Former Texas State Representative Suzanna Gratia-Hupp:
How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.
Rather an interesting litmus test, and it holds up.
Have I mentioned how I love living in Texas?
It’s not about guns folks, it’s about freedom. And yes, freedom of choice, and the ability to protect that freedom of choice. If you don’t understand what I mean, ask.
Howard Nemerov examines the data, the conclusion of which is that yes, concealed carry supports law enforcement.
In Right-to-Carry states, private citizens have greater freedom to defend themselves in public. Because the ratio of justifiable homicides by police and citizens is more balanced, and because the level of police defensive justifiable homicide is lower, one can only conclude that armed citizens are adept at self-defense, enough to provide a quantifiable level of protection for law enforcement. In non-RTC states, the reduced self-defensive capability of the citizenry correlates with higher rates of violent crime and a more dangerous work environment for police officers.
Read Howard’s article for the data analysis. You can even email him to get the spreadsheet.
So the shooting at the Holocaust Museum continues to be fodder for the anti-gunners. (h/t SayUncle)
“Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation’s capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
“It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe,” he said.
Let’s see here. Our nation’s capital has about the strictest anti-gun laws in the nation. Yet those laws didn’t stop anything. That’s unpossible! So if the strongest laws didn’t stop it, how will more laws make any difference? No matter how many laws nor how strong they may be, they are not going to stop anyone but the law-abiding — criminals by definition don’t obey the law; if you are lawless that means you are without law, and if there are more laws these people will still be without them. Sorry folks, but towards the end of stopping violence, passing more laws that the people you’re targeting won’t obey anyways… the math doesn’t add up. Folks, even if you hate guns, can you not see the flaw in the logic?
As for being dangerous to force more guns into places…. there is no forcing going on. To force more guns somewhere would mean that you have no choice, you must have a gun. If you want to enter the museum, you must be at least this tall and have a Glock 19 on your hip. No shoes, no shirt, no Smith & Wesson, no service. No, sorry Mr. Helmke, that’s not how it works. Right now the laws restrict, the effort is to remove the restrictions. That way there’s choice so if you choose to carry a gun, you can. If you choose to not carry a gun, you can do that too. I thought people of this country liked having choice. That’s what this is all about: restoring freedom of choice.
Could the scene play out any differently if there were more gun-toting folks around there? I mean, in this situation guns actually did save the day. If there weren’t some people with guns at the museum, who knows how ugly things could have gotten. The “rampage” was stopped because Good Guys had guns. These Good Men had control over themselves, control over their guns, and their gun control saved the day.
Updated: Joe Huffman echos similar sentiments.
It’s unreal to think that simple pocket knives are being worked to be made illegal, but yes, it’s true. So much for useful tools.
The trouble is, the comment period for this is very narrow so we must act now. For information check here.
Take a few moments to read the information and send in your comments both to CBP and to your US Congressman and Senators. You can probably email your Congresscritters (and there’s no excuse not to). But the CBP is refusing to accept electronic communication. They only want snail-mailed stuff — seems like someone doesn’t want to be bombarded by comments that they know are inevitable, and they are counting on you to be a lazy, apathetic citizen. So which are you? And that you can’t take 5 minutes to download, fill out, and print and mail a letter that could help to preserve your rights instead of allowing our freedoms to be slowly chipped away? If you can’t take 5 minutes to do this, how lazy and how (a)pathetic are you?
Do it now.
In reading the latest entry in the annals of reasoned discourse, it reminded me of a few key things that are worth pointing out:
* The D.C. v. Heller decision was unanimous (9-0) that to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The 5-4 split was about D.C.’s laws.
* That to keep and bear arms is a right that existed from the get go (“God Given” if you will). All 2A does is state that the government shall not infringe upon it, as a specifically enumerated limit upon the powers of the government.
Some guy wanders into the Holocaust Museum and starts shooting, wounds a guard but two other guards shoot back and wound the guy. He’s taken into custody. (h/t to SayUncle)
But how could this happen? Washington D.C. has such strict gun laws, they should have stopped this nutjob! Why didn’t the laws work?! Oh that’s right, criminals and nutjobs don’t obey the law.
So there you are, family vacationing, going on a museum tour, then some wacko loses it and starts killing people. Bad things can happen at any time without any warning and where you probably least expect or want it to happen. This is why it’s good to be prepared, always. It’s no guarantee, but the more you can do to have the odds in your favor, why would you do anything less? And why would anyone (private citizens, elected officials, etc.) want to restrict your ability to do so?
It’s true. Robb explains it.
Murdoc’s got a nice collection of quotes from some open-minded people.
In my life I’ve found that those that espouse to be “progressive” and “open-minded” aren’t.
Here’s the Texas State Rifle Association’s 2009 Legislative Wrap-up.
My feelings:
* Employee Rights
As I’ve stated before, I am not happy how the Voter ID bill held up this and hundreds of other pieces of legislation.
* Campus Personal Protection
Not happy about this one, but it’s evident there was a majority of support and it only lost out due to process.
* CHL Notification
I’m happy the penalty was removed, but I have no real problem with the requirement as I think it’s good to show your CHL anyway.
* Firearms purchases
I actually was surprised this was even a problem, so it’s good to see this come about.
* DPS Sunset
Good stuff here.
So, you win some, you lose some. You pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and keep on chugging. Regroup for next time. See you in 2011. 🙂
Stuff From Hsoi 