TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

BBYC wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

Do you believe it would be infringed if LTC are banned from carrying at the state capitol grounds on a mission to protect legislators from nut jobs with a gun at a government meeting?

Do you believe it would be infringed if you're banned from carrying in public on a mission to protect the public from nut jobs with a gun?

Not everything in life is 100% black or white. One can still believe in the RKBA and the 2nd and still understand that at times one may not be able to have a gun on them. Keep in mind, a person has a choice whether they want to attend the V.P. or President's speeches. If one feels it is too much of an infringement to not carry, don't go. In life, we have to make many choices and most of those choices involve some sort of compromise.

I believe this to be very similar to choosing whether to do business with a private business that posts 30.06 or 30.07 signs. We can make up our own minds without projecting our own beliefs onto others in order to quilt or demean them because of their decision.

but I would make a slight change to your statement and say "still understand that at times one may CHOOSE to not have a gun on them." The ability to carry is what matters. Being free to choose to be unarmed is OK. Being forced to be unarmed is not OK.

In life we make choices. I will openly admit that I have chosen to be unarmed because being at a location, and complying with the law, were both more important to me than carrying at that specific time and place. This includes an awards ceremony at my daughter's school that I attended yesterday. OTOH, Watching a U.S. President speak (in person) is not important enough for me. That's why I am watching Trump on TV right now.

Others are free to set different priorities and to make different choices for themselves. That is fine. I am just happy that they have the freedom to make that choice.

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

Did you ever try saying that to a Drill Instructor at the door of the arms room?

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

I believe that my right to religious freedom is NOT being infringed upon by the requirement to remove my hat for ID photos, but an observant Jew or Muslim may feel differently.

Bushwhacker wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

RossA wrote:I understand all of the above arguments, but they all ignore one overriding factor:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You either believe that or you don't.

I believe that my right to bear arms is NOT being infringed upon by the Secret Service's mission to protect POTUS and VPOTUS from nut jobs with a gun at the NRA-ILA meeting.

I believe that my right to religious freedom is NOT being infringed upon by the requirement to remove my hat for ID photos, but an observant Jew or Muslim may feel differently.

I think that is a micro aggression.