Alternate views of unlicensed carry not appreciated here - but here is one

[ZX9RCAM]

There's a game, one person tells another a story, that person tells it to someone else, and on, and on....

 

[Hoji]

Actually, the Bible tells those without swords to beat their plowshares into one. That was the ancient equivalent of a firearm.

Your turn.

Also says to trade your cloak for a sword. An ideology I can wholeheartedly support. Being armed and naked is better than being clothed and a victim.

 

[busykngt]

From the thread OP:
“And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.”
—
Look harder. The natural Right to self defense IS a God-given right. From the inspired Word of God (The Bible):

Exodus 22:2

Psalm 144:1

Luke 22:36

 

[Sam Colt]

I fear abuse of the right to vote. I think anyone wishing to vote must have a clear understanding of where and how voting is permitted and demonstrate proficiency in operating voting machines and completing paper ballots.

 

[candcallen]

This whole biblical discussion is mute and has no bearing on the constitution or the 2nd.

The bill of rights doesn't reference the bible anywhere. For support of any thing.

As stated previously in the thread you can absolutely show biblical passages to support them but they didnt come directly from the bible. They are founding principles.

We are founded on Judeo Christian principles but the government was specifically intended to stay out of religion.

That argument that it's not in the bible so it's not god given is an ignorant attempt at a strawman arguement that doesn't stand up to the least not scrutiny. The ignorance of such a position of profound.

Also, as stated, self defense is clearly discussed in the bible.

 

[Hoji]

Oh, we see that phrase quoted - and misinterpreted as you did - quite often. Always from the gun control side of things. If you actually apply reading comprehension skills, you can understand that the statement about a "well regulated militia" is actually a statement of intent - because the Second Amendment was written by men who had just finished overthrowing their government by forming a militia. A militia that struggled a LOT because of scarcity of arms and proficiency with said arms.

So...now pay attention...in order to form a well-regulated militia, the people need to own and be proficient and skilled with arms on par with what they may face while defending the free state. A militia, which by definition is NOT government-controlled or government-supplied.

As for your weak "not God-given" argument...the Constitutions does not grant one single solitary right to anyone. It is written in order to prohibit the government from restricting the rights of the people - rights the document recognizes as pre-existing. Our pre-existing rights don't depend on any belief system or document, whether from God or Lewis Carroll. Arguments like yours have been used for generations to water down and pervert the intent of the Constitution, and to eliminate the free expression of our rights. You need to study up, and start with actually reading the Bill of Rights without any preconceptions about what is an "acceptable" regulation of our rights, and while paying attention to the wording of each amendment. Then read the Federalist Papers, where the men who actually wrote the Constitution debated and discussed their aims and goals. Then stop relying on politicians and the media to interpret for you.

Thank you @General Zod for saving me the time to type this all out. Generally not worth the effort to try to educate communists, but thank you for trying.

 

[FireInTheWire]

There's a game, one person tells another a story, that person tells it to someone else, and on, and on....

We know how that ends

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

I only got this far: " I support it, but...

Get outta heah lefty!!!!!

This site isn't for you a-hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Brains]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

Okay @ldhunter1959 , I'll bite.

Is it really an echo chamber if the only reasoning you can gather is that people don't agree with your opinion?
Is it really an "alternate view" if you're shown the facts, but choose to ignore them in lieu of your feelings on them?
Are feelings really more important than laws?

Start by answering those questions, and see if you still take the same position. The 2A is well debated, but the intent is hard to refute by anyone willing to learn what it means. It is certainly OK to disagree with the premise of the 2A, but you should at least be clear about it. Seething with rage? Hardly, but the reason you feel TGT is an echo chamber on the topic is because so many people have put a LOT of time and thought into fully understanding it, while you are simply choosing to feel differently on the matter.

 

[Royalecheese]

I think there is a bigger elephant in the room than the posting itself, which is the author of the actual article shown for consideration. Most of what the author says is alarming enough. But more than those things, he calls himself a supporter of the Second Amendment and a conservative. Buckley must be spinning in his grave.

