Fight over open carry gun policy in Texas

Jul 30, 2008 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KVUE

Imagine walking down the street and next to someone with a gun strapped to their hip.

Comments
121 - 140 of 366 Comments Last updated Sep 10, 2009

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Aug 6, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

txauctioneer wrote:
This will be divided into two continuing posts, since my original attempt exceeds the character limit...
TaxedOut
You are picking an argument with one who is not going to provide rationale, as you may have now noticed from his response. There is nothing you can say, unless you you offer complete agreement with him, that will have any credibility in any fashion or form, in his opinion. Therefore, you are automatically labeled "anti" among other defamatory verbiage he chooses to "justify" his so-called "reasoning."
This is only an example of his "reasoning":
In POST# 79, I asked (txauctioneer):
Well, let's see here. Please point out the POST#'s where the following occurred, and the relevant remarks pertaining thereto:
— assumptions
— irrational statements
— tried to discredit others through menacing words
— threats to sue
You never got back!
Now here you are AGAIN making the same accusations.
PUT UP or SHUT UP.
So, I'll take another unmerited moment to illustrate my point, in reference to his repeated response and thinking that he has provided anything that offers rational thinking, much less proved anything by his irrational ramblings.
— assumptions - I never made assumptions.
Who's talking about you? It ~was~ yourself whom accused myself, or don't you recall?
txauctioneer wrote:
— irrational statements - I or anyone else, do not provide any rational statements, unless they unequivocally agree with his views.
Once again: It was >YOURSELF< who accused myself ... Or, don't you recall?
txauctioneer wrote:
— tried to discredit others through menacing words
Once again: It was >YOURSELF< who accused myself ... Or, don't you recall?

So, PUT UP, or SHUT UP!

:-))

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Aug 6, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

My 2 cents wrote:
*laffin hard* and then they come out with something to let you know not only who they are but that they clearly haven't taken their meds yet as I'm most certain is prescribed.
Such as >YOURSELF<.

Yes, we know all about you!

:-))

Once again: What's 'laffin?' It's not in any recognized dictionary ...
My 2 cents wrote:
Highlander - What times of the day do they let you guys use the computers connected to the Internet? I think you might be taking advantage of a seemingly too liberal policy.
Oh! I am just soooooo nonplused! NOT!

:-))

You know? The nice thing about being ME, is that I'm NOT >YOU<!

:-))
txauctioneer

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Aug 6, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's talking about you? It ~was~ yourself whom accused myself, or don't you recall?
<quoted text>
Once again: It was >YOURSELF< who accused myself ... Or, don't you recall?
<quoted text>
Once again: It was >YOURSELF< who accused myself ... Or, don't you recall?
So, PUT UP, or SHUT UP!
:-))
Aw, come on... is that the best you can do?
Go back and read it again. Read it ALL. It DOES cover "YOU", after all, that's what everything is about in your own little world..."YOU".

Not only did I show how you have little substance left (between the ears, likely due to them over-medicating you), but the answers you wanted are also are there. I only took the liberty to show how you are only doing, what you claim others are doing. Excuse me, if I didn't just focus on YOUR expectations in how I drafted my response to "Taxed Out", but I suppose someone forgot to tell me that you're the King (although I think you've just been eating too many burgers and it's clogging the arteries to the brain).

You want specific topic numbers? Then, ask your mother to help you (or one of the attendants). You will find everything prior to the post, where I made the original statement, not to mention the continuance of such behaviors in subsequent posts. Start with your first idiotic post and read what you wrote in ALL of them, as I made no misrepresentations in anything I wrote. Apparently Taxed Out (as well as, 2Cents and others) saw the same thing that I originally stated, so perhaps it IS you that is having problems understanding, which could probably be corrected if you calmed down and they would probably reduce the amount of medication.

Now, if you actually want to try to respond intelligently, give it your best shot... or as you like to put it so eloquently, "PUT UP or SHUT UP".

Now, as far as getting "back on topic", keep in mind, this is about TEXAS and typically we don't really give a damn how you do things "up there" or your opinions of us, "down here". Just a little something that HighLo would have a bit of trouble understanding as well, and thinking he's gonna sway opinions with his screaming rants and rhetoric. He needs to go read the laws of his own state (or country... Scotland? and what's with the skirt? does it have something to do with his "bitch slapping"?), they aren't quite as liberal as he is attempting to imply, as they certainly carry a lot of restrictions on where you can carry, regardless of whether it is open or concealed.
txauctioneer

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Aug 6, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Damn it!! Here we go again! Another imposter trying to make me look sad. Go away little boy.
Highlander knows full well I wouldn't post any of the stupidity that you just posted above.

