Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 48

Thread: Pro Open Carry Letter to the Editor Published in the Galveston Daily News

  1. #1
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    I wrote a letter to the editor of my hometown paper.. After 2 weeks it finally made it...

    I had just finished a conversation with an anti open carry person when I wrote the letter so its' content was based on the frustration I was feeling at the time.

    --

    http://galvestondailynews.com/story....94CAGSh23E1A5C

    Restore Right To Bear Arms Or Risk All Rights

    Do Daily News readers have a freedom of speech permit? Sounds silly, doesn’t it?

    I am asking my fellow Texans to support the Texan Open Carry Rights Restoration Bill, which can be found on the opencarry.org Web site. I’m not affiliated with opencarry.org but do support it.

    Whether readers support this issue on principle, as a gun owner or as a concealed handgun license holder makes no difference. We are simply expecting our elected officials to give us our rights back.

    In the past decade, I have seen more laws created and revised to take away rights that we as Americans fought for so long ago. We need to stop this dangerous momentum in its tracks.

    People who are anti-gun and fight against this movement will join the problem. The government will continue to attack small groups in this country until virtually all of our rights are taken away. Today, it’s gun rights but, tomorrow, it could be another personal issue.

    If the affected people don’t support us in our issue, we won’t support theirs. Then who loses? Everyone!

    A responsible, armed citizen is one of the best assets a community can have. Until people have experienced that, they may never understand.

    Kenny Jacobs Garland



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    I like your letter - very good framing of the "rights" issue ! This should resonate well with the folks in the Texas City/ Hitchcock/Santa Fearea anyway. The "tourism" mentality on the Island may be skittish about OC, but my experiences visiting Galveston Island STRONGLY justify OC - especially if you find yourself more than 1 blockinland from the sea wall.

    Amid all of the OPINING being stirred up by the TX OC effort - it's important to keep framing THE ISSUE on the target- that existing statutory "law" in TX is in violation of the TX Constitution.Whether opinions favor OC or not- this issue is not going to be ultimately dependent on polling, or opinion. It is a LEGAL issue that turns on the Texas Constitution.

    I predict that if the Legislature doesn't act effectively and promptly on this issue -the movement will snowball some TX "representatives" & Senators out of office very soon.


  3. #3
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    I'm from Galveston... OC is needed there. Especially if you plan on being anywhere east of 61st street. I think the sight of OC will cut crime. But I'm no expert, just using my common sense and logic.

    I just don't get it when I hear people talk about fearing someone walking around with a gun on their hip in plain sight. Is it simply because these people are inadequate to do the same?

    I'm only 23 and have been called a radical by many for years now because of my views and what I think the government's role should be. I'm planning on running for Texas Rep for the 2010 term. Not sure how far along I'll get in the process, but I'll never know until I try.

    Our politicians need to bein the spotlight and questionedevery single day that they are in office. If they can't take the heat then they are probably in office for the wrong reasons.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    SilentKTexan wrote:
    I'm from Galveston... OC is needed there. Especially if you plan on being anywhere east of 61st street. I think the sight of OC will cut crime. But I'm no expert, just using my common sense and logic.

    I just don't get it when I hear people talk about fearing someone walking around with a gun on their hip in plain sight. Is it simply because these people are inadequate to do the same?

    I'm only 23 and have been called a radical by many for years now because of my views and what I think the government's role should be. I'm planning on running for Texas Rep for the 2010 term. Not sure how far along I'll get in the process, but I'll never know until I try.

    Our politicians need to bein the spotlight and questionedevery single day that they are in office. If they can't take the heat then they are probably in office for the wrong reasons.
    Really sounds like you have your act together, especially at your age. Understand that I'm not putting you down here, just amaized how younger folks can have such vast differences from eachother in character. Across town, there is probably some 23 yr old punk trying to figure out how to get their next fix. I applaud you sir. Congratulations on being an up and comming productive member of society.

    I too fail to understand the logic of people getting scared at the sight of a gun. I feel that at least I know where they are and who has them. Concealed carry should pose more of a concern for those afraid of guns, I would think. I do know some folks that I would not want to be around, should they carry though. Not trying to infringe on anyones rights, but some folks are just plain stupid. The drunk 16 year old that damn near killed me a couple weeks ago blew a .22 on the breathalizer, I'm told. He may have no record before, and had a right to drive, but his lack of consideration for what he was doing (driving a car) shows that he should not be driving. Stupid folks are out there.

