He’s right you know. I’m waiting to hear the rationalization from The fOllOwers.
Politics
My State Representative’s response to HB 1893
HB 1893 (and SB 1164) has been introduced to the Texas Legislature. So like any good citizen, I took the time to write my elected officials. My State Representative is Valinda Bolton. She has a “C” grade from the NRA. One thing I appreciate about Rep. Bolton is every time I write her I do receive a prompt reply (well-run office/staffers). In the past the reply letters (always snail mailed, tho I sent her email) were rather boilerplate in nature and were generally of a “thank you for writing and sharing your comments on whatever matter with me, when/if it comes up I’ll study all sides of the matter and make the best decision possible, thank you drive thru.”. I’ll admit, I don’t expect a personalized letter, but it’s very difficult to tell from boilerplate letters exactly where she stands on an issue so I can know how she’s likely inclined to vote on the matter. So this last time when I wrote to her regarding HB 1893 I actually made comment on that to her. To my pleasant surprise, her latest response to me was not a boilerplate at all. It answered my specific questions, used specific talking points from my email to her, and given the attribution at the bottom of the letter it does appear she actually composed the letter. So she’s got my respect for doing that.
Allow me to reprint the full text of her letter.
Dear Mr. Daub
I am sorry if you felt the previous responses to your letters were boilerplate. In fact, while we do use a basic template for all our constituent correspondence, the body of each reply is specifically tailored to each individual.
In reference to your request for my stance on guns, I do support the right of Americans to own a gun. I believe guns are useful tools in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals licensed to carry them. However, in an environment like a college campus, I feel that guns would be more of a liability than a tool. Thus, I cannot support allowing the carrying of concealed handguns on college campuses. While the shootings at the University of Texas and Virginia Tech were tragic, they are still rare occurrences best handled by law enforcement professionals, trained in both the use of firearms and crisis management. As for the more ordinary dangers you describe of female students walking across campus late at night, most campuses offer escort services where a public safety officer will accompany a student to her car or destination.
I hope this answers your questions about my stance on gun-related issues. I do appreciate you writing to me and sharing your thoughts and opinions.
Sincerely,
Valinda Bolton
Texas State Representative
VB/mh
I don’t have a copy of my email to her, but in it I did mention the UT shootings and how the situation was aided by students going back to their dorm rooms, fetching their deer rifles, and shooting back. I also mentioned how we don’t need to just consider unique incidents like mass shootings by a crazy person, but consider daily mundane issues such as a girl walking across campus late at night — mugging, robbery, sexual assault, rape, etc. as these are things well worth protecting against as well. So to Rep. Bolton’s credit, she did work to address my specific message to her, and again I do appreciate that.
So, let’s start to look at Rep. Bolton’s response.
I do support the right of Americans to own a gun.
That’s a good start, and explains why her NRA grade isn’t an “F”.
I believe guns are useful tools in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals licensed to carry them.
A few things here:
- So guns are only useful if you are responsible AND well-trained AND licensed to carry them.
- Can a college student not be responsible AND well-trained AND licensed to carry a concealed handgun? It sounds like she believes that cannot be the case. Let’s not forget, all college students are not 18-21 years old, and I say that because the “responsible” portion is certainly arugable there. 🙂 What about folks that opt to go back to school later in life? That 40-year-old single mother that opts to attend night classes to better her lot in life so she can get a better job to better provide for her children.
- Given the requirements in the Republic of Texas to obtain a Concealed Handgun License, you’re going to have to be a responsible, well-trained individual in order to obtain that license to carry a concealed handgun. So Rep. Bolton, according to the laws of our State, a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun is responsible and is well-trained. So… why can’t they carry their concealed handgun on campus?
Continuing:
However, in an environment like a college campus, I feel that guns would be more of a liability than a tool.
Why? And note she used the word “feel.” I understand this, “feel” vs. “think” because I carefully choose the use of those words myself. The implication is using her emotions to make this decision, not her reason, not her logic, not facts, not reality. Just how she feels.
While the shootings at the University of Texas and Virginia Tech were tragic, they are still rare occurrences best handled by law enforcement professionals, trained in both the use of firearms and crisis management.
Yeah, and look how well they handled them. Again back when Charles Whitman went crazy, students obtained their deer rifles from their dorm rooms and shot back; this helped to reduce the damage Whitman could inflict from that point on — armed citizens fighting back made a difference. And is the implication there that private citizens cannot have this training? That private citizens are incapable of doing such things? Oh yeah… gotta let someone else handle it; can’t fight my own fights, gotta let mommy or big brother protect me and fight my fights. Remember, when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Police tactics have changed in the past 10-ish years regarding such “active shooter” situations, with current tactics understanding that the sooner the attacker/shooter/criminal is engaged the better. Old tactics were that the first officer on the scene needed to wait for backup then work to engage the situation, reasoning being that it would be suicide for a single officer to arrive and immediately engage. Now tactics are for the first officer on the scene to engage immediately, because doing otherwise only increases the body count of innocents. So, to minimize damage the first person on the scene needs to engage immediately. If there’s not a police officer right there right then, then who are the first people on the scene, and use a little logical extrapolation as to who can respond first.
