Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Texas rep says that man open carrying in a park would violate his daughter's rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Texas rep says that man open carrying in a park would violate his daughter's rights

    A Texas rep, Rep. Rafael Anchia, on testimony against HB910, stated that a man open carrying in a park would violate his daughter's right to enjoy that park. Please document here the many ways in which to logically destroy his assertion, and the ways in which he fundamentally misrepresents what rights are.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    A Texas rep, Rep. Rafael Anchia, on testimony against HB910, stated that a man open carrying in a park would violate his daughter's right to enjoy that park. Please document here the many ways in which to logically destroy his assertion, and the ways in which he fundamentally misrepresents what rights are.
    Trying to crash the internet, huh?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Trying to crash the internet, huh?
    No need to.

    "That among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    Not catching Happiness, just the pursuit of it.

    Please, Rep. Rafael Anchia, remind your daughter of that. And that if anything, OC in Texas will provide her with a greater opportunity to pursue Happiness with even more vigor.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  4. #4
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Idunno... maybe he's onto something. Perhaps life will be better if we squeeze out every possible variation of individuality until there is nothing out there in the world that could possibly be found offensive. A dystopia of mindless serenity.
    I'll submit the first item for the "offensive chopping block". Lying, cheating, thieving, slaving, law makers.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Anchia's assertion that seeing an OCer would violate his daughter's right to enjoy the park has a few problems.

    First, Anchia omits a few steps. He omits to explain how the gun would emanate anti-enjoyment waves. Since, of course, guns don't do that, he must mean the photons bouncing off the gun would, upon arrival to his daughter's retinas, would violate her right to enjoy the park. No? So, what he really means is that his daughter, having adopted or instilled in her by others the attitude that guns are un-enjoyable, she can enforce her self-adopted attitude on others by denying their right to enjoy the park while also being able to defend the body and life of themselves and others. The false premise being that this is in any way a feasible method of sorting out whose rights are senior. At its core, it means she can enforce her adopted/instilled attitude on others, meaning hers are senior because...well...just because.

    Another problem is Anchia's failure to explain why his daughter, if guns are un-enjoyable to see, can't just avert her eyes to look at something enjoyable. He can't mean that seeing a gun once, even on an OCer who is leaving, ruins her whole visit to the park. He can't mean that because it would be a reasonable inference to conclude his daughter is irrationally afraid of guns to the point that once it enters her mind, she cannot let it go. A fixation. And, he dare not mean that. Who would agree that rights are susceptible to the irrational?

    On another aspect, the OP doesn't mention the age of the daughter. Did dad create his own objection by instilling in his minor daughter a fear of guns? Did the school system do it? Did dad take any steps to clean up the school system's errors on guns?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Anchia may have a valid point. I understand that "trigger warnings" are all the rage among the special snowflake crowd of late. And since any decent carry holster covers the trigger, how would the kid know?

    I propose an easy solution. We just get little stickers to put on our holsters that read something like, "Warning: Gun has a trigger - which you can't see because of the holster, but trust me, it's there and I just wanted to make you aware of it in case it matters to you...." or you know, maybe something shorter. I think that is an easy compromise and, if there is anything I have learned from the antis, it is compromise.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  7. #7
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Which Amendment was it again that protected enjoyment of parks? I forget.

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Idunno... maybe he's onto something. Perhaps life will be better if we squeeze out every possible variation of individuality until there is nothing out there in the world that could possibly be found offensive. A dystopia of mindless serenity.
    I'll submit the first item for the "offensive chopping block". Lying, cheating, thieving, slaving, law makers.
    Reminds me of The Giver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Anchia's assertion that seeing an OCer would violate his daughter's right to enjoy the park has a few problems.

    First, Anchia omits a few steps. He omits to explain how the gun would emanate anti-enjoyment waves. Since, of course, guns don't do that, he must mean the photons bouncing off the gun would, upon arrival to his daughter's retinas, would violate her right to enjoy the park. No? So, what he really means is that his daughter, having adopted or instilled in her by others the attitude that guns are un-enjoyable, she can enforce her self-adopted attitude on others by denying their right to enjoy the park while also being able to defend the body and life of themselves and others. The false premise being that this is in any way a feasible method of sorting out whose rights are senior. At its core, it means she can enforce her adopted/instilled attitude on others, meaning hers are senior because...well...just because.

    Another problem is Anchia's failure to explain why his daughter, if guns are un-enjoyable to see, can't just avert her eyes to look at something enjoyable. He can't mean that seeing a gun once, even on an OCer who is leaving, ruins her whole visit to the park. He can't mean that because it would be a reasonable inference to conclude his daughter is irrationally afraid of guns to the point that once it enters her mind, she cannot let it go. A fixation. And, he dare not mean that. Who would agree that rights are susceptible to the irrational?

    On another aspect, the OP doesn't mention the age of the daughter. Did dad create his own objection by instilling in his minor daughter a fear of guns? Did the school system do it? Did dad take any steps to clean up the school system's errors on guns?
    Bravo.

    To build off of... I think that if it could legitimately be said that his daughter's rights were violated - which it can't be - then, if the violation is caused by her unreasonable inability to maintain emotional stability upon sight of a safely holstered firearm, robbing her of enjoyment of whatever area she happens to be in at the time, the actual violator is not the person who entered the space with a safely holstered handgun, but the person that robbed her of her sensibilities, reasonableness, and emotional stability, resulting in the involuntary dispersement of her enjoyment triggered by the reasonable and non-threatening behavior of other humans in public space. Who's to blame for that, father?
    Advocate freedom please

  9. #9
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Reminds me of The Giver.

    Ha! That actually came to mind as I was writing my comment. Very good.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    SNIP the person that robbed her of her sensibilities, reasonableness, and emotional stability, resulting in the involuntary dispersement of her enjoyment triggered by the reasonable and non-threatening behavior of other humans in public space. Who's to blame for that, father?
    Ohhh. Wouldn't that be a peach. Turn the tables and accuse the parent of irresponsible and mentally destabilizing parenting. Maybe threaten to call Child Protective Services. (No, don't do that. CPS can be pretty vicious sometimes.)
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •