It Could Be Open Season On Open Carry In Texas

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/wnhppp/june-5–2014—tom-cruise

The magnificent Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. Watch the first two segments on Open Carry in Texas where Open Carry meets Stand Your Ground. It’s both laws existing side by side taken to their ultimate lethal absurdity. It’s the NRA as both the Earps and the Clantons in a good old-fashioned, state-sanctioned gunfight (of course that was in Arizona and not Texas but the analogy still works) playing both sides against the middle.

Watch the first two show segments, although the third segment is hilarious and worthwhile. In Texas, you have the right to enter a Mickey D’s or a 7-11 with your AR-15 slung over your shoulder. At the same time, if you’re a parent eating lunch with your young children at said Mickey D’s and you THINK or FEEL that your lives are in danger from those scary gunslinging munchers, with their ball caps, heavy jackets, heavy beards, heavy bulk (or even the thinner guys) because you don’t know if they just came in to munch a Big Mac or to spray everyone with bullets out of their large capacity clips (with more sticking out of their jackets under which you can spy their Kevlar bulletproof vests), you have a legal right to take your .9mm Glock semiautomatic pistol out of your Open Carry shoulder holster and put a round through each of the munchers’ heads if that’s what makes you and your scared children safer.

And chances are no one will convict you of murder or manslaughter in Texas because Stand Your Ground is all about state of mind. If you THINK you are being threatened with bodily harm or FEEL that your life and those of your loved ones are in danger, that’s all the law requires for you to legally terminate the source of the danger that you feel with extreme prejudice.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “It Could Be Open Season On Open Carry In Texas

  1. farlefty says:

    lwk2431, your comment made no sense at all. But maybe you can help clarify your thinking for me. What list? And what do you consider formal logical fallacy and how are you getting fallacy from comedy? I have no idea what you’re saying so, based on what you’ve written, I cannot agree nor disagree. However, I looked at your blog and I’ve read its title so that tells me all I need to know. When you repost your comment in your blog, as is your M.O. for blogs which don’t post your comments–and I’m sure there’s quite a few–spell the name of my blog correctly, please. Love the free publicity.

  2. lwk2431 says:

    “What list?”

    List of formal logical fallacies, that is, arguments presented as being logically justified but in fact invalid in terms of logic.

    “how are you getting fallacy from comedy?”

    One of the actual formal logical fallacies is known as the ad hominem argument where one supposedly sets out to prove an assertion incorrect but devolves into a personal attack against whomever made the assertion in the first place.

    A standard staple of The Daily Show is to ridicule people using comedy in a very real form of ad hominem argument. Sometimes it is good comedy and sometimes I find it funny, but there is clearly an agenda involved, and this is very common on all fronts with the Left, to substitute ridicule and comedy for actual logical arguments and objective evaluation of the facts.

    Don’t know if you will moderate this comment into /dev/null, but if you do then very clearly you not interested in objective discussion.

    regards,

    lwk

    • farlefty says:

      It’s clear to me that you love your intellect so much you could read your own stuff for hours, and you most likely do. You just LOVE the way you write. However, I think you comment is overly written, self-consciously complex, and merely a smokescreen for the fact that, beside your pro-gun ideology, you’ve got nothin’. I asked you for specific information, to clarify your statements. All you provided is an extended restatement of what you’d already written about logical fallacies WITHOUT PROVIDING ONE SHRED OF NEW INFORMATION. Oh, well you did throw in the term ad hominem but that’s not quite enough, is it? You also reveal you bias by slamming The Daily Show which in no way poses ad hominem arguments except from you slanted point of view. Check the facts, bucko: it’s been proven that more factual news reporting is done by shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show than standard news shows all over the political spectrum. It’s been proven that Fox is not a news channel but merely an opinion and a pro-GOP propaganda channel.

      But you’re wrong: I will print your comments here just so people can read my response to you. I won’t debate you because you’ve intentionally given me nothing to debate me with–and I gave you your shot. I asked for specifics and you gave me vague, generalized comments and a slam at Stewart and the boys. So, this is the last time I’ll respond to you. Any further responses from you go in the Trash where they belong. One suggestion: if you want to debate a Liberal, have your facts ready and remember, your fancy writing doesn’t hide your lack of logic; it just highlights it.

