australia.

Dear you have called for the banning of all semi automatic weapons, that is not gun control.

Why won't you focus on controlling the people who get guns rather than what guns are available to get? I've pointed this out to you several times now. I own several fully automatic weapons, I will murder less people with those fully automatic weapons than others will kill with a .38 revolver. Yes your proposed solution is to take away my semi and fully automatic weapons rather than taking away that other person's .38 revolver. It's nonsensical.

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

Think about that. Libs are gun owners. They want control, not Australia.

Dear you have called for the banning of all semi automatic weapons, that is not gun control.

Why won't you focus on controlling the people who get guns rather than what guns are available to get? I've pointed this out to you several times now. I own several fully automatic weapons, I will murder less people with those fully automatic weapons than others will kill with a .38 revolver. Yes your proposed solution is to take away my semi and fully automatic weapons rather than taking away that other person's .38 revolver. It's nonsensical.

Sure it's gun control, sweetie.

No , it's banning of guns, and will NEVER happen. Even if Hillary got elected and was able to fully choose a complete Supreme Court, no law banning ALL semi automatic weapons would either be introduced, nor declared Constitutional if passed.

Your wishes are delusional, and you really don't offer any more help to the issue than a guy like M14 who takes the opposite stance that there should be ZERO gun laws.

As with almost every topic, the people , like me, in the middle, need to stand up and tell the fringes like you and M14 to just shut up and let us do something that actually fixes problems.

There is nothing in the Constitution stating what 'arms' one can bear. We have banned rifles that have a "full auto" option so why couldn't we ban semiautomatics? It doesn't mean you can't own a gun, just not that type. You may well be right that no Congress would ever pass such legislation, but I am at a loss as to why it would be unconstitutional.

For the ZILLIONTH time, automatic weapons are NOT banned in this country. I own half a dozen, legally.

 

[OldLady]

I was referring to the time period from 1994 to 2004 when certain semiautomatic weapons were banned. During that period the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional. It simply expired due to lack of support after 10 years.
So, answer my question. Why would it be unconstitutional?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I was referring to the time period from 1994 to 2004 when certain semiautomatic weapons were banned. During that period the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional. It simply expired due to lack of support after 10 years.
So, answer my question. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Semi automatic weapons were NOT banned from 1994-2004. You could legally own as many as you wanted to.

The ban was on the production and importation of NEW assault weapons, not the ownership of such weapons.

 

[2aguy]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Mmmmmm. Why would that be? "Guess I won't shoot at him since he's got a vest?" I'd kind of prefer not to have to wear one to the grocery store--hear they're heavy.
Did you hear the Dallas shooter was using armor piercing ammunition? It was going straight through the cops' gear.

No....the cops had soft vests on....they aren't meant to stop rifle rounds.......I have a friend who is a cop and he posted about this meme that is going around with the anti gunners......

Okay. I heard it on Fox or CNN that he was using armor piercing bullets that were going through the cops' vests. F&B says that's not true. Now I hear their bullet proof vests aren't meant to be bullet proof. Fine. WHATEVER you guys say.

and they are wrong.........just like they said it was an SKS and it turned out to be an AK-74....journalists know almost nothing about guns......

No.....the soft body armor cops where is mainly for pistols.......rifles will penetrate...how hard is that to understand.....also...a knife will punch through a vest as well.......especially a Tanto style knife....

 

[2aguy]

I was referring to the time period from 1994 to 2004 when certain semiautomatic weapons were banned. During that period the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional. It simply expired due to lack of support after 10 years.
So, answer my question. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Because the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" no exceptions because the weapon is scary looking....

 

[320 Years of History]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Mmmmmm. Why would that be? "Guess I won't shoot at him since he's got a vest?" I'd kind of prefer not to have to wear one to the grocery store--hear they're heavy.
Did you hear the Dallas shooter was using armor piercing ammunition? It was going straight through the cops' gear.

I don't wonder whether the vests will stop perpetrators from firing guns. I think they help to counteract the consequences of them having fired the guns, most notably handguns. I could have been more precise with my original remark. It's not the intent to do harm that I wonder about; it's the actual harm done at the point of impact that I wonder about, and thus whether civilians in dangerous areas might be well advised to buy/wear the vests rather than buy guns and ammo, thus boosting the value of the flight option.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Mmmmmm. Why would that be? "Guess I won't shoot at him since he's got a vest?" I'd kind of prefer not to have to wear one to the grocery store--hear they're heavy.
Did you hear the Dallas shooter was using armor piercing ammunition? It was going straight through the cops' gear.

No....the cops had soft vests on....they aren't meant to stop rifle rounds.......I have a friend who is a cop and he posted about this meme that is going around with the anti gunners......

Okay. I heard it on Fox or CNN that he was using armor piercing bullets that were going through the cops' vests. F&B says that's not true. Now I hear their bullet proof vests aren't meant to be bullet proof. Fine. WHATEVER you guys say.

OldLady, you know I'm trying to educate you , not just insult you. So listen please and I'll explain.

The police in this country wear ballistic vests, They are NOT bulletproof vests. That is simply a convenient term the pundits use to lump both ballistic vests which are heavy enough to stop pistol rounds , and actual armored vests, which are designed to stop rifle rounds.

It's a matter of ballistics. A rifle round fires faster, MUCH faster, than a pistol round and thus has more penetrating power. Police do not normally encounter rifle wielding assailants, instead most of their shooters have hand guns, so they choose to wear the lighter , and less expensive, ballistic vests, as opposed to the heavier and more expensive armored vests that the military uses. And in practice even most of the military guys don't wear their armored vests very often, they are VERY heavy.