Topix moderators, please remove this charlatan.
Watchdog

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Aug 6, 2008
 
txauctioneer wrote:
Damn it!! Here we go again! Another imposter trying to make me look sad. Go away little boy.
Highlander knows full well I wouldn't post any of the stupidity that you just posted above.
Topix moderators, please remove this charlatan.
Register the name, and he won't be able to use it

Since: Aug 08

Houston

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Aug 6, 2008
 
txauctioneer wrote:
Damn it!! Here we go again! Another imposter trying to make me look sad. Go away little boy.
Highlander knows full well I wouldn't post any of the stupidity that you just posted above.
Topix moderators, please remove this charlatan.
Uh-huh... This idiot thinks he'll fool everyone into thinking it was actually me who posted this? Get a life, punk.

If you can't come up with something intelligent to respond with (which is apparently, an unlikely possibility), then get back to school and do your homework.

Watchdog, I took your advice and signed up, just so there's no doubt, as to which posts are mine (although I don't think most people will have a problem figuring it out). Thanks.

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Aug 8, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all!
But then? I'm not about to let slip off-the-cuff remarks which won't be substantiated by the one(s) making those remarks.
If you've been attentive, you'll have noted that the CONTROL FREAKS here and about obstinately REFUSE to back-up their remarks with COLD HARD FACTS.
So, would it be ~your~ contention that they shouldn't be taken to task for their irresponsible remarks and blatant lies?
YOU would just let them slip unchallenged?
You'll get back on that, right? Enquiring minds desire to know!
Just because someone doesn't share your opinion that makes them a control freak?

Yes I followed through all of the comments - some are very passionate. Isn't there generally passion involved when you truly believe in something though?

How's that for getting right on it? ;-)

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Aug 8, 2008
 
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
SINCE >YOU< ARE MAKING THE REMARK, please show WHERE, i.e., POST# and statement therein, where that may be an accurate statement by >YOURSELF<.
Can do?
WILL DO?
<quoted text>
Hmmm.
Let me see if I understand you here: If someone declares that they want to take away all of your rights, are >YOU< going to calmly and collectedly sit down and agree to have a discussion with them?
If >THEY< declare that they want to rape >YOUR< child, may we —the rest of us— understand that >YOU< would calmly and collectedly sit down with the perp and have a nice little 'discussion?'
<quoted text>
My! Ain't >YOU< the selective reading one!
You would proceed to take me —of all people— to task, when in the greatest number of times, the disparaging remarks have emanated from the antis. But ~you~ don't talk about THAT.
I wonder why?
And WHY-OH-WHY didn't >YOU< MENTION THIS SET OF QUESTIONS AS NOT BEING ADDRESSED by the poster guilty of making them?
You'll get back on that, won't you?
Or, will you?
—————
In POST# 79, I asked (txauctioneer):
Well, let's see here. Please point out the POST#'s where the following occurred, and the relevant remarks pertaining thereto:
— assumptions
— irrational statements
— tried to discredit others through menacing words
— threats to sue
You never got back!
Now here you are AGAIN making the same accusations.
PUT UP or SHUT UP.
Can do?
WILL DO?
Nah, very likely not. Typical anti.
—————
Mercy darlin', you do rile ever so easily. I take a different approach to things than many - just the way that I am.

If you wish to disect my comments, more power to you I presume. If you wish to disagree with my opinion - hey that's great. No harm, no foul...right?

You totally missed the point of my post - I guess that is what happens when you my dear do have selective vision of posts.

I will not bicker with you if that is what you are attempting to get me to do - I was raised to get my point across differently.

If you don't understand my viewpoint or have questions, I will answer...I will not battle with you though.

Unlike you, it would seem, I respect the fact that others have a differing opinion than mine...to each their own. It may give me more insight, it may not...who knows.

Have a wonderful weekend.:-)

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Aug 8, 2008
 
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he —txauctioneer— is quite intellectually unarmed.
And of course, you'll agree with him, even WHEN >YOU< KNOW he's wrong.
Right?
Mercy, you are adorable when you get all riled up.