      • lwk2431 says:

        ” You just LOVE the way you write.”

        This is pretty amusing, actually. Translation: “I LOVE the way you write and wish I could write half as well.” I don’t care if you delete this comment. I have already had my laugh for the morning!

        Adios amigo,

        lwk

      • farlefty says:

        Such an easy retort. no thought required, which is how you’ve written all your comments. Just continues to display your limited thinking despite the tortured thought processes that produce the illogic which permeates throughout your arguments. But that fact that you consider me your amigo is touching. But I really don’t feel the same way about you. That probably happens to you a lot. But, you always have your guns to keep you warm…

      • lwk2431 says:

        “But I really don’t feel the same way about you.”

        I don’t either like or dislike you. I am sure you have many redeeming qualities – most people do. You would do better in promoting your ideas though if you started out with the assumption that the people you are talking to have good motives, even if you think their ideas are stupid.

        There are certainly good people on both sides of this debate. It is often interesting to talk with those who don’t immediately stereotype someone because their views are a little different than their own.

        regards,

        lwk

      • farlefty says:

        No idea who you are; all I have to go on are your written words and your writing style. And from both of those and how you chose to argue your original points, especially how you characterized The Daily Show, there was no basis for discussion because your argument was basically flawed. You appear to be educated but education does not also teach common sense, or looking beyond one’s ideology in order to view an issue objectively if not dispassionately. But a good English education should include the teaching of how to frame one’s arguments or responses so that their meanings are clear to all readers. Your first response smacked of George Will’s overly-wrought style of writing, use of vocabulary and composition, which for beneath its seeming complexity and florid style there is no meat, no meaning. Guys like him mistake what they deem as eloquence for convincingly and clearly arguing a point. This was clear to me back in the ’70s when I read a couple of his columns and found nothing really there, Pulitzer Prize not withstanding.

        My assessment of how you put forth your original argument is that it was an employment of the Will style, which means that someday you, too, may win a Pulitzer.

        Ignoring the expected but childish response you made to my comment about your writing style (which remains completely accurate), your ensuing comments are much better written; you’re presenting facts instead of mere opinion.

        Read my comments about those gun-toting idiots again, please. I never said they WERE a menace–although the potential was always there. What I said was that the protest was intentional intimidation, and a lot of people who were just trying to have a calm meal with or without their children, or trying to make a purchase at the 7-11 did feel menaced and thought and felt they were possibly in danger–and Stand YOUR Ground is ALL about state of mind which is EXACTLY what The Daily Show was pointing out. Nothing you’ve posted about Texas gun laws has responded to that core, unassailable point. I grant you know more about gun laws in Texas than I do because I’ve no reason to exhaustively study them; but I do clearly understand the politics behind the laws and the mindset and lack of common sense, and in many cases, education, of the people defending those laws.

        And check Texas law and politics again. As has become cliche but true, in Texas it’s easier to obtain a gun and a conceal carry permit than it is to vote IF you’re among the constituency that the Texas GOP, people like the Kochs (who have become symbolic of that whole class), the NRA, and ALEC wish to keep from voting lest their clear agenda be overturned and repealed. This who gun thing is just a distraction, an intentionally-divisive issue meant to keep all of our heads down as we spar off against each other so that we fail to look up and see the conversion of our democracy to an oligarchy completed. The NRA spews to the uneducated gun-toting masses that Obama’s coming for their guns. I guarantee that if he and the federal government were they’d have them by now and over hundreds of dead, ex-gunowners who thought they could stop him. But that’s another issue for another commentary I’ve yet to write.

      • lwk2431 says:

        “Stand YOUR Ground is ALL about state of mind which is EXACTLY what The Daily Show was pointing out.”

        And they were wrong. It is not about “state of mind.”

        The “Stand your ground” law in Texas (and probably all other states that have them) removes the requirement to retreat as long as you are in a place where you have a right to be. That is really all it does.

        As to “state of mind” it is true that you cannot use deadly force unless you have a reason to believe that you, or another person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. However just because you feel that way does not give you a pass. That is what a lot of critics need to try to wrap their heads around (instead of misrepresenting it).

