The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
or maybe even ReaganRoyGBiv wrote:Trumps fault. Clearly. or Bush.bblhd672 wrote:So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?
I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.The Annoyed Man wrote:Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. I just honestly don't know if profanity is considered protected speech or not. It's a fair question, but I'll have to defer to someone who actually knows.ninjabread wrote:That would fit with the Left's ideology. It would be wrong, in their eyes, to prosecute BLM for inciting violence against police. However, it's right up their alley to infringe the RKBA by making some good ol' boy ineligible for an LTC because he used a four letter word for feces.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?
No, you need to go back much further. It was the fault of Washington, Jefferson and those other radical, hateful rich white men who had the gall to get upset over a few taxes. Without those original alt-right wackos we would all be happy subjects in the socialist utopia that is the U.K.JustSomeOldGuy wrote:or maybe even ReaganRoyGBiv wrote:Trumps fault. Clearly. or Bush.bblhd672 wrote:So, wonder how the left spins a total slam dunk upholding of "hate speech" as being protected by the 1st Amendment?
Maybe the good guys should start rioting so antifa can be charged with disorderly conduct.C-dub wrote:I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
strogg wrote:You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
Perfect answer.Jusme wrote:I address everyone in the same manner. I never had anyone get angry, but did have one tell me that I didn't have to say ma'am, every time I answered. I told her my mother would get up out of her grave, and "whoop" me, if I addressed a lady in any other manner, and then "whoop" me again for making her have to get up out of her grave, and I did not want to have to deal with that.strogg wrote:You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
I tell them, "My Momma tried to raise a gentlemen. Unfortunately, she got me instead."Jusme wrote:strogg wrote:You know it's a sad day in this world when that happens. I actually had a coworker of mine who warned me a while back that she's from Texas and says sir, ma'am, etc a lot. And I went, "wait what? I don't mind... why would you think that?" And then I learned, some snowflake actually did get butt-hurt from innocuous gestures of kindness from her. Only in California...C-dub wrote: I suppose it would be, but there's always that little caveat that if it's incites a riot or violence then all bets are off. And it seems like some folks are so easily incited these days that just saying "Thank you M'am" can get you in trouble.
I address everyone in the same manner. I never had anyone get angry, but did have one tell me that I didn't have to say ma'am, every time I answered. I told her my mother would get up out of her grave, and "whoop" me, if I addressed a lady in any other manner, and then "whoop" me again for making her have to get up out of her grave, and I did not want to have to deal with that.
There are numerous, no, NUMEROUS, cases of police being given the middle finger and the courts ruling it is protected free speech.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't know. The issue is "hate speech", not profanity. It may be that profanity isn't protected speech.ninjabread wrote:Does this mean Texans are no longer at risk of losing their LTC for using salty language in Walmart?