As for the more ordinary dangers you describe of female students walking across campus late at night, most campuses offer escort services where a public safety officer will accompany a student to her car or destination.
“Most.” So ok, what about those that don’t have such a luxury? What are they supposed to do? As well, must now there be enough public safety officers available for all the women on campus? What happens after a football game when you have a large flow of people, a need for general crowd control, but then a need by some to want to be accompanied to their car? How can such services feasibly be offered? What are those women supposed to do? Furthermore, is under the watchful eye of a public safety officer the only way a woman is supposed to move about? Ms. Bolton, I’m sure you yourself prefer to walk about in your daily life without having to have someone there watching over you all the time. Or if you do prefer that someone else tail and watch over you and be responsible for your personal safety, you must realize that not all of us are like that. I know a lot of liberated women that prefer to take care of themselves. Why would you deny your sisters that ability?
So Rep. Bolton, while I understand how you feel, I respectfully think you need to revisit your feelings on the matter… perhaps even setting your feelings aside and applying some thought to the matter.
Intolerance and Obama.
Wow. (h/t to Rob)
But this level of massive intolerance doesn’t really surprise me. I’ve found those that scream about tolerance to be some of the most intolerant. Their definition of “tolerance” means that you tolerate what they want you to tolerate. Their definition of “open-mindedness” means you agree with what they agree with. Their definition of “good” is what they deem to be good. If you’re not with them, you are against them.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.
Freedom is something we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.
If you want tolerance, you must first be tolerant. If you want people to be open-minded to your opinions and ideas, you must first be open-minded to theirs. If you want good in the world, you must first accept what others consider good.
Another tip? Try to not be so hateful, especially towards those you feel “deserve” some scorn or hate. A little love, a little forgiveness, a little true understanding, a little humility… they go a long way.
Unintended consequences?
I have found it interesting that, ever since The chOsen One took office and has been addressing The Financial Crisis in America™, the Dow Jones has responded by dropping to new lows every day. He signs something, the Dow responds with a big drop. And yesterday the Dow dropped below 7000. Change you can believe in.
Robb Allen mentions how individuals are responding to the new tax situation. I can’t say I blame people… you work hard, then someone takes the fruit of your labor and flushes it down the toilet. But I guess forking over your hard earned money so people can just piss it away is patriotic now right?
At my previous job I worked with a group of Canadians. I asked them how it was living with socialized medicine, and sure it was there but it was hardly ideal. I recall one of my co-workers telling me how her grandmother spent 3 days on a gurney in a hallway because there weren’t enough rooms.
I also recall my then-boss telling me how the year prior he had paid 52% of his income to taxes. He said it wouldn’t have bugged him so much if it was 49%, but to be able to say that he has to fork over more than half his income to taxes? That was very defeating on morale.
So way to go, folks. This is the change you wanted… let me know how it’s working out for you. It’s sure not working for me.
Updated: Larry Kudlow over at CNBC chimes in on this failure. (h/t to Rob).
It’s good to live in Texas
A new study was released, Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom by William P. Ruger & Jason Sorens, from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. (h/t to Volokh).
Texas came in 5th overall. Not bad for this freedom-loving soul. Certainly one reason I love to live here and have little desire to leave Texas is because freedoms are pretty good here. There’s room for improvement and of course there are threats to freedom every day… but you just gotta keep vigilant.
On abortion and freedom
I was reading this article this morning that motivated me to finally write on this matter. But it’s a matter that’s been on my mind for some time. I’m not writing on this being a moral or religious issue for me, but rather an issue of freedom.
You see, I used to believe in being “pro-choice,” and in some regards I still do. There is no eliminating abortion from society, so keeping it safe is better than letting it go illegal. Of course, perhaps if it was illegal it might stave things off, but look at how our “War Against Drugs” is working and you’ll realize that being illegal doesn’t really stop things and instead can create a whole host of other problems. But whereas someone consuming drugs ultimately only affects themselves, abortion does directly affect someone else: that unborn child, even if at the time of the abortion it’s little more than a clump of cells. And thus, I still have a lot of inner debate about the issue. There’s moral conflicts, Libertarian conflicts, legal issues, ideal issues, practical issues….
But one thing I can see clearly is infringement upon freedom: this so-called “Freedom of Choice Act”. I fail to see where there’s any freedom of choice. If a doctor is forced to give an abortion on-demand, where is there any freedom of choice for that doctor? If a hospital is forced to provide services that go against their moral and religious backing (many hospitals have religious affiliation) and if they refuse to provide abortion services they lose Federal money and thus can no longer operate and serve the greater community… where is the freedom of choice in that, not only for the hospital but for the larger community now without a hospital? If you as a taxpayer now must fund an activity you find wrong, because you cannot choose to not pay your taxes nor how your tax money is spent, where is the freedom of choice in that?
Freedom is something we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.