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Aug 8, 2008
 
Watchdog wrote:
<quoted text>
I, too, would file a report, if only to document my activities during the time frame of the call....however, I would (based on the first scenario of the caller just being upset because he/she saw a HOLSTERED weapon, being worn on the owners own property [and his/her previous traumatic experience with a gun])NOT file or recommend any charges and would close out the report NA (No Action Required).
Such circumstances in Florida do not require the intervention of a Judge or courtroom. If anything, a State Attorney (our version of a Prosectutor or District Attorney) would call me in to talk about it if a complaint was filed at that level later.
Point taken. The jist of what I was attempting to get across was that yes a report can be filed - even if not truly necessary.

Some people have nothing better to do with their time than stir up nonsense. Yes it is a waste of time to file certain reports, but after it is said and done they are somewhat content and simmer down for a bit...well until they get restless once again.

It wastes the officer's time, yes. It irritates me that people do things such as this but I have no say in what others do.

Better at getting my point across now? If not, my apologies, that's what happens in the wee hours of the morning after being up all day.:)

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Aug 8, 2008
 
txauctioneer wrote:
This will be divided into two continuing posts, since my original attempt exceeds the character limit...
TaxedOut
You are picking an argument with one who is not going to provide rationale, as you may have now noticed from his response. There is nothing you can say, unless you you offer complete agreement with him, that will have any credibility in any fashion or form, in his opinion. Therefore, you are automatically labeled "anti" among other defamatory verbiage he chooses to "justify" his so-called "reasoning."
This is only an example of his "reasoning":
In POST# 79, I asked (txauctioneer):
Well, let's see here. Please point out the POST#'s where the following occurred, and the relevant remarks pertaining thereto:
— assumptions
— irrational statements
— tried to discredit others through menacing words
— threats to sue
You never got back!
Now here you are AGAIN making the same accusations.
PUT UP or SHUT UP.
So, I'll take another unmerited moment to illustrate my point, in reference to his repeated response and thinking that he has provided anything that offers rational thinking, much less proved anything by his irrational ramblings.
— assumptions - I never made assumptions. I have provided my views, and justifications for my views based on logical reasoning, statements of law, and/or other facts that have been demonstrated in various forms. I am allowed my views and opinions, according the same constitution and amendments that provide for many of the rights we have, not just the 2nd amendment and his own interpretation of such rights. For that matter, Mr. High-n-mighty "demands" that others "prove" anything they might say, yet has offered little proof or justification of his own, other than verbal assaults and "I'm right", followed by more demeaning comments towards anyone that might not completely agree with his ardent views. As I'm sure he will point back to a particular statement/post and claim it is proof/justification, others that may dispute the intent of such post will automatically be criticized and verbally assaulted, and anointed with his higher level of self-proclaimed authority.
— irrational statements - I or anyone else, do not provide any rational statements, unless they unequivocally agree with his views. There can be no "meeting of the minds" or partial agreement of any aspect. It's all or nothing and only if it meets with his OPINION or views of right and wrong. Therefore, no one but his own self, is rational, and are lambasted and screamed at for offering a variance of what he considers as irrational. I could only imagine trying to have an actual conversation with this individual, as he interrupts and screams insults at you to make his point and therefore proves that you are wrong, unless you agree with his views. And this is considered rational behavior... right?
— tried to discredit others through menacing words - sheeeesh... who has used menacing words?
Again, I, like several others, offered their own thoughts and viewpoints, only to be verbally attacked and told they were just "anti", among other implications. Please, refresh my memory, and tell me which words I used that were "menacing", prior to being verbally attacked and then using such menacing words as "clown". However, it sort of traverses down the same lines of when to produce your weapon in a confrontation. If you attack others, then you might expect retaliation from others.
— threats to sue - See Post #63. "And if >YOU< were my next door neighbor, I'd sue your arse into the ground!" Therefore, this substantiates this statement I made in my post. Yet, this guy want to make it appear that he's the only one that has his facts straight.
to be continued...
No worries darlin', I am quite familiar with the type and it rolls right off of me. I actually had to chuckle out how the responses were worded, although I was not surprised.