        If you shoot a person in what you believe is justified self defense the facts surrounding the shooting will be evaluated on an objective standard and if a “reasonable person” would have not have reached the same conclusion then your defense will fail.

        If the D.A. looks at the objective facts available to him or her and it doesn’t look like a clear cut case then a Grand Jury will most likely be called and they will be asked to look at the facts and determine if there is cause for an indictment.

        If an indictment is brought you will have to defend your actions in court. The jury will be specifically instructed to look at the facts and the testimony to determine if they believe a reasonable person would have seen the same level of threat. If they are _not_ convinced then your defense will fail.

        That is how it really works. You can’t just say, “Yea, I was scared this guy was going to kill me!” and expect having that state of mind will get you off. It will not unless the facts support that conclusion.

        I have a post somewhere on my blog – search for “Ayboob.” It has a series of links to some articles by Massad Ayoob who was an expert witness retained in the Zimmerman case. He has some interesting things to say on this subject.

        The requirement to retreat in previous laws often punished good people because under the stress of deadly attack they didn’t see the route of retreat and didn’t take it. If you have ever truly been in danger of a violent, life threatening attack you will know that perception changes greatly and the focus is on the attacker and you just may not be able to see that route. But it is easy for a lawyer in a safe courtroom to show it existed. But he wasn’t there.

        Stand your ground laws correct a deficiency in the law that puts the burden on the attacker, not the victim. I also have a detailed post somewhere on that on my blog.

        Regards,

        lwk

      • lwk2431 says:

        ” I guarantee that if [Obama] and the federal government were [wanting to take away guns] they’d have them by now and over hundreds of dead, ex-gunowners who thought they could stop him. But that’s another issue for another commentary I’ve yet to write.”

        You say “I guarantee.” Quick question. Have you ever served in a branch of the American military? In a war zone? How well do you understand the mental state of your average person serving in the military?

        My guess is that no one exactly knows how this one would roll. Having some first hand knowledge of war I truly hope we never have to find out.

        regards,

        lwk

  3. A lot of those states have the open carry gun laws. It’s been open season for a long time.

    • farlefty says:

      Yes, quite a few states–all in the South, I believe–have open carry or very “liberal” concealed carry laws. However, that wasn’t the point of my commentary. My point drew from the segments on that episode of The Daily Show which posited what might happen when 2nd Amendment-based Open Carry is confronted by 2nd Amendment-based Stand Your Ground. It’s a legitimate question because–remember–Stand Your Ground defense is based on state-of-mind. If you claim you felt your life was in danger then you are fully justified to use lethal force to eliminate that threat, under SYG laws. Now, it’s up to law enforcement if they will arrest you, the DA if you will be prosecuted, and a judge or jury if you will be convicted or acquitted. We’ve just about reached that ultimate point of lethal absurd dualism where the NRA has propelled us.

      • oh..ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

      • lwk2431 says:

        “a few states–all in the South, I believe–have open carry …”

        Texas has banned open carry of handguns since the 1870s.

      • farlefty says:

        That is so comforting. But Texans can keep a loaded handgun in their cars if they have concealed carry permits, which are extremely easy for most people to get.

        And then, there’s this which those idiots carrying those assault rifles were clearly in violation of:

        “There is no legal statute specifically prohibiting the carry of a firearm other than a handgun (Pre-1899 black powder weapons and replicas of such are not legally firearms in Texas [3]) . However if the firearm is displayed in a manner ‘calculated to cause alarm.’ Then it is ‘disorderly conduct’ (which defines an offense, in part, as ‘displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm’). Open carry of a handgun in public is generally illegal in Texas due to PC 46.02; exceptions are detailed in that section and in 46.15, and include when the carrier is on property he/she owns or has lawful control over, while legally hunting, or while participating in some gun-related public event such as a gun show. A permit to carry concealed is thus required to carry a handgun in public.”

        The action taking by those gun idiots was definitely intended to cause alarm. “Gun-related public event” is a pretty vague statement with loopholes bigger than the hole a .357 magnum slug would make.

      • lwk2431 says:

        “…Texans can keep a loaded handgun in their cars if they have concealed carry permits,…”

        Actually any Texan who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm can have a handgun concealed in their car. But they can’t leave the car in public with it without a CHL. They are also required by law to inform a police officer they have it if stopped for any reason.