For those who would like an op-ed to refuting the article, it is here:

Yes to Permitless Carry in Texas | National Review

It’s time to do away with a licensing system that’s not doing very much.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[benenglish]

On a side note:

I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.

No, you don't get it.

I was promoted to a mod position because, among other things, I have frequently made statements that run counter or tangential to the prevailing wisdom on TGT. I do so politely, acknowledge the differing opinions of others, and will change my mind when shown sufficient facts and reason. I'd like to think people around here appreciate the fact that I may approach things a bit differently than is generally considered the norm. I like to make other people think and I like it when they make me think.

The impression that TGT is an echo chamber comes from the standard, rather plainspoken reactions received by people who don't do as I have done and, instead, make contrary arguments poorly, rudely, or both...as you just did.

• You used "but" in exactly the place you knew it would inflame folks,
• You demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the prefatory clause of the 2A, something that's shocking to see in this venue,
• You demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the difference between "natural rights" and "enumerated rights", and
• You invoked the Bible without understanding that it makes allowances for armed violence in the cause of righteousness.

I don't think you'll get very far with your reasoning. If you had started better, you might have...but you sorta blew it from the get-go.

As for me, I'll continue to add that "but" as I have in the past while justifying it in polite, reasoned ways that have caused even the most rabid defenders of the 2A to cut me some slack, even here on TGT. As for your Biblical strawman argument, I'll ignore it as it deserves to be ignored. I'll simply continue to bear arms as Jesus did and hope that I never have to employ them to dish out physical violence, again, as Jesus did. (See John 2:15.)

NOTE TO EVERYBODY: This is about as close to discussing religion as can be tolerated on TGT. We've seen what can happen. Citing Biblical references to provide historical context, as has been done by everybody in this thread, is fine. Going further would be terribly ill-advised. Fair warning.

 

[2ManyGuns]

Actually, the Bible tells those without swords to beat their plowshares into one. That was the ancient equivalent of a firearm.

Your turn.

"Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I AM STRONG" KJV

 

[Ozzman]

NOTE TO EVERYBODY: This is about as close to discussing religion as can be tolerated on TGT. We've seen what can happen. Citing Biblical references to provide historical context, as has been done by everybody in this thread, is fine. Going further would be terribly ill-advised. Fair warning.

I have a cousin named Jesus...

 

[MTA]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

You need to go the hell back where you came from

 

[oldag]

So the fact that much of it was written well after the events happened means nothing?

Okay.

You are correct.

And to keep Ben happy, I will stop here on this particular subject.

 

[2ManyGuns]

To the OP, the simple fact is you are not a Constitutionalist.

 

[benenglish]

The impression that TGT is an echo chamber comes from the standard, rather plainspoken reactions received by people who ... make contrary arguments poorly, rudely, or both...

You need to go the hell back where you came from

Case in point.

 

[MTA]

Case in point.

ehh I like to think of it as I just say what everyone else is thinking

 

[TX oddball]

So...now pay attention...in order to form a well-regulated militia, the people need to own and be proficient and skilled with arms on par with what they may face while defending the free state. A militia, which by definition is NOT government-controlled or government-supplied.

Exactly, something every leftist, using revisionist history bullshit tactics, spins into lies for their agenda. Back in the Founding Father's day, "well regulated" when it referred to gun rights and militia, meant well trained, well prepared. NOT controlled by government. And the "militia" was an armed citizenry to provide a check and balance for the govt. sponsored standing army, not the National Guard (part of the armed forces) as many leftists like to say about "militia".

A despicable tactic of leftists- using 21 century mindset to re-write history, to re-write past morals and ethics.

 

[Axxe55]

ehh I like to think of it as I just say what everyone else is thinking

Or just with less tact than others!

And I think if the OP were to look at some of my previous points of view, I am contrary to some opinions held by many here on TGT. But I don know, there is no words of "but" or "except" in the 2nd Amendment. I also have fair understanding of what "infringed" means.