Politics

Thinking more with open carry

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

Due to various things I’ve been very behind on my RSS feeds and have been catching up this morning.

Seems there’s still a lot of talk about open carry going on, whether it’s good to do or not.

I admit, since my last post about open carry, I’ve been doing it a bit more… in public. I should say that I more or less open carry around the house. I’m in the privacy of my own home, I’m wanting to be comfortable, Wife and Kids don’t consider it anything special or more different from wearing a pair of socks or seeing me with my hair in a pony tail. But any time I would have to go outside, even to take the trash out, I’d always throw something on or I’d untuck my shirt or something to cover up. Since that last post I opted to try it a bit, so when I’d take the trash out or do some small task in the yard I’d go outside without covering up.

Nothing happened. I figure because most every time I had the fortune of there being no one else outside. Or it was dark. Or a few times there was someone walking by but somehow I was covered, either with a garment or maybe I was carrying something that happened to obscure my holstered gun.

But every time I went outside, every time I did see someone on the street or some car drove by… it nagged at me.

I’ve come to realize.

To open carry at this stage? It veers upon making a political statement. I don’t carry to make a political statement. I carry because I know there’s bad people in this world and there are better tools than coffee.

I don’t need nor want to frighten the sheep. Why bear my teeth? I have the teeth if I need it, but I don’t need to be flashing those pearly white (grips) all the time. I’m here to protect the sheep, not frighten them. Some sheep may not flinch, but some will. It’s a fine line to walk and balance on. I have enough stuff to deal with in a day and I just don’t need the potential hassle.

If I want to get political, there are other avenues and venues for that, and I’m certainly active in those ways. Does that mean I’m against open carry? Heck no. I do believe the legal restrictions should be lifted. I just realize that, at least for now, open carry is not for me.

Well Duh!1!!

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Come on Linoge… you should know better.

The Obama administration on Friday said the government ran a $1.42 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009.

That made it the worst year on record since World War II, according to data from the Treasury and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

But of course, this is all Bush’s fault.

As a result, the country is very near to breaching its so-called debt ceiling, currently set at $12.1 trillion. Lawmakers, however, are expected to vote to raise that ceiling this fall.

Yeah, that’s the way we do things in America. We can’t meet the goals, we can’t work within the limits, so we just redefine them.

*sigh*

Make Mine Freedom

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

From 1948.

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

And we know what to do about it.

The sad thing is, 61 years later I think a lot of people don’t know what to do about it.

Working homeschooled kids

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Oldest expressed interest in getting a job.

Hallelujah! 🙂

Since he is a minor, all sorts of child labor laws come into play. I found this summary of Texas and Federal law at the Texas Workforce Commission’s website.

Here’s one part that I’m not sure about:

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) a child 14 or 15 years of age may not work during school hours…

We homeschool. In Texas, the legal status of homeschool is a private school. So, what does “school hours” mean? My guess is the normal hours of operation for the public school system in the district in which we reside (I sent an email to HSLDA). But why must it be this way? One of the benefits of homeschooling is flexible scheduling. It allows us to better organize our family life. It can give an employer a work resource at a time when they might need the help (e.g. lunch rush), instead of only getting a glut of teenager help from 3-7 PM every day. Furthermore, that glut limits the number of teenage employees that can be had as there’s only so much work and wages to go around at that time of day.

I understand the intent of child labor laws, including the history of how they came about. The intentions are good. It is evident the laws are constructed around traditional notions of institutionalized schooling. Given the dramatic rise of homeschooling in the past some years, it makes sense to revise and modernize our laws to improve how homeschooling is legally regarded (e.g. HoNDA).

Updated: Well, maybe this will work out, at least here in Texas.

HSLDA sent me a summary of Texas child labor laws.

Q: Can a child work during public school hours?

A: Texas has no prohibition against a child working during public school hours.

I requested clarification regarding how Federal law would work in here. Since the Federal law does not specify what “during school hours” means, Texas law trumps in this case.

So it seems if Oldest was to be hired, he could work the lunch rush. So long as of course things didn’t conflict with his schooling, which we wouldn’t allow anyway.