        “…which are extremely easy for most people to get.”

        We really haven’t had any problem with CHL holders in Texas that I know of. The antis shouted that “blood would run in the streets” if the concealed carry law was passed. It was passed about a decade ago and their concerns have simply not panned out.

        “And then, there’s this which those idiots carrying those assault rifles …”

        You probably don’t know the whole story behind that. They weren’t intended to cause alarm. They were political protests aimed at getting the law in Texas amended to allow open carry of handguns. We can argue that their method of protesting was stupid, and I would agree with that, because it did not serve to advance their cause. They should have understood that it wouldn’t before they did it. But they certainly weren’t a real menace to anyone.

        regards,

        lwk

      • lwk2431 says:

        “concealed carry permits, which are extremely easy for most people to get [in Texas].”

        Meant to also say this. The state of Texas does a pretty damn thorough background check on people who apply. If remember right it took almost two months for them to finish that. They take fingerprints too.

        They don’t teach gun handling or gun safety in the course per se. What you _must_ do is _demonstrate that you can handle a firearm safely and score a minimum accuracy on the shooting test. Any failure in the test to use safe gun handling is an automatic fail, I guarantee you.

        Also the instructor goes to great pains to make sure people understand what they are getting into and the likely consequences if they shoot someone, even if it is fully justified. He said that he has had people get up and leave the course, not getting a license, once it fully sunk into them what they were applying for.

        So you can say it is easy, and I won’t claim it is as tough as some would like it to be, but the record so far in Texas seems to indicate it was hard enough.

        Regards,

        lwk

      • farlefty says:

        One additional point. What you fail to understand and can’t see from your end of the gun barrel is this: The 2nd Amendment-defending, assault rifle-toting protestors have now come to represent the NRA and the whole defeat new gun control legislation movement in general. You may be a totally responsible gunowner with multiple gun safes with triple backup security for all of them. You may never have pointed a firearm at someone in play or in anger, but you are not the face of the gun rights movement. Who make up this face? Try the montage of faces belonging to the shooters at Columbine, Aurora, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Newtown, this past weekend in Las Vegas, and on and on and on and on. Gunowners, even responsible ones, just don’t get that when other unarmed people see these clowns pushing their shopping carts down the aisle at Safeway or Wal-Mart or wherever with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder or loaded handguns in a side or shoulder holster, the faces of all those shooters come flooding into their minds, along with those images comes fear, intimidation, and anger. There is always an implied threat with a gun–the threat that it may be used by an unstable person to resolve an issue on the road, in a supermarket, at a bar or restaurant, a 7-11, at a college, a sporting event, a concert, or what was supposed to be a simple, pleasant day at the park. And this fear, resentment, and anger just serves to escalate the issue. People who don’t own guns now commit to obtaining a weapon just to defend themselves from the gun idiots. When people on opposing sides of an issue locked inside of a powder keg try to out-intimidate each other, the powder keg can explode into violence, lives are forever ruined or lost, and the survivors typically spend the next decade or more in prison. Open carry is not legal in my state but if it was and I was subjected to those same gun-toting idiots, I’d start wearing a gun as well, and there are others who would respond similarly to me. It’s a self-escalating feedback loop and this is what you and others of your ideology fail to grasp. The increasing polarization among the American people is deliberate. And what could be it’s logical conclusion? Think of the Civil War but fought on a lot more fronts in many more regions of the country. The GOP, the NRA and lobbying, law-writing groups like ALEC are fomenting this because while people are at war against each other in the streets, no one’s watching the government store to protect democracy from looters. And when there is open and outright rebellion among the masses, how doe the government handle it By declaring martial law and disarming every person, one way or another, it would prefer not to be armed.

        You’ve got to think things through, whoever you are. This is so much more than just a difference of opinion over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and how Texas gun laws are written.

      • lwk2431 says:

        “The 2nd Amendment-defending, assault rifle-toting protestors have now come to represent the NRA…”

        Actually the NRA rebuked the Open Carry activists in Texas a couple days ago. Thought their behavior was bizarre.

        “Who make up this face [gun rights movement]? Try the montage of faces belonging to the shooters at Columbine, Aurora, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Newtown, this past weekend in Las Vegas, and on and on and on and on.”

