Incorrect through implication. There is no right to keep and bear arms in the California constitution.
Irrelevant. Constitutionally guaranteed or not, it was legal and then was banned as the result of OC demonstrations. It is entirely accurate to say that OC in CA was legislated out of existence as the direct result of OC demonstrations.
More to the point, having seen what can happen if OC demonstrations are not carefully thought out/planned, wouldn't it be wise to examine the CA scenario and ask how we can avoid repeating the mistakes made? That makes a lot more sense than trying to dismiss it and thereby missing the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others.
Shall not be infringed seems to be forgotten.
This is a strawman, a red herring, and an attempt to poison the well all wrapped up into one.
Strawman: Saying that someone is doing something stupid/unwise/ill-advised is not the same thing as saying that the particular right they are using to carry out their actions should be infringed. I can FULLY support someone's right to free speech and still point out the errors in what they say or point out that it is unwise for them to say what they're saying.
Red Herring: Trying to change the focus away from the prudence of a course of action to an argument about infringement. This is about being smart, about understanding the goal and adopting a constructive approach. Pointing out that a particular course of action is unlikely to succeed and/or has been shown to fail in the past is not about infringement. It's about being smart, about learning from the failures of others rather than repeating their mistakes.
Poison the Well: Implying that anyone who disagrees must be anti-gun (wants to infringe on the Second Amendment) is an attempt to invalidate/dismiss everything that those persons have to say wholesale rather than addressing their concerns and comments to determine if they have merit/validity. If a person's comments and concerns don't stand on their own, they can be dismissed with logic or countered with the proper arguments. It's only when a debater can not answer an argument or assail the logic of an assertion that he/she typically resorts to attempting to dismiss those arguments and assertions by trying to poison the well.
It's obviously a right you care absolutely nothing about. So why piss and moan about it being gone?
I'm for the expansion of gun rights and that includes OC. I am against infringing on gun rights and that includes OC. That doesn't mean I endorse every possible way that some choose to exercise their right to OC any more than I endorse every possible thing that a person could choose to say with their right to free speech.
I support the right OC and I support the right to free speech, but that's a different thing entirely from automatically endorsing everything people choose to do with those rights.
You (and others on this thread) seem to be saying that if Jimbobfrank says "X" with his right to free speech I'm supposed to blindly agree with what he says or I'm infringing on his right to free speech and I don't support his right to free speech. That's a load of crap.
I can FULLY support Jimbobfrank's right to free speech and his right to say what he chooses and still point out that what he's saying (the specific way he's using his right to free speech) is all wrong, it doesn't make sense, it's illogical, it's misguided, foolish, whatever.
In exactly the same way, I can FULLY support Jimbobfrank's right to OC and still point out that his actions (the specific method he's chosen to exercise his right to OC) are stupid, foolish, misguided, unsafe, problematic, counterproductive, whatever.
It is important for us to remain united, but it's just as important, perhaps even more important for us all to view our community with a critical eye and feel encouraged to speak up when we see the beginnings of "crackpottery". It's critical to insure that we don't tacitly encourage persons and activities that end up harming the firearms community.
How we help "crackpots" flourish in our community...
The goal is to maintain and expand our rights. When people take actions that endanger that goal, we need to point out the flaws in their plan, not pretend that it's all good.
Good intentions are wonderful, but people can be very well-intentioned and still fail miserably. It's not enough for someone to mean well if what they're doing is actually moving us further away from the goals we (and they) are trying to achieve.
With no net loss of Texas gun rights, I fail to see how this was really a bad thing.
TX has, since 1995 been gradually expanding gun rights. This legislative session, OC was going to be one of the main foci of the TSRA's efforts to continue that expansion. It's becoming apparent that the antics of some OC demonstrators have reduced support for passage of an OC bill.
Did we lose what we had? No. At least not so far. Did we lose what we could have had? It's looking that way. It's great when we don't lose rights, it's even better when we can expand them.
) the open carry events both inform and motivate those people who agree with the underlying ideals, but were unaware there was a push on to get them codified. Before all the open carry hoopla in Texas a year or so ago, I was only barely aware that OC was not legal for pistols, and completely unaware there was a move on to change that (I figured it was yet another of those "one day wishes" we're always going on about)