So , when Fox or CNN, or whatever says "armored vests" they really mean ballistic vests designed to stop a pistol round.

A proper armored vest WILL stop a 7.62 steel core round such as the shooter used in Dallas.

 

[OldLady]

I was referring to the time period from 1994 to 2004 when certain semiautomatic weapons were banned. During that period the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional. It simply expired due to lack of support after 10 years.
So, answer my question. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Semi automatic weapons were NOT banned from 1994-2004. You could legally own as many as you wanted to.

The ban was on the production and importation of NEW assault weapons, not the ownership of such weapons.

Okay. I like learning new stuff.
During the 10 years of the Assault Weapons Ban, so called, it withstood several challenges to the Supreme Court. It was never found unconstitutional.
So as a middle of the roader, you interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean no arms whatsoever shall be restricted?

 

[OldLady]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Mmmmmm. Why would that be? "Guess I won't shoot at him since he's got a vest?" I'd kind of prefer not to have to wear one to the grocery store--hear they're heavy.
Did you hear the Dallas shooter was using armor piercing ammunition? It was going straight through the cops' gear.

I don't wonder whether the vests will stop perpetrators from firing guns. I think they help to counteract the consequences of them having fired the guns, most notably handguns. I could have been more precise with my original remark. It's not the intent to do harm that I wonder about; it's the actual harm done at the point of impact that I wonder about, and thus whether civilians in dangerous areas might be well advised to buy/wear the vests rather than buy guns and ammo, thus boosting the value of the flight option.

A student recently told me about a new type of armor that is super thin and more effective than anything to date. It reminded me of Frodo's mithril mail. It's still in the development phases. Such a vest would be a much better idea, imo, than buying a gun.

 

[OldLady]

I was referring to the time period from 1994 to 2004 when certain semiautomatic weapons were banned. During that period the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional. It simply expired due to lack of support after 10 years.
So, answer my question. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Because the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" no exceptions because the weapon is scary looking....

Don't bother me while I'm pouting.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I was referring to the time period from 1994 to 2004 when certain semiautomatic weapons were banned. During that period the Supreme Court did not find it unconstitutional. It simply expired due to lack of support after 10 years.
So, answer my question. Why would it be unconstitutional?

Semi automatic weapons were NOT banned from 1994-2004. You could legally own as many as you wanted to.

The ban was on the production and importation of NEW assault weapons, not the ownership of such weapons.

Okay. I like learning new stuff.
During the 10 years of the Assault Weapons Ban, so called, it withstood several challenges to the Supreme Court. It was never found unconstitutional.
So as a middle of the roader, you interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean no arms whatsoever shall be restricted?

Actually, as a strict Constitutionalist. I KNOW the 2nd Amendment , and indeed the entire Bill of Rights, was meant to apply to the federal government ONLY and that states were SUPPOSED to be able pass their own laws as they saw fit. Meaning if Texas wanted to make it legal to carry a fully loaded UZI through the streets and California wanted to make simple revolver pistols illegal, that was what the founders intended to allow.

We know this is true because most of the states in fact had official religions when the COTUS was written AND in fact it was illegal to carry a firearm in the city limits of both NYC and Philadelphia during this time period (and I'm sure others as well)

However, it is unlikely that incorporation will ever be reversed, so the next option is of course to read the Amendment literally and see that is says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Now of course there is another argument, the argument about whether people can lose their rights, and we have agreed that yes they can, so that brings up proving you are eligible to exercise your rights, which is how background checks are legal. They don't infringe, they merely ensure that you actually DO have a right.

Of course the hilarious part is the very people screaming about background checks will turn around and cry about Voter ID laws, when in fact they both do the same thing. They ensure that you are eligible to enjoy a right.

 

[OldLady]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

 

[martybegan]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

Bad judges.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

A very complex question. Not that I agree with all the reasoning from the Court, but this PDF does an excellent job of explaining it.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf

 

[OldLady]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

A very complex question. Not that I agree with all the reasoning from the Court, but this PDF does an excellent job of explaining it.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf

Thanks. That was a really informative review. One for OldLady, though, yes?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

Bad judges.

If bad judges wasn't code for "issued a ruling I disagree with" someone might take you seriously.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

A very complex question. Not that I agree with all the reasoning from the Court, but this PDF does an excellent job of explaining it.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42957.pdf

Thanks. That was a really informative review. One for OldLady, though, yes?

Yes, of course you are right, the Court found a way to make the AWB Constitutional.

 

[Fishlore]

"Dude, your credibility is sinking faster than a lead fishing weight."
That's a good thing! When my credibility gets as low as your IQ, I'll be incredible,

LOL. Do you even listen to yourself? If my IQ is as low as you accuse, your credibility is as low. Thanks for the Freudian Slip.

You have no idea about parapraxis. That much is obvious from your response; I am, however, happy to give you a Freudian slip since you already possess the matching bra and panties. Poor little fellow...

You opened this in CDZ. You two ought to put on your church going manners.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Picaro]

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

Do you assume police will start shooting anyone carrying a gun?

Which of my sentences are you referring to? The first is self-explanatory, and so are those that follow. There is a reason militaries like to put uniforms on their soldiers; that way they have a better chance of identifying and distinguishing between their own and the enemy soldiers. How is one going to make those distinctions in a mall or somewhere with no police around and 20 or 30 people carrying weapons around who don't know each other? It's a recipe for some serious screwing up. I, for one, am never going to make such an assumption if I hear gunfire breaking out in a Wally World or any other place; everybody carrying that isn't a cop is suspect as far as my personal safety and my family's is concerned. I have no way of telling if it's a loner or several vermin involved,. Pistols are far less of a threat than a rifle with 30 round magazines, period.