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Aug 8, 2008
 
txauctioneer wrote:
These statements come from the same guy that continually "dares" you to respond, makes "accusations", tells YOU to "Put Up or Shut Up", "Can do?", Will do?" and other antagonistic remarks and threats to "bitch slap", among others, and has no concept of contributing to a civil dialogue.
Just as my replies above, to his "demand" for me (and others) to "prove" something, it will not be determined to have any validity, as we're just out to deprive him of his "rights" to strap a gun on his hip.
There is no rational statement you can offer to anyone that doesn't want to listen to anything that anyone says... this can also apply to a situation that you could find yourself in, such as, should someone try to rob you. Until you give them what they want, you're not likely to change their mind by trying to rationalize with them.
If I were standing in a convenience store and a thug came in to rob them, I certainly hope that this guy isn't in there with me. While most would attempt to assess the situation and make a decision on the immediate threat of innocent life versus the thug's current actions, I can see this type of individual pulling his weapon and having a shoot-out. I think I'd rather take my chances with the thug, than have this guy trying to be the hero... thoughts of Barney Fife keep coming to mind, for some reason.
This guy is only looking for an argument or a fight. Of course, he will have a gun that is likely displayed on his hip so that you will be in awe and feel intimidated, so be careful, lest he feels threatened.
Mercy, the character cut-off is a tad annoying.

At any rate, to continue my thought...

I am a big girl now and conversations like that are nothing but a walk in the park for me. I appreciate your insight though. Amazing how a calm response brings out hostility, isn't it?

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Aug 8, 2008
 
txauctioneer wrote:
Damn it!! Here we go again! Another imposter trying to make me look sad. Go away little boy.
Highlander knows full well I wouldn't post any of the stupidity that you just posted above.
Topix moderators, please remove this charlatan.
A suggestion if I may? Register your name and that might help...just a thought.

Since: Apr 07

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
Aug 8, 2008
 
Oops, if I had read just one post down I would have seen someone else suggest the same thing. One more down after that and I would see that you had.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#141
Aug 8, 2008
 
txauctioneer wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw, come on... is that the best you can do?
RIGHT BACK AT YOURSELF.

In POST# 79, I asked (txauctioneer):
Well, let's see here. Please point out the POST#'s where the following occurred, and the relevant remarks pertaining thereto:

— assumptions

— irrational statements

— tried to discredit others through menacing words

— threats to sue

You never got back!
Now here you are AGAIN making the same accusations.
PUT UP or SHUT UP.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142
Aug 8, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

Taxed Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because someone doesn't share your opinion that makes them a control freak?
Having an opinion —the extent of which does not attempt to infringe upon the rights of others— is in the main merely expressing how one thinks for ONE'S SELF ONLY.

However, those whom would seek to FORCE their views upon all other by way of law, are not merely expressing a personal opinion. Rather, they are seeking CONTROL over all others.

Ergo, they fit the definition given in the American Heritage English Dictionary:
——————
control freak Slang
n.
One who has an obsessive need to exert control over people and situations.
——————
Taxed Out wrote:
Yes I followed through all of the comments - some are very passionate. Isn't there generally passion involved when you truly believe in something though?
How's that for getting right on it? ;-)
There is distinct difference between the term 'passion,' and the term 'obsession.'

To wit — from the same dictionary:
—————
pas·sion
n.
1. A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger.
2.
a. Ardent love.
b. Strong sexual desire; lust.
c. The object of such love or desire.
3.
a. Boundless enthusiasm: His skills as a player don't quite match his passion for the game.
b. The object of such enthusiasm: Soccer is her passion.
4. An abandoned display of emotion, especially of anger: He's been known to fly into a passion without warning.
[rest omitted as not relevant]
———
From the thesaurus:
passion
noun
Sexual hunger:
amativeness, concupiscence, desire, eroticism, erotism, itch, libidinousness, lust, lustfulness, prurience, pruriency.
See desire, sex.
A subject or activity that inspires lively interest:
craze, enthusiasm, mania, rage.
See concern.
Passionate devotion to or interest in a cause or subject, for example:
ardor, enthusiasm, fervor, fire, zeal, zealousness.
See concern, feelings.
A strong, enthusiastic liking for something:
love, love affair, romance.
See love.
The passionate affection and desire felt by lovers for each other:
amorousness, fancy, love, romance.
See love, sex.
Powerful, intense emotion:
ardor, fervency, fervor, fire.
See feelings.
An angry outburst:
fit2, huff, tantrum, temper.
Informal: conniption, conniption fit.
See feelings.
———
ob·ses·sion
n.
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.
———
From the thesaurus:
obsession
noun
An irrational preoccupation:
fetish, fixation, mania.
Informal: thing.
See concern.
——————

Take due and careful note that the two terms are NOT synonymous.