    Now what I'm saying is gonna piss a few folks off, but it is not intended to. I support the 2A and open carry, and I'm against laws that make it hard to exercise our rights, but I do take a little comfort that at least in Texas, folks have completed training and a BG test. I just dont think that everyone has the mental ability to carry a weapon. I know this seems like I cant make up my mind of which I want, and I guess that would be fair to say, so let me put it like this: I love my mother (78 yrs old), good lady, never any trouble with law, and makes some damn good cookies, but I would feel very unsafe around her should she decide to carry, especially without training. Should the law require her to have training, I would feel a little better.

    Please dont flame me folks. I support the cause and our rights, but some checks and balances may keep the system a little safer.


  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    IOW your tyrant is a good tyrant because y'all two agree. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Columbus, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    154

    Post imported post

    While I agree that anyone who carries or owns guns should have some sort of training (formal, informal, no matter, just something) I don't believe; however, that the government has any business requiring it.

  7. #7
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    Like others have said...I agree that peopleshould havetraining, but let idiots be idiots. Hopefully they only hurt themselves.

    With any other right that we as Americans have there will always be idiots that the majority of the population would say that individual should not be allowed to exercise that right. Whether it be that 16 year old driving, Alan Colmes being able to speak or the likes...

    Innocent people will get hurt regardless of the issue... Whether it be taxes, judicial system, driving, or the likes...

    Cars, hammers, base ball bats, prisoners and unarmed soldiers and kill someone just as quickly if not quicker than someone with a gun. The fears I here about OC are baseless when you get down to their core reasoning.



    ...I just had to throw in that Alan Colmes bit... I would love it if he lost his voice, but it is his right.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    IOW your tyrant is a good tyrant because y'all two agree. Which part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
    I dont believe your attitude was justly called for.



    To address the others:

    I know, as you have said, that idiots will be there no mater what to do something stupid that will possible affect the rest of us. I also know that there is little we can do to weed them out.

    There are requirements for a number of things in life. When we adopted, we were required to take child-raising classes by the USCIS. When kids learn to drive, they now have to take defensive driving before they can get their licenses (in Texas), before scuba diving, flying a plane, and skydiving, you must take training and obtain certification that you posses the skills needed to keep yourself and others safe. I personally dont have a hard time with weapons training to carry a firearm.

    I guess I'll have to admit, I'm not a "I hate Government" kind of guy. I only want rules/laws that make sense and have reason, and the stupid laws like Florida's famed "No sex with alligators on Sunday" can get tossed.

    I dont have the desire to hate Government when I think it is acting in good faith. I think that having obtainable training to carry a deadly weapon seems reasonable. I will not argue the point with anyone that the 2A does not seem to support the requirement for this training; but I will argue that it is not an entirely bad thing to have.

  9. #9
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    It's not that I hate the government.. Like I said, I'm only 23 so my experience and knowledge is limited but much greater than my peers.



    If you give the government an inch they will find a way make it a mile. As much as I think people should receive some training and demonstrate the responsible handling and shooting skills of a gun before OC I don't want to give the government an opportunity to add on more restrictions. The more "requirements" the government puts on our rights, the more money theyrequire from us for those rights.

    So it is what it is... I don't know about you..but if I didn't have to pay $$$ for all these "rights" I would probably be finished with school by now. But instead, I'm on the 6 year plan.

    It's ridiculous how many fees we have to pay for our rights...they should be calling them privileges because our politicians are treating them as if they were such.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    SilentKTexan wrote:
    It's not that I hate the government.. Like I said, I'm only 23 so my experience and knowledge is limited but much greater than my peers.



    If you give the government an inch they will find a way make it a mile. As much as I think people should receive some training and demonstrate the responsible handling and shooting skills of a gun before OC I don't want to give the government an opportunity to add on more restrictions. The more "requirements" the government puts on our rights, the more money theyrequire from us for those rights.

    So it is what it is... I don't know about you..but if I didn't have to pay $$$ for all these "rights" I would probably be finished with school by now. But instead, I'm on the 6 year plan.

    It's ridiculous how many fees we have to pay for our rights...they should be calling them privileges because our politicians are treating them as if they were such.
    I agree with all that you have said. I agree the government will take a mile given an inch, and also that the fees are nuts. In my ideal world, there would be zero fees because a license was not required, the Gov would know they work for us and not the other way around, and anyone who wanted to carry would be smart enough to realize they should have training due to the dangers of having/owning/ and carrying a gun, but then there would be no criminals to have to defend against anyway. And YES, there are dangers with a gun, just like operating a band-saw or working on your homes electric panel, or drivinga car; if you dont know what you're doing you could seriously hurt or kill yourself or someone else. Having said that, this is not my perfect world, and it isn't yours or anyone else's for that matter.

    Another thought here. The Bill of Rights 2A gives all Americans the right to bear arms. Now laws relating to people convicted of a felony say they cannot own/posses weapons. This was not a consideration when the 2A was written. Am I to understand that those who will only accept the strictestinterpitation of the 2A want those convicted of a felony to be restored those rights also? Or is it OK that there were laws written "after-the-fact" to keep arms from some we see as unfit ? What about mentally retarded ? What about Marylin Manson?... I think none of us want convicted criminals to have weapons, or the retarded. But then come in those damn pesky laws that were written after the fact....




  11. #11
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    But the thing about felons is that if they want guns they are going to have them regardless. So why have a law for something that is going to be broken in the first place? Laws only keep the honest, honest.

    Like I said, I am from Galveston. There were many thug students that carried a gun at school. Most of them are felons now and still carry guns. They could care less about a CHL, OC or even a gun ban law. The only people those will effect are law abiding citizens. I couldn't do anything to protect myself back then other than to respect people and mind my own business. Now a CHL allows protection but open carry is a much better solution.

    The weapon choice available for OC is going to be more accurate than the limited choices for CC.



    All my life I've seen more and more restrictions on law abiding citizens. Criminals have the same freedoms today that they had 50 years ago. They don't follow the law and have no respect for the system or others. Not saying I have respect for the system, but I do follow the law.

    I refuse to believe that the majority of society is too stupid to be 100% accountable for their actions. Government has dumbed down the American population and it starts in the school system.



    Ok, ok... Enough ranting for now. I think my point has been made.

  12. #12
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    ...Get ready, the worst is yet to come.
    More and more I am getting that feeling. I think it is going to get worse that I ever thought. There are many people with very deep convictions on this issue that oppose open carry. It will take a lot of dedication and patience to provide the education needed to sway their opinions.

  13. #13
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    Very true. This country is going down the drain and main stream America is in denial.



    They call us paranoid radicals. So instead of listening to people like me with an open mind they just close their ears and eyes.

    I'm with Chuck Norris. Time to start over with some people that will follow the Constitution and not try and change it.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    RETIREDEOD wrote:
    There are requirements for a number of things in life. When we adopted, we were required to take child-raising classes by the USCIS. When kids learn to drive, they now have to take defensive driving before they can get their licenses (in Texas), before scuba diving, flying a plane, and skydiving, you must take training and obtain certification that you posses the skills needed to keep yourself and others safe.
    There is no right to engage in any of these activities. They are all privileges.You seem notto understand how sacred your rights are anddistinguish between rights and other activities.Training is fine, even desirable. Requiring trainingto exercise a right, any right is unacceptable.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    SilentKTexan wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    ...Get ready, the worst is yet to come.
    More and more I am getting that feeling. I think it is going to get worse that I ever thought. There are many people with very deep convictions on this issue that oppose open carry. It will take a lot of dedication and patience to provide the education needed to sway their opinions.
    OK, Clarify, and Doug Huffmantoo please.

    If you support the 2A 100%, then you do not support ANY laws written after it including felons and the mentally incapable (no arguement that felons will carry anyway). Which would mean you want those laws abolished. If you want felons and the mentally incapable to not have the right to carry, then you DO NOT SUPPORT the 2A as it was originally written by our forefathers. That would mean you support lawsmade after the 2A was written. Which is it?

    I think we all agree we dont want felons and the mentally incapabe to have weapons. So, we both support some laws not included in the 2A.

    There is no twist here, and the question is elementary. It's a hard choice, eh? Either you are a die-hard and want felons and retarded to have the right to have guns with ZERO laws not included in the original 2A, or you agree that some laws seem necessary. I can accept someones difference in opinion, as long as I know what it is. But to suggest that someone does not think because they have their own thoughts on the topic makes no sense. I'd just like clarification of how one does not support the 2A because they believe some laws make sense...

    Gentlemen, lets try to keep it professional and friendly, as I think we all want the same thing, to preserve OUR rights. There is no need to sling accusations and be rude in the commentary because someone thinks for themselves. I will keep it professional myself, and if I find I disagree with something, I will state what and why. thanks

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to mere allegations of mental defect or domestic difficulties.

  17. #17
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    I don't want felons and mentally challenged carrying guns around. But I am not for laws that forbid them from doing so. I'm not a judge nor juror. I know some felons that have been rehabilitated and I would trust them with a gun more than one of my peers that as you said "is worried about where he is going to get his next fix" There may also be a person that has had some mental issue but has obtained counseling and is now considered normal. I'm not saying I can make that determination, but the government surely can't.



    The point I am trying to make is that our government is the most inefficient organization in the country. Let society work it out. This government can't even handle what it has on its' plate now, why add more regulation it has to attempt to enforce and add more cases to the already high case load our judicial system has.

    People have to rely on the government for far too much. This is not what our founding fathers intended to happen. We are so far from what they had in mind that its scary.



  18. #18
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    Think about this...

