This is no different than someone proposing the right to freedom of association should be limited to those groups that pass a sporting purpose test and be restricted to ten people or less. After all you only need five people for a basketball team and ten people can make a baseball team. If you want to associate in groups larger than if can only mean you want to form an angry mob and riot. You don’t need to associate in larger groups than ten, right?
Politics
Quote for the day
Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from his “I Have A Dream” speech
Who’s hateful? Who’s violent?
I don’t read Michelle Malkin, but I found this linked to from another blog. It’s titled “The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010“.
I post this because in light of events from the past couple weeks, it’s been really bothersome to read how the lefties are touting how non-violent and peaceful they are, and how all the violent rhetoric comes exclusively from the right-side of the aisle. This is false: it spews from both sides quite heavily.
It’s been interesting engaging various lefties about this topic and how they are so quick to point out “their side” never behaves this way: only those that listen to Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, tea-party, and so on. I knew better, but there was no point in trying to convince them because they weren’t going to take off their blinders nor their rose-tinted glasses so I didn’t bother Googling to find examples. So, a little late in bringing the rebuttal to the table (h/t Hecate, and catching up on my RSS feeds), but only because I knew it’d be a waste of my time to Google for it… they could do the same, but they apparently have no interest in looking in the mirror to remove the log from their own eye.
No need to point out the violent rhetoric of the righties… the above lefties, and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), have already pointed it out to us.
And this is why I think both major political parties suck, and I prefer to be on the sidelines.
Quote for the day
The First Amendment is the singer on stage in front of everyone whose voice can not be ignored, while the Second Amendment is the individual in front of the stage making sure no one kills the performance.
— Matthew
Huh?
US House is going to vote today on a resolution to condemn the Arizona shooting.
Question #1. Why is this shooting somehow more horrific or deserving of more attention or special-casing than other shootings and murders that happen every day?
Then there’s this:
[U.S. Senate Sergeant-At-Arms Terrance] Gainer said he does not believe more members of Congress should carry guns. “Violence prevention is a very difficult matter. Preventing homicides is very difficult. I think every chief and sheriff across the nation is trying to figure out how best to do that. Putting more guns in the mix is not the answer. It may be part of a solution to have more police, more law enforcement. But we shouldn’t just turn to guns as the how to end violence,” he said.
But you see, more police, more law enforcement…. they are only considered for the mix because they have guns! If you put more police in the mix, you are putting more guns into the mix. Or if you want, how about removing the guns from the belts of those police and put them into the mix. Will that still achieve your desired effect? No. You want more police in the mix because they have guns.
What you’re saying is you want more of a police state. You want more nannies to watch over us. You don’t want the allow the citizenry to be empowered. Because I tell you, no matter how many more police you put into the mix, it will never be enough. Police can’t be everywhere to protect us all.
Oh wait… you’re not interested in protecting us all. Just your elite selves.
I see.
And how does this solve things, part deux
Building on my previous post about how knee-jerk legislative reactions don’t solve problems, we have yet another knee-jerk legislative reaction that won’t solve the problem:
Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions.
[…]
It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King’s legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.
Full article here, at the HuffPo.
Interesting choice of reasoning. It would offer government officials the same protection as schools. Well… we’ve seen how well that “schools are a gun free zone” has worked. How is it that Rep. King things “the same protection” would actually be of any good? How will it stop crazy people from going crazy?
Furthermore, why is it that these politicians think they need some sort of special protection? What about the rest of us? Why are they so much more special than the rest of the citizenry? Inflated sense of self-worth?
This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.
We don’t need King, Lautenberg, McCarthy, Feinstein, trying to pound through knee-jerk emotion-driven legislation… because they will drive us towards that alternative.
And how does this solve things?
A Virginia Delegate wants to ban firearms from the state Capitol and General Assembly building. Of course, it’s a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords in Arizona.
“The tragedy this weekend in Tucson should cause all public officials to re-examine the safety and security of themselves, their staff, and visitors,” [Del. Patrick A. Hope (D-Arlington)] said in a statement.
I will agree with that statement, but I will differ upon the means to the end.
How is disarming the law-abiding citizenry going to improve things? Show me the concrete evidence that supports this as an actual solution that succeeds in meeting the desired goal.
If you ban firearms, fine. Is this going to stop a criminal or some crazy guy hell-bent on destruction? Nope. By definition those folks don’t obey the law, so how would such a law help prevent things like what happened to Rep. Giffords?