To take freedom from one to allow freedom for another, that is not true freedom. To force one against their moral grain for the benefit of another, that is not true freedom. To force one to subsidize another, that is not freedom. To use the force of law to inflict your beliefs upon the entire nation, that is not freedom. To grow the power of government, to allow it more control over my body, my conscience, my life, that is not freedom.
Folks, if you really want freedom of choice, make sure that what you work for will truly provide that. No, it won’t be easy, no it won’t be something quick to come up with, and yes we must come to accept that the choices of some may not be the same choices we would make for ourselves but those choices are theirs to make and they will receive the consequences (good or bad) of their choices. Freedom does require you to think and act self-less-ly, not selfishly. If you really want to live in world where you are free to choose in whatever you think, say, or do, make sure your efforts ensure others — especially those that stand in opposition to you — remain free as well. Anything less is not true freedom.
Keepin’ on
I’ve always found Xavier’s blog to be filled with good stuff… one of the better blogs overall out there.
Yesterday he writes about “On Keeping On Keeping On” and I have to agree with him. One reason I became an NRA Certified Instructor was to help people learn about firearms. I changed, I know others can too. It’s difficult to preach change to a large group and expect change to happen, but working one-on-one with folks you can speak directly to their needs, address their concerns. I won’t lie, I don’t bullshit; honesty is the only way to go about things. I’ll do my best to avoid politics, but there’s inheriently a political component to this. Still, by going one-on-one you can gauge the audience and tailor the message best (e.g. you can avoid politics unless asked; if they’re for sport, you can go that route; if they’re for self-defense you can go that route; etc.). If at the end of it all they’re not going to “see it my way” that’s ok… at least if they were willing to engage in the conversation, and that’s something. That they were willing to let a seed be sown, even if it doesn’t sprout today, maybe it will sometime later.
We cannot hold a grudge. We cannot let our anger be our driving force, especially if it closes us off. Not only does that make us look bad, but it won’t help bring new people into the fold. Think about it. If a sheep sees an angry dog bearing big teeth, it doesn’t matter if that angry dog is a wolf or a sheepdog — it’s still a big predator with teeth that the sheep is going to be afraid of and avoid. So you sheepdogs, think about how to win the trust of those sheep. How to better present yourself, how to better and honestly gain their trust and realize that we’re The Good Guys. And perhaps, just perhaps, be able to teach those sheep how to show some teeth as well.
Texas Concealed Carry on Campus bills introduced
Just read the word that SB 1164 and HB 1893 have been introduced to the Texas State Legislature.
If you live in Texas, contact your State Senator and State Representative and let them know your opinion on the matter.
Self-Defense for all
I’m in my mid-30’s. I’m a big guy (6’3″, 200#). I’m strong. I’m physically fit. I actively practice an empty-hand martial art.
One might argue that I’m able to take care of myself should someone attack me. Why should I need a gun to defend myself? Just knock ’em out with my fists or subdue them with a hold or something, right? Of course, that assumes that anyone would mess with big ugly me in the first place…. no one should mess with me, I don’t look like an easy target. Well, assumptions are fine, and I’m sure if I come across as food to some predator that I don’t come across as an easy target. But when there’s a pack of jackals about, they can take down a lion. Your biggest, baddest sport fighters lose a match now and again. No one is immune. But for the sake of argument, let’s say I am because of my state.
Is the world filled with people like me? No, not really.
Look at Kellene. She admits to being 200 pounds, 5′ 2.5″, and out of shape. Does she not have a right to defend herself?
How about disabled folks? I see folks on motorized wheelchairs buzzing around town, but I always wonder what stops some degenerate from taking advantage of them?
How about the elderly? Is a big and fit 19 year old attacking a 75 year old man with a cane, hip replacement, and pacemaker really a fair fight?
Perhaps you could argue I don’t need a gun because I’m fairly equal or dominant by myself alone. I wouldn’t agree, because I know wolves travel in packs, because I am not so arrogant and blind as to think I’m invincible and “it could never happen to me”. What I would like you to explain to me how and why the above people, who don’t have the same advantages I do, should be denied an equalizer. Why should they be relegated to be weakened prey? Are their lives not important? They have every right to self-defense.
And so it begins
The chOsen One claimed he wasn’t going to take our guns, that he wasn’t going to tread on our Second Amendment guaranteed but God-given freedom. I knew he lied then, his “change.gov” policies made it clear he lied, and now they’re trying to gain momentum by claiming it’s for the good of stoping drugs and violence in Mexico. Read about it here, and here, and here, and here.
This is dangerous waters Mr. Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are treading into. With history of the previous AWB, basically the Congress got a major housecleaning after 1994. Bill Clinton even acknowledges losses were due to the passing of the AWB. If Mr. Obama wishes to have a long legacy, this is not the route to take.
Updated: and here. and good stuff here. and more here.
Updated 2: Seems Pelosi is saying no. (h/t to SayUncle). Sounds like someone knows she’ll be looking for a new job if she even thinks about going there. Still, it’s quite evident such things are on the mind of this President, Adminstration, and Congress… we must remain vigilant.
Stuff From Hsoi 