Nevertheless, I could see employers not wanting to hire in such a situation. First, they may be unaware of the laws. In that case, best I can say is for Oldest to walk into the job application process prepared with paperwork showing the laws and legal take on things, because I’m sure an employer would contact the TWC but they may also be unaware. Second, an employer may just want to avoid the potential appearance of the situation. To see a child working mid-day will be strange to a lot of people, which could prompt phone calls to CPS or TWC, and an employer may just not want to deal with the hassle…. or it could count against Oldest in some way.

We’ll see how it all plays out.

A savage hypocracy

/ hsoi

(Yes I know it’s “hypocrisy”).

From Breda:

Now, I’m in favor of gay marriage* and I’m proud of those who participated in what has been called the “Big Gay March” in our Capitol this past weekend. I believe everyone should be free to marry the person who they love, regardless of gender. But by clinging to identity politics and asking for the passage of hate crime legislation in the same breath as “equal rights” the gay community is only separating itself further from the mainstream they are asking to be welcomed into. It causes people who are anti-gay marriage to believe (and perhaps rightly so) that “equal” won’t be equal at all, that special groups will get special treatment or privileges under the law.

South Park did a great take on this. Unfortunately I can’t embed it here, please go click and watch (and you’ll see where I got “hypocracy”). Or if you want to read:

If somebody kills somebody, it’s a crime, but if someone kills somebody of a different color, it’s a hate crime. And we think that that is a savage hypocrisy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime? If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government? The motivation for a crime shouldn’t affect the sentencing. It is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crime laws do is support the ideas that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos. That we aren’t the same. But instead we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes.

In many regards as well, this is working against simplification. This just builds up a lot and creates more problems than it’s good-intentions ever solve.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

From SayUncle I discover this little gem from the Brady Campaign. You see, a pastor in Kentucky, Ken Pagano, gave up 30 years in the pulpit so he could focus on issues of the Second Amendment and church-security. So what does Paul Helmke say about that?

As for Mr. Pagano, Mr. Helmke said, “Maybe he should be more concerned about the Fifth Commandment than the Second Amendment.”…

That Commandment is that you shall not murder, often mis-translated as kill. So Mr. Helmke, what are you saying about us?

People have “this idea” that Christians have to turn the other cheek?  Where in Heaven’s name did they get that?

Oh, right… from Jesus Christ:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Nobody ever said emulating Christ would be easy, least of all the man himself….

Casting stones, Paul?

Maybe you should do a small bit of research and learn about how Christianity actually views such matters.

The title of this post? It comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Obviously another terrorist

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

So we had a 6-year-old Cub Scout suspended from school because he brought camping gear on school grounds. Zero tolerance.

Now we have a 17-year-old Eagle Scout suspended for 20 days because he had a 2 inch knife in his car. Why did he have a knife in his car?

Matthew Whalen, a senior at Lansingburgh Senior High School, says he follows the Boy Scout motto and is always prepared, stocking his car with a sleeping bag, water, a ready-to-eat meal — and the knife, which was given to him by his grandfather, a police chief in a nearby town.

He lives in upstate New York, so getting caught out in the snow is a real possibility. So he keeps things in his car, ready in case of emergency. Good for him.

And so why is this all being done? Because they have to apply policy. Because they have to make an example out of him.

Whalen said he does not know why the 15 days were added, but he said a school district employee told him it was because the school wanted to apply its policies consistently.

“I’ve been told by someone who works for the district that they had to do it, because if someone else had a knife and they saw that I didn’t get a suspension, that it would look bad for the school.”

What looks bad isn’t Matthew Whalen. What looks bad are stupid school administrators making asinine rules. I thought schools taught critical thinking… but I guess they don’t need to apply it.

Obviously a terrorist

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Zachary Christie. He’s obviously a terrorist.

How do I know this?

Why, he ran afoul of the Newark, Delaware school district’s zero tolerance policy.

What did he do?

He brought a utensil to school.

You see, 6 year old Zachary just joined the Cub Scouts. He received a folding utensil that can be used as a knife, fork, and spoon. He was so excited at receiving it, he wanted to use it to eat his school lunch.

Obviously a terrorist. Spoons… soon we won’t be able to take those on airplanes either.

As the result of this, the boy faces 45 days in the district’s reform school.