Hope, who is in his second year in the legislature, said he was taken aback last year when he first found himself riding the elevator with a man who had a gun strapped to his leg.
“I felt very uncomfortable and very uneasy,” he said in an interview.
Ah. I see. You felt uncomfortable. So your lack of understanding, your ignorance, is why we should all be subject to your viewpoint of the world. I see.
Hope continues:
He said he drafted the bill several weeks ago, before the events in Arizona, but said they illustrate why such a move would be smart.
“We’ve got take every prudent action to protect ourselves, our staff and the public,” he said. “Look at airports, look at Congress, look at federal courthouses. They’ve been able to pass these. Why are we any different?
But look at airports. They have some of the highest “security” measures in the world, but it doesn’t stop things from getting through nor “bad things” from happening. Look at Congress and courthouses. That they don’t permit it doesn’t stop criminals, it doesn’t stop crazy.
Hope said his bill would not make it a crime to bring a gun to the legislature but would direct Capitol Police to help gun owners check their weapons at the doors before entering. It would also exempt members of the legislature from the ban.
Oh, that’s even worse. First, they can still bring guns but then the guns have to be checked. That’s a bad idea. The more you fiddle with a loaded gun, the more you risk a negligent/accidental discharge. You load the gun, you put it into the holster, and you leave it there and don’t touch it. Any time you touch it you raise the chances of the gun going bang when you didn’t want it to go back. Case in point? just keep reading the article!
The most notable incident involving a gun at the General Assembly Building in recent memory did, in fact, come from a state delegate. In 2006, then-Del. Jack Reid (R-Henrico) accidentally shot a handgun in his General Assembly Building office, firing into a bullet proof vest he kept hanging on his door as a joke. He apologized profusely for the incident, which he said occurred as he was removing a clip from the gun which he carried to work each morning.
He was fiddling with this gun and boom… N.D..
*sigh*
But I also like Hope’s little slip in there: that members of the legislature would be exempted from the ban. Why? Oh I see, because you feel you and your type are more important than the general citizenry? That you can be trusted more? That you’re above all of this? I think not. You are a citizen like the rest of us. I see no reason why you should be allowed special privileges when the very people you are supposed to be serving are then thrust to a lower standard. However, the reality remains: trying to make some sort of little “safe zone” in which you think you can keep bad things out and you’ll be safe inside? it’s a false sense of security. Public schools are set up as these “safe zones” and look how well that’s worked out.
But you know what actually worked?
When Loughner started shooting, there were tough men and women willing to fight. They weren’t going to stand around and wait for someone else to come to their rescue. They dove in, they took charge. In fact, one of the men that directly stopped Loughner? He was carrying a concealed handgun.
That is what will improve things.
Allow people to stand strong. Allow people to fight. Realize the citizen that’s already there is the first-responder. Encourage people to become better equipped to handle such situations, be it having the right tools or (better) having the right mindset. Don’t neuter the law-abiding citizen, for it accomplishes nothing positive.
The sadder thing…
Yes it’s sad and terrible what happened to Rep. Giffords and the others that died in the Arizona shootings. There’s no excuse for it, there’s no defending it.
But what’s worse to me is all the arm-chair behavior going on. As of now, the shooter, Jared Loughner, hasn’t said a word. We don’t know why we did it. Sure a few things about him have been obtained online and based on that everyone is painting him to be “the other evil”. That is, whatever group I’m a part of, he’s a member of the other group that stands as evil opposition to me. The right is painting him like a lefty-nutjob, the left is painting him like a righty-nutjob. There’s a massive informational void, and everyone is filling it in with their own assumptions, their own bias.
There’s calls for more peaceable behavior, less vitriol and venom in political discourse, but yet in doing so so many are just escalating their anger at “the others”. Something about a log in their own eye….
Everyone is trying to jockey this for their own political gain. It’s very sad, and really serves to feed the very thing they’re supposedly rallying against.
Why aren’t you a member of the TSRA?
This is for all of you that live in Texas.
The state legislature convenes it’s 82nd session tomorrow. It runs until the end of May. That means there’s only a few months to deal with the legislative needs of Texas.
Are you a gun owner? Do you care about gun rights? There are some important bills on the table for this session already and likely more could be introduced in the coming weeks. If you care — and you should — you need to get active.
