Search found 3 matches

by davidtx
Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:18 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10
Replies: 42
Views: 6193

Re: anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10

casingpoint wrote:Image
Texas Gov. Perry may well be aware several citizens used their own guns to suppress former Marine Charles Whitman when he opened fire from the University of Texas Tower, killing 14 and wounding 32 people on Aug 1, 1966. Police have credited these civilians with limiting the carnage until two police officers stormed the tower and took Whitman out. I was coming of age in Texas back then, as was Gov. Perry. Such things stick in the mind.

It was quite common back in that day for people to carry long guns in their vehicles, often in plain sight perched in a gun rack over the back windshield of a pickup truck. And we knew nothing then of any prohibition on handgun possession. That would have been totally laughable.

Perhaps due to proactive citizen involvement in Austin that hot summer day, the body count in the Whitman incident was much less severe than that of Virginia Tech, where apparently there was nothing but stool pigeons present, save for the lone professor and former concentration camp survivor who fought back. If only he'd had a gun like those people in Austin.
This would make a great letter to the editor of AAS.
by davidtx
Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:21 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10
Replies: 42
Views: 6193

Re: anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10

stash wrote:I can see it know. We who have CHL's will be denied access but a special exception will be made for the politicos with CHL's.
Wouldn't there have to be a law change in order for them to keep CHL's out?
by davidtx
Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:54 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10
Replies: 42
Views: 6193

Re: anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10

STI Shooter wrote:When the bad guy shoots their way past the metal detectors, who's going to protect all those visitors and employees. The DPS officers assigned to the capital STILL can't be everywhere in the capital at the same time. It is every persons right to be able to defend themselves if needed. Why is that concept so hard for some people to understand? :banghead:
I think they have a hard time accepting that our possession of a weapon can protect them. I think positioning CHL's as an individual taking the legal steps that allow him/her to defend themselves and their family is much stronger/clearer than positioning CHL's as a general deterrent to crime. Note that the article never talks about individual defense, only armed citizens acting as a proxy for professionals.

-davidtx

Return to “anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10”