This is veering way off into different-thread territory now, but let’s say I disagree with Jefferson insofar as I don’t believe that any right is “inalienable” nor are any of them “endowed by [the] Creator,” in either a literal or metaphorical sense.
I do not, however, think this means there was insufficient reason for declaring independence from the British. I don’t blame Jefferson for being a man of his time, and writing in the philosophical style which was prevalent among reasoning men. And the rights which he calls out – life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, self-determination, etc. – are the ones which I happen to agree are important, which is why, as a libertarian, I agree to respect them in others and hope they do the same to me.
As far as your corollary question, “Why be alive?” all I can say is, to the best of my knowledge, it beats the hell out of the alternative. There are things I enjoy doing, activities I enjoy participating in, hobbies I like pursuing. Being alive enables me to do all of them; I can spend time with my wife and my family, take the telescope out and do some observing, play the guitar, read, see films, go scuba diving, and all kinds of things. Being dead, all I can do is lay in a box and rot, which is waaaaaaaaay down my list of “Things To Do This Week Or Anytime In The Near Future.”
Thus, I have to feel that if it ever comes down to a “him or me” situation that is not of my causing, then I no longer feel obligated to respect “his” right to live. To the best of my ability, it’s going to have to be him and not me.
Actually, I’m not really that accurate with my Mini-14. What I would challenge you on would be .22 rifle. I fired…good grief, it must have been measured in terms of nearly 100,000 rounds out of that gun. My accuracy seemed to be only limited by not having a scope - that is, I could hit anything I could see. One amazing time I hit 5 bottlecaps out of six with 6 shots from 100 paces, on a bet - I could barely see them, or else I might have got 6/6 - I aimed for the sparkly reflections. I won the bet, as I only needed to hit 1/6.
I just need to get my old trusty Savage out and lube it up…however, my diabetes has clouded my eyesight somewhat, so we will have to shoot at closer ranges. Also, I was really good at shooting the .44 Magnum … maybe I can bring some of my guns with me to the next California DopeFest…yes, that would be good.
Someone who quotes a statute without knowing anything about the common law (common law is decisions by appellate courts), minty green, is almost always wrong. I will stand by what I said. Where you are makes a difference. What you are doing is relevant also. “The law” is rarely determinable by reference to a statute. Read this. Then have a glance at this. Yes, carrying a six gun into a bank would be illegal. But to make a blanket statement about the law, as usual, is wrong.
The funny part is that without knowing Texas law I hit upon the exception which allows carry–“travelers.” If guns are legal in Texas, yet carry is totally illegal, I wondered, how do people get them to the gun range? Or, do they shoot in their homes? I doubted that.
As for your smilie and baseless insults, :wally.
jab1, I quoted the IHR for the sole purpose of showing that there were contemporaneous revisionist critics of Roosevelt–a minor point then, wholly irrelevant now. If you think that there were no Pearl Harbor critics in 1944, you would be wrong. The IHR is not the only source to cite the articles cited. As for the rest of it, I already said that I “questioned” what they said. Until you pointed it out, I had no idea what else they posted articles on. Let me be clear–I think that the IHR position is mostly wrong. I would prefer not to be forced to take a postition that I did not. It should be noted that some points of revisionism may be correct.
Personally, I try not to pretend to know everything about stuff that is complex and requires evidence.
And if you had wanted to make those points, that would have been fine. Your initial post to me was rude, ignorant, and contemptible. There’s a big difference between “Cite, please” and the contemptuous dreck you actually posted. Moreover, none of the exceptions you belatedly mention have anything to do with the alleged state of affairs discussed by drachillix to which I was responding.
Exposed carry is not legal in Texas, not even if you’re traveling. Your cite (only one works) says nothing to the contrary, so you’re still utterly wrong. How’s the view down there on your ass?
And why the hell should I pay the slightest bit of attention to a self-described lawyer who bitches at me for not providing case law applying the statute I quoted, but then does nothing of the kind in return?
It appears that my comment above is misleading in one respect. I had been under the impression that the Legislature had repealed the former section 46.02 affirmative defense (i.e., you still get arrested and charged, and you have to prove the defense at trial to go free) for possessing a handgun while “traveling.” In fact, when the Lege revised that section as part of the CCW legislation a few years ago, they moved that defense to another section. Upshot is that you can be arrested, charged, and tried for carrying a handgun, but can’t be convicted if you can prove you were “traveling” within the meaning of the statute. There is no good definition of traveling–it is a fact-intensive, case-specific inquiry. It is quite clear, however, that simply going from one place to another does not qualify. If you’re not crossing county lines, you’re not going to be entitled to a jury instruction, and even then there are a myriad of rules that restrict one’s entitlement to the affirmative defense. I would suggest Soderman v. State, 915 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) as a good primer in case anyone cares. Suffice it to say that very few people are actually “traveling” on any particular day, and that you would be a goddamned fool to rely on that exception to protect you from prosecution and conviction.
