Just to stir the pot more... You do know that someone who is bent with criminal intent doesn't care about the law right? I mean if not we should outlaw Drinking and Driving, illicit drugs, kidnapping and killing innocent people.... oh wait. Taking away or not allowing for the exercise of your rights because of the actions of the few is straight from the liberal playbook. All in the name of safety.
It is attributed to Franklin and Jefferson both and still up for discussion who actually stated it.

yeah in the Waco video they call ahead of time and have a normal conversation with the officer.

Why don't you post all the other videos where people are screaming at officers and trying to quote alleged roadside law asking questions about officers names? (like stated before they wear their names on their uniforms.)

this is in no way helping advance the 2nd amendment or helping to explain to people who don't own firearms why they too should be a responsible gun owner and the benefits for the rest of us including for protection, hunting, sport, collecting, and preservation of history.

Shock and awe tactics are for PETA people and Westboro Baptist.

CDOAN, so by your estimation you can just look at everyone and figure out their intentions good bad and otherwise just by using your common sense?

I have no problem with you expressing your Constitutional rights, but why do it to solicit a response from police? To me these public displays only serve one purpose, possibly two......make the officer look bad and get the open carry guy in the news......what if some citizen gets real upset, makes a call to police with misleading info, the officer gets injured or worse responding code or some citizen over reacts? I'm sorry guys, this stuff is dumb and it places all gun owners in a poor light. These folks in my honest opinion are doing our cause harm, that being said, no one can tell you not to do it.......Police do not make laws, nor do they sign them into law.......they simply enforce laws society wants and they are there to serve public safety needs......Star Bucks is the latest to say they don't want us there packing weapons, I have heard of several other companies that may follow suit.......what good is a license if businesses join together and say, we don't want you in our stores? Gun Owners are in the minority.......

Starbucks asked for people to leave them at home, but did not say no firearms they will still serve coffee to those with firearms as long as local law allows it.

That is an easy fix, 40% of the population started voting with their pocket books supporting pro-gun places the message will be clear. Liberals will go to Starbucks because it is a status for them, gun owners need to follow through, look at the Chick-Fila appreciation day and Hobby Lobby when they got hit for their stances.

Also I do not support making a scene like some folks do over open carry or go out to make an officer look like a complete fool. As for the mention of officers over reacting or someone getting hurt? Officers know anything can happen any day it is part of the job. As a Soldier I lace up my boots each day when deploying knowing the same thing, I also work in a field within the military that is LE. I would gladly have a civilian that was armed willing to help.

The old man at the end Mr. Stacy made that shot with a .357 over 150 yards at some estimates.

Ok, just my thoughts on the subject. I don't think any law enforcement in Texas is against law abiding citizens having, carrying firearms.....we don't need folks harming our cause, as you know we only make up less than 40% of the US population, and I see those numbers going down in the future. Hopefully our government will continue follow the Constitution (2nd amendment) and abide by it.

In Abilene and Ruidoso we drive by the Starbucks, I cannot remember when there wasn't a long lone at either one. The other 60% must be picking up the slack.

On the other hand, they could change it back to the way it used to be.

Hmmm... Shall not be infringed? I don't think that means what you think it means...

Study the Supreme Court's rulings concerning the 2nd Amendment down through the ages prior to the Bush/Roberts interpretation. You will see what I am talking about. Words,mandates,interpretations,etc. are never set in stone. They mean what the SC says they mean and that can change as the court changes

Your statement above about SB is down right false and mis leading. You post like a liberal. Try reading the link you posted then follow the link to starbucks own website and statement.
Here....I'll make it easy for you. If you read it you will even see where the CEO doesn't even put all of the blame on the OCrs but also the antis.
Starbucks Statement about OCrs

Doesn't matter what I think, or you think......we have a high court made up of ever more liberal judges......Roberts changed teams on Obamacare, it can happen. if you want to be really concerned and scared for your rights under the Constitution, just read or listen to the three females on the high court......one more of those mindsets and we are in for some scary times.

I don't have to read it, I watched the interview on several different networks and you are correct, however had the OC folks not started this campaign this issue would not have been addressed......you don't seem to understand (maybe you're too young) that every action has consequences.......what the CEO was saying was, hey we are don't want our paying customers offended by people in our business openly carrying firearms, he even stated that he knew it was legal in some states, but he doesn't want the other 60% of his customers offended and he would side with them if push comes to shove......I believe society will also side with the 60% if push comes to shove, so be careful what you wish for......thanks for the liberal insult, insults always help the debate.

Concho
That doesn't change the fact that you intentionaly (just admitted by yourself you know the truth) spewed FASLE info.
If you had goofed and was yourself mis-informed then fine, apologize and move on. But now you really have not helped your argument because you are pulling a liberal stunt by knowingly spewing horse manure to try and validate your left leaning views on the 2nd amendment and gun rights in general.

[quote=target1911]Concho
That doesn't change the fact that you intentionaly (just admitted by yourself you know the truth) spewed FASLE info.
If you had goofed and was yourself mis-informed then fine, apologize and move on. But now you really have not helped your argument because you are pulling a liberal stunt by knowingly spewing horse manure to try and validate your left leaning views on the 2nd amendment and gun rights in general. [/quote

I didnt misqoute anything you apparengly just have a problem understanding English.

Umm ok

Might need to read the opinions of the Bush/Roberts court.

Read the dissenters......ginsberg alone should tell you all one needs to know......

Dissenters have no to say in the court rulings. Even the Warren Court had its share of dissenters and their opinions meant squat. To imply that the present SC is a growing hotbed of liberalism doesn't add much to your credibility.

Really, so John Roberts folding like a cheap lawn chair, re-writing Obamacare, and declaring it Constitution as a Tax (I might add the only time Americans have been taxed simply for being born) isn't liberalism.......you have got to be joking, he folded because he has no backbone or he is an activist, and as soon as Obama adds one more liberal, your gun rights and the 2nd Amendment will be gone.......and I have no credibility.......what a joke!

Your post proved my point.

No, you said the court isn't a growing hotbed of liberalism and in fact it becomes more so each day........

I guess that explains why the present administration has LOST 60% of its cases before the Roberts court. Previous courts have sided with the administration 70% of the time.

Yea, Roberts sides with conservatives when Obama doesn't really care anyway, then switches teams when it is something like Obamacare.......I didn't say the court was liberal right now but one more Obama pick and even Thomas will be feeling lonely......Roberts folded like a cheap tent and there is absolutely no justification in the Constitution for taxing Americans for being born. You show me or explain one justification for Roberts Liberal Left wing Decision on Obamacare and I'll concede defeat.......don't come back with the Commerce Clause, that deals with activity not inactivity.......for the first time in American History a man can be taxed for doing absolutely nothing and that decision is all on John Roberts, PERIOD! A homeless man without a job and begging for a handout is expected to pay for insurance or pay a TAX......wow, Roberts is really a great guy!

Roberts manipulated the decision in a manner that allowed him to write the Majority Decision. In doing so, he gutted the Affordable Health Care act by striking down the Commerce Clause justification of the mandate and imposed heretofore unprecedented limitations on the powers of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. Over two centuries ago Chief Justice John Marshall wrote Marbury vs. Madison which established the doctrine of judicial review and elevated the SC to its present position. Two hundred years later, the Roberts decision did something that that had never been done before. It asserted the court’s power over two important constitutional questions, the Commerce Clause and the spending clause. Thus begins the slow and steady dismantling of the Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Movement, FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. It is ironic that Roberts has incurred the vindictive wrath of the very people that have long wished for the very thing that has been handed to them. It appears that some people are more interested in winning battles then wars.