One of the best ways to help? Join the Texas State Rifle Association. Yes, the NRA is important, but most laws in this realm are on the state-level and TSRA is going to have greater impact here. Alice Tripp and her crew need your support. In fact, here’s a letter written by Alice just yesterday about the upcoming session.
If you’re not a member of the TSRA, it’s only $30 to join as an annual member (reduced rates for juniors, seniors, and others). As well, the TSRA PAC, a separate group for political action, needs donations to fund their work.
Don’t do this tomorrow, don’t do this later. Do it today. Do it now, while you’re thinking about it.
(Disclosure: I am a Life Member of TSRA, but otherwise have no affiliation with them… not on a fundraising committee or any such thing…. just some dude with a blog that thinks it’s an important group to be a part of).
How is less more?
A bill has been filed in the Texas State Legislature that would require Texas residents wanting a concealed handgun license to have a Texas CHL. That is, you couldn’t be a Texas resident and obtain say a Utah license and then carry here via reciprocity.
While I won’t comment on the legislation itself, I will say it’s not the smartest thing to carry in this manner.
Most laws that apply in this area, like for firearms and use of deadly force, are not “universal” nor Federal: they are state. If you take a Utah course but then carry in Texas, where is your understanding of Texas law? You will be held to that standard, so you better understand it. There’s also the fact that it takes money out of Texas and that skews the count of how many CHL-holders are in Texas, all politically important tools. But ignore that and let’s get selfish here: the bottom line is if you ever are in a situation, you need to think about yourself and how you’ll be able to handle it.
What burns my butt from the article tho is this:
“When I was doing the Texas class, I felt they weren’t getting enough out of it,” said [Brad Brasuell, a Utah concealed-handgun-permit instructor from Denton], who carries a Utah concealed-weapon permit. “The Utah class sticks to the meat and potatoes of what they need to know in the civilian world, without all the bureaucracy and fluff of the Texas program. People say the Texas program costs too much money and takes up too much time.”
Texas is 10 hours, Utah is 4. So, 6 hours that can mean the difference between you and your life isn’t worth it? 6 hours that could help keep you out of a lot of legal trouble isn’t worth it? Utah costs about $80 less than Texas. You know, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting, it could cost you tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if you are 100% in the right. If you don’t think $80 is a big deal, think about the cost of a lawyer.
How much or how little do you value your life and time? If you think you value it enough that you should carry a gun for self-protection, why aren’t you taking bigger steps to protect yourself like ensuring you understand the law? like understanding non-violent dispute resolution techniques (a component of the Texas CHL curriculum)? like ensuring you actually are proficient with your firearm?
Brasuell said he’s not worried that the Utah class doesn’t include live shooting. “The shooting requirement in Texas is a joke and a falseness of security,” he said. “I have seen people who never shot before pass it and feel they can defend themselves. That is not the truth.”
Read what he’s saying: if he’s seen people who have never shot before pass the Texas CHL live-fire test, that means there were people taking his Texas classes that had never shot before. Thus I think it’s safe to assume there are people taking his Utah CHL class that have never shot before, and then walk out of his class still never having shot a gun! If you think it’s a false-sense of security to pass a minimal test and get a license, I think it’s a worse false-sense to have truly zero experience and get a license! I will agree the Texas CHL live-fire test is minimal, but I’ve also seen some people struggle to pass it so it’s not a cake-walk. If we suppose those 50 rounds are the only 50 rounds this person has and will ever fire in their life (until the moment they might need it), it’s certainly 50 rounds more than nothing at all. It’s at least some sort of experience, and even that minimal experience may be enough to save their life. Is he saying that no experience is better than some experience? That ignorance trumps knowledge?
Of course, as a firearms instructor, I’m biased into thinking that more education is good. We don’t promote a kindergarten-level education as ideal for the working world… we try to push at least a high school diploma or GED, we try to push people to go to college and beyond, vocational training, whatever… we generally push more education as good, more knowledge as good, and the way to survive and get ahead in the world. Why would there be any less of a standard with firearms? Why is there promotion of less education as a better way to go, especially for something that could save your life?
I fail to see how the lesser requirements of the Utah license gives you more. Someone please enlighten me… no wait… if you do that, I’ll have more knowledge, and apparently that’s a bad thing. *sigh*
Updated: Karl Rehn, of KR Training, chimes in on this topic.
Stuff From Hsoi 