Obviously a troublemaker. Thank God those school officials acted now. Who knows what could have happened if this sort of behavior went unchecked. I mean, the boy takes karate… obviously demonstration of violent tendencies. Then he joins the Cub Scouts, with all their uniforms and handshakes and oaths, learning about camping and the outdoors, maybe even how to shoot a BB gun… what sort of paramilitary training is this?!?! I’ll say it again, thank God for those school officials.

So, what is the mother doing? Homeschooling him, at least while this whole ridiculousness is going on.

Frankly, I hope Mom makes it a permanent setup. Zero-tolerance for public school lunacy, I say.

But you know, easier to hide behind stupid policies that don’t work (in fact, they tend to make things worse) than use your brain. Wither education.

Blood Dancers

/ hsoi

As soon as I heard about the death of Meleanie Hain, my first thought was how terrible it was. My second thought was wondering how long it was going to take for people that didn’t like the cause that made her famous to turn it into a political issue.

I knew the answer: it wouldn’t take long.

I was right.

Roberta X provides analysis, so I don’t have to.

But what if…? Well, seek training.

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

OK, I’ll concede.

Just because you have a license to carry a concealed handgun doesn’t mean you truly know how to use it. Oh sure, you are probably good enough on the range, in an unpressured environment, taking your time, shooting a stationary cardboard/paper target. Take a look at the shooting/skills requirements for the Texas CHL. Certainly if you can’t do that you have no business carrying. I agree with the sentiment on that page that while 70% is passing, if you can’t pass with 90% on the first cold try you should seriously consider additional training. IMHO, to obtain a CHL is not an end, it’s a beginning. Consider it your pass to take additional training. Many top training schools will only accept students with a CHL for their non-entry-level classes. The CHL demonstrates good character, demonstrates some measure of understanding handgun skills. Obtaining your CHL should (must?) be viewed not as your final destination, merely the key necessary for opening the door to better training and improved skills.

I seek to encourage people to obtain as much education and training as possible because I believe it’s important. When the shit hits the fan, will you be able to perform at the level the situation requires? My primary instructor, Karl Rehn, said it best:

Shooters, more than any other group, suffer from delusions of competence.

I know I’ve suffered from it, and probably to some extent I still do. It keeps me practicing, it keeps me taking classes, and seeking out ways to improve myself.

Why is this so important? One argument by people against concealed carry by law-abiding citizens is that the citizen might screw up, for instance, shoot an innocent bystander. The purpose of training is to minimize undesirable and maximize desirable performance. Why would you want to perform at any level less than desirable?

Nevertheless, the arguments are put forth. What prompted me to write this article was a posting made to a mailing list by J.K.:

But I don’t see how those are realistic and logical arguments. Whoever the active shooter is, like Cho at Virginia Tech, it’s going to be VERY clear to any observer who is the bad guy. He’s the one walking around shooting guns at people who are running and cowering in fear for their lives. Anyone putting fire downrange at Cho at VT would have helped the situation far more than hurt it, even if they winged or killed someone innocent downrange. How many people did Cho kill? 33? What would the total body count have been if someone had shot back in the 2nd classroom he attacked? Even assuming he wasn’t injured in that imaginary exchange, would he likely have continued calmly walking from room to room, executing students, after getting shot at? I doubt it.

So yes, innocent people MIGHT get hurt with a good samaritan gunfighter. But innocent people actually WERE getting hurt by the murderer. And without the good samaritan, MORE innocent people would be hurt, not fewer. What most people who argue against this fail to realize or recognize is that violent criminals aren’t generally looking for gunfights. They’re looking for victims. As soon as it turns into an actual fight where they’re taking fire, it dramatically alters their plans.

Look at the stats, and you’ll see that far more good than harm is done by regular citizens who attempt self-defense with a gun. The tragic stray bullet killing an innocent kid scenario pretty much never happens.

These are the facts, based upon all the active shooter situations we’ve had over the past some decades.

Nevertheless, I think with the dramatic rise in people obtaining their concealed handgun licenses, the more training we each receive the better. Not so much to ensure a minimization of collateral damage, but more to ensure a maximization of desired outcomes. If you really want to stop innocents from getting injured, we need more sheepdogs.