    Right now police will check your record simply because you are driving a car...

    OC with restrictions only gives police a reason to stop and check you out. Wouldn't they have better things to do? More power = more corruption... Just look at the governor of Illinois.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to mere allegations of mental defect or domestic difficulties.
    OK, thanks. I understand your position now. I must say that Idid not expect it though. I personally think that view, though absolutely 100% 2A, is not a view I share (abolishing laws regulating felons/retarded). I do believe some people loose their rights and deserve so, and cannot support the stand that would put (legally) weapons into the hands of felony criminals and those that have mental disqualifications. It is completely counter to what i think makes sense.I do think some laws are necessary, and you think any laws are wrong. I think I'll just have to agree to disagree, sir.

    Thank you for stating your position clearly for me. I hope our lack of agreement does not stand in the way of us working together, as we can, to bring OC to Texas and the other states that currently criminalize it.



  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    RETIREDEOD wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to mere allegations of mental defect or domestic difficulties.
    OK, thanks. I understand your position now. I must say that Idid not expect it though. I personally think that view, though absolutely 100% 2A, is not a view I share (abolishing laws regulating felons/retarded). I do believe some people loose their rights and deserve so, and cannot support the stand that would put (legally) weapons into the hands of felony criminals and those that have mental disqualifications. It is completely counter to what i think makes sense.I do think some laws are necessary, and you think any laws are wrong. I think I'll just have to agree to disagree, sir.

    Thank you for stating your position clearly for me. I hope our lack of agreement does not stand in the way of us working together, as we can, to bring OC to Texas and the other states that currently criminalize it.
    Most states do not require a license to open carry. It is arguable that absent a reason to beklieve that an open carrier is not licensed, police may not constititonally demand to see hislciense, state statute notwithstanding. An emerging case in georgia may provide clues on this question.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    The laws criminalizing possession of a firearm by those citizens convicted of felony offenses serve only to discourage said possession by those inclined to obey laws.

    Violent offenders are not the least deterred by these same laws. Imake no apology for favoring full restoration of all civil rights to anyone deemed fit enough for release back into society from incarceration or institutionalization. If they pose a risk to the public they should not be released. They are free to walk into any store and purchase a baseball bat - one of the deadliest weapons available to anyone of any age. Nothing irks me more than this "felon" issue constantly tossed about like the proverbial end - to end all of every debate over the 2A - as the ultimate offering of the no right is absolute constituency. The right to keep and bear arms is the only enumerated right singled out for treatment under the caveat "shall not be infringed". That's as absolute as it gets.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    SANDCREEK wrote:
    The laws criminalizing possession of a firearm by those citizens convicted of felony offenses serve only to discourage said possession by those inclined to obey laws.

    Violent offenders are not the least deterred by these same laws. Imake no apology for favoring full restoration of all civil rights to anyone deemed fit enough for release back into society from incarceration or institutionalization. If they pose a risk to the public they should not be released. They are free to walk into any store and purchase a baseball bat - one of the deadliest weapons available to anyone of any age. Nothing irks me more than this "felon" issue constantly tossed about like the proverbial end - to end all of every debate over the 2A - as the ultimate offering of the no right is absolute constituency. The right to keep and bear arms is the only enumerated right singled out for treatment under the caveat "shall not be infringed". That's as absolute as it gets.
    I understand this position also. I was not trying to argue the point of whether or not a felon intent on having a weapon would follow the law or not, as I fully agree they wont. I was however trying to make my point that some laws do make sense to me. I also did not try to introduce a view that you have said keeps comming up as the "end all". It was simply my thoughts on the issue, not having read the million posts in the forum.

    Again, I hope that despite our differences in view, we can work together to accomplish OC where it is not permitted now.

    Gentlemen, I bid you good evening.



  23. #23
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    RETIREDEOD wrote:
    ...I was however trying to make my point that some laws do make sense to me...
    Your comment strikes me at the core. This belief is what fuels our lawmakers into getting away with the advances they make on limiting our rights. You add a little bit more they can bite at...all those bites over the past several decades have added up and look at the situation we are in now.

    Let the people work it out.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    If I understand your question correctly, and my only choices are (1.) anyone and everyone shall have the right to keep and bear arms or (2.) anyone and everyone may have their right infringed, the choice is clear. I choose the unimpinged right for all. Freedom is not free and is often messy. Liberty is not doled out by any government.

    The felon and mental invalid will no doubt convict themselves by their own actions. Any law regarding firearms will not impede the inevitable. Nor will restricting the rights of the law abiding.

    Oh and, good letter SilentKTexan.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    138

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to mere allegations of mental defect or domestic difficulties.
    Exactly what Frank Lautenberg tried to accomplish with his noxious law.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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