Therefore, your attempt to connote what isn't, has been revealed.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#143
Aug 8, 2008
 
Taxed Out wrote:
<quoted text>
Mercy darlin', you do rile ever so easily. I take a different approach to things than many - just the way that I am.
If you wish to disect my comments, more power to you I presume. If you wish to disagree with my opinion - hey that's great. No harm, no foul...right?
You would object to your remarks being parsed?

Is not THE WHOLE the sum of the individual parts?

If the individual parts —which compose the whole— are faulted, then the whole is =also= faulted.

It is not logical to declare that an argument —a part of which is based upon even one faulted premise— no matter how insignificant that fault might be, as based upon a truth, facts, and reality.

The essence of your argument is that a bottle of the very finest wine is still the very finest wine even when a drop of sewage has been deposited into its container.
Taxed Out wrote:
You totally missed the point of my post - I guess that is what happens when you my dear do have selective vision of posts.
On the contrary: I dissect every utterance to discover the truth of whatever matter.

That you don't like that tells me that you're trying to hide something, and that you expect others to take your remarks at face value.
Taxed Out wrote:
I will not bicker with you if that is what you are attempting to get me to do - I was raised to get my point across differently.
There is only one reality here, and that is connected to the truth and the facts.

If you propose to say that your reality is different, then you are playing fast and furious with the facts and the truth, bending them fit what you believe.
Taxed Out wrote:
If you don't understand my viewpoint or have questions, I will answer...I will not battle with you though.
If you can't —or won't— communicate in plain English, or couch your arguments in anti-liberty themes, then don't be expecting any respect from those whom can see through those arguments.
Taxed Out wrote:
Unlike you, it would seem, I respect the fact that others have a differing opinion than mine...to each their own. It may give me more insight, it may not...who knows.
Have a wonderful weekend.:-)
As I remarked earlier: You have a right to your opinion, just as long as that opinion DOES NOT espouse the enslavement of others to your ideals.
frank tx

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#144
Aug 8, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Michael Ejercito wrote:
No one seems to bat an eye at police officers and Secret Service agents openly carrying.
1st thing youmust understand that police office rlike myself we are contiue to train and conduct live fire as well as weapon retition oper carry is not a good idea no matter how you look at it you need to rethinh you thought bud
frank tx

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#145
Aug 8, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

well 1st thing you must understand that we in law enforcement train all the time and also we train on weapon retition and go to the range and we must follow the use of force open carry is not in no shape or form is a good idea no matter how you look at it.

2nd police officer must were there badge when we carry our weapon in the open so you need to get a good education befor you start to put down the law enforce people.
Watchdog

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#146
Aug 8, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

frank tx wrote:
well 1st thing you must understand that we in law enforcement train all the time and also we train on weapon retition and go to the range and we must follow the use of force open carry is not in no shape or form is a good idea no matter how you look at it.
2nd police officer must were there badge when we carry our weapon in the open so you need to get a good education befor you start to put down the law enforce people.
In Florida an officer must only requalify ONCE per year, and based on experience, upwards of 80% of the police officers I know don't shoot any more often than their department requirements. They do not go shooting on their days off. They do nothing to enhance their skills beyond the training they recieved in the academy.

Civilian CWL holders, for the most part, seem to LIKE shooting, practice often, take handgun courses (some of which include weapons retention classes).....and shoot fewer people accidentally than police officers.

Police officers deliberately place themselve in situations a rational civilian would not. They "run to the sound of the guns" where a citizen wisely stays away. More police officers are killed with their own weapons annually than are armed citizens.

Lastly, 44 states allow some form of open carry, licensed or not, Texas would in no way be unique, nor would it be trendsetting in allowing open carry, and would be unlikely to experience anything any of the other states that allow it have not.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Killeen Discussions

Search the Killeen Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
TX Who do you support for Governor in Texas in 2010? (Oct '10) 5 hr Imperial Chicano 17,291
TX Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 13 hr That Fart Guy 21,736
Coves Sales Taxes Down Again? (Feb '14) Jul 30 When7 54
198th Light Infantry Brigade (Jul '09) Jul 30 Wilber 13
Preschools Jul 29 LMB32682 1
Code enforcement Jul 29 skyline 3
15 people arrested for Copperas Cove drug distr... Jul 29 Cautionary Tale 3
•••
•••
•••
•••

Killeen Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Killeen People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Killeen News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Killeen
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••