        That is certainly the image that many on the Left are trying to paint. Who knows, maybe even some of them believe it? Let me give you an example to explain it with a clear picture.

        Back about 1994 I went to a gun rights rally opposing the Assault Weapons Ban being debated in Congress at that time. There were a lot of well dressed and articulate people there. However there was one, and do mean “one,” disheveled guy wearing dirty camos and spewing all sorts of conspiracy nonsense.

        Guess who the media focused about 90% of their attention on? It sure wasn’t the clean shaven articulate guy who could clearly explain the position of the vast majority there. Nope, on the evening news Mr. Dirty Camo was the lead player of the story.

        Later on I saw on TV a story about the ban. You may or may not understand that some registered fully automatic machines can be legal. These registered machine guns have been used in a crime only two times since 1934 to the best of my knowledge (and one was a cop).

        So on this TV story they have managed to find a legal M16 (fully automatic) and filmed firing it on full auto at a gun range. Now understand the 1994 Ban had absolutely nothing to do with with real M16s (or real assault rifles by military definition). It had to do with semi-automatic weapons that actually are not very easy to convert to full auto (and to do so will get you in jail very quickly, it is a serious Federal felony).

        So they show this film firing an M16 full auto and never tell the audience this has nothing to do with the guns to be banned. But an AR-15 does look a lot like an M16. The intent was clearly to deceive. I guess they thought lying in a good cause make it ok.

        That is is the kind of dishonestly I am talking about.

        I am sure you believe what you said, but you could not be further off base. The vast majority of gun rights advocates are clean shaven, and articulate. Like me. 🙂

        And I don’t parade around downtown with my AR-15. I take it to the range cause I want to see how well my handloads perform. 🙂

        regards,

        lwk

      • farlefty says:

        The NRA quickly walked back their rebuke. If you watched The Daily Show you would’ve seen it. And, because I do my research, I’m fully aware that there’s no federal ban on owning fully automatic weapons. I grant that you are still articulate but you are mistaken in some of your comments. I’ve never seen disheveled gun nuts highlighted on liberal news shows, but I see plenty of phony verbal abuse and idiotic comments heaped upon liberals and moderates by Fox and its ilk, including the GOP. What you commented on about how the gun rally was framed is your interpretation based on your memory of it.

        I’ve read some of your other characterizations of what the Left is doing and so forth and again, you’re arguing from your ideology and not from the viewpoint of how people who don’t watch MSNBC or Fox or CNN view these shooters. Unless you can step outside your ideology, raise yourself out of your micro viewpoint and look at it all in the macro, there can be no serious discussion. Your continued belief that assault rifles are suitable for private ownership is ludicrous and indefensible. Further debate on this issue is pointless.

        Your type always argues that new gun laws aren’t needed; we need to enforce the gun laws currently on the books. You mean the watered-down, ineffective gun laws that the NRA paid millions upon millions of dollars to their Congressional employees in both parties to pass into law? Those laws? And it’s so wonderful that you’re a responsible AR-15 who uses it strictly for target practice. And since you use it only for target practice, the point of owning that or any assault rifle is–what, again? Because you can? And that is the point: you can own legally own one (or more) and so can the shooters at Aurora, Newtown, Las Vegas, Fort Hood, etc.;, ad nauseum. Your right to own an assault rifle is their right to own one (or more), too. By the same token, you have a legal right to own high-capacity magazines and clips and enough ammo to outfit a small militia and so do the crazies who easily pass background checks. If they can’t the guns legally, they can still buy the ammo online–no problem at all. And the GOP and the NRA have made sure via their paid Congressional (and in many cases presidential) employees that only the aforementioned watered-down bills–which make background checks a mere formality–are passed to assuage the angry masses that decisive political action has been taken in the absence of any actual decisive and meaningful political action with teeth in it. Your failure to either see or acknowledge these facts is the fundamental flaw in your arguments. I’ve noticed that your pattern throughout our dialogue is to ignore the facts you can’t refute and to address the ones you think you can argue. This is typical of every gun advocate I’ve encountered.

        This is a wedge issue, designed to keep us at an impasse. There is no nothing more to be learned or gained from any further dialogue between us. Any further comments of yours will no longer be posted.

Comments are closed.