anti-CHL editorial Austin Statesman 1-26-10

[A-R]

If you want NO METAL DETECTORS of any kind, regardless of whether CHL gets you a free pass, you need to call, email, pester Perry, Dewhurst, and Straus quickly. Sounds like the ball is already rolling on this ...

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=31285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[O6nop]

I actually like the Austin American Statesman...

OK.
The good thing about the AAS is that it is free, online. They do allow public comments after most of their articles and editorials. I don't know where they stand financially, but there have been rumblings about them selling.
They just seem to be so liberal in their stances when editorializing.

[Alex_A]

Those editorials boil my blood >.< People like this frustrate me to the extreme

[/Begin rant]

Its intriguing to me how many people are willing to simply hand over their liberties to the government without even being asked for them.

Generally I dislike ad hominem attacks against an opponent, but editorials like these make me seriously question the character and intelligence of my fellow Americans. Too often people take the easy route to decision-making and opinion-forming: emotion. "Do what feels right" is an intellectual plague, especially in matters of civil liberty, government, and politics. Of course, feeling is easier than thinking and the enlightened paragons of virtue who authored these editorials cannot be bothered with the burden of actually defending a controversial or unpopular civil liberty. Even asking why these rights exist in the first place or how infringement upon them could be abused is too much to ask. Such questions have become "cold" "callous" and "outdated" in the face of "such clear human suffering caused by firearms, and the unique social issues of the 21st century" and other watered-down versions of the same drivel.

If you are too weak to stand up for your unpopular rights (the ones you have to get off your butt and WORK to protect), how can I possibly take you seriously when you claim to stand for the warmer and fuzzier ones like free speech and expression, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, public & impartial trial by jury, etc? How can you discuss the topic of American individual freedom with a straight face? People who write editorials like this allow themselves to be led around by the nose with emotion through the opinions and slick words of others. They will forever be slaves to warm feelings and Utopian half-logic spouted from the nearest politician, pundit, "political analyst", or media personality. People who choose to live like sheep deserve whatever scraps their "benevolent" government throws them from the table.

Fortunately, the cure is simple: think for yourself! Understand the concept of liberty and why NO portion of the Bill of Rights can be sacrificed without sacrificing the very nature of the document itself! Then look in the mirror and understand that you have an inherent human right to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property and NO ONE can take that from you, for ANY reason.
Any attempt to do so (under any guise) is an attempt to make you less than human.

[/End rant]

A bit melodramatic perhaps? I may have gotten carried away, but that pretty much sums up my distaste for the hard-core gun controllers ^.^

[stevie_d_64]

I actually like the Austin American Statesman...

OK.
The good thing about the AAS is that it is free, online. They do allow public comments after most of their articles and editorials. I don't know where they stand financially, but there have been rumblings about them selling.
They just seem to be so liberal in their stances when editorializing.

Sorry, I should have completed that thought...

If I had a bird, I would use it as cage liner...After I read all the restaurant reviews and cool Texas stuff I wish I could buy...

There, now I am back in good standing with some folks...

Most were probably thinking Steve has flipped his lid...But then again, maybe most know I am flipped anyway...

[casingpoint]

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.

[davidtx]

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.

[stevie_d_64]

If you are too weak to stand up for your unpopular rights (the ones you have to get off your butt and WORK to protect), how can I possibly take you seriously when you claim to stand for the warmer and fuzzier ones like free speech and expression, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, public & impartial trial by jury, etc?

Ok, a little preachy, but I am not one to pass up the opportunity to pick up the gauntlet when challenged...

But I have to ask you first...

"What are you going to do about it, and what are you willing to sacrifice to protect it?"

This is basically a rhetorical question, and one designed to make the individual do a real gut-check before storming the Bastille so to speak...

[A-R]

I really like the last line of this letter to the editor that ran in today's Statesman in response to this editorial (and no, I am not Richard Carter):

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/profit ... 02701.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gun laws

Re: Jan. 26 editorial "Metal detectors needed at Capitol entrances."

I can find no indication that alleged shooter Fausto Cardenas had a concealed handgun license. If he did not, there is already written law to stop him carrying a handgun into the Capitol. That law, as with most gun laws, have shown their worth at Fort Hood and other "gun-free zone" shootings.

Put up metal detectors, yes; check concealed-carry handgun licenses of those packing, yes; but don't contribute to another useless gun law just so Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin, can get his name on a bill.

Richard Carter

pdchrc@att.net

[Sewer_Ice]

They could make it easy and just approach a DPS officer out in front of the detectors, state you are a CHL and carrying. They would ask to validate your ID, and then allow you to walk around the detector. As far as anyone non-CHL seeing it, they could just assume you are a VIP that gets special treatment. I doubt anyone who is not familiar with CHL's would ever figure it out.

I can't imagine that, first thing you know, people will be screaming about their rights being violated because certain people are getting more privileges. This is what CHLers would or should do. If offered that special privilege we should turn it down. After all, we really don't want more privileges or rights than any other citizen. Otherwise, I'd think we were hypocritical. If we don't have to go through the detectors nobody should.
If we want anti's to acknowledge our rights, we should be sure to acknowledge theirs.
Actually, what I'm saying is we should be fighting tooth and nail to prevent the ridiculous idea of metal detectors, not already conceding to it.
Am I wrong?

You are wrong, as we, CHL holders do have more rights/privileges than normal citizens. We get to carry guns concealed on our person while we go about our daily business. "normal" citizens (or non-chl holders) do not get to carry guns. Think about it in terms of a person with a drivers license, someone with a license can drive a car, someone without one cannot drive a car (legally).

I am not saying we are better, but we are licensed to do something that others are not, like doctors practice medicine, attorneys practice law, and so on.

[Texgun]

If there are metal detectors placed at the Capitol I would bet the operation would look more like the State Fair process than anything that has been described here. I have zero confidence it would be a pleasant experience.

[gemini]

Typical over-reaction to a isolated incident. Dewhurst and Straus are an embarrassment to manhood
and common sense. NO METAL DETECTORS.
The most practicle solution to this perceived "problem" is............... require ALL civilian employees working
in the State Capital to obtain their CHL.
Sounds like a plan.

[Dragonfighter]

Typical over-reaction to a isolated incident. Dewhurst and Straus are an embarrassment to manhood
and common sense. NO METAL DETECTORS.
The most practicle solution to this perceived "problem" is............... require ALL civilian employees working
in the State Capital to obtain their CHL.
Sounds like a plan.

Like I posted in another thread, Perry and Medina are vehemently opposed (no minced words) to metal detectors in the capitol. Perry went as far as to say, "The concealed carry license offers all the security we need." or words to that effect. I couldn't believ a professional politician would be that straight forward.

[O6nop]

You are wrong, as we, CHL holders do have more rights/privileges than normal citizens. We get to carry guns concealed on our person while we go about our daily business. "normal" citizens (or non-chl holders) do not get to carry guns. Think about it in terms of a person with a drivers license, someone with a license can drive a car, someone without one cannot drive a car (legally).

I am not saying we are better, but we are licensed to do something that others are not, like doctors practice medicine, attorneys practice law, and so on.

How courageous you are to say, flat out, I'm wrong. I believe that our forefathers would disagree with you in that no one has more rights than any other citizen, "normal" or otherwise. We don't "get" to carry guns because of a right, the getting a permit has nothing to do with a right. All citizens have the right to carry arms, but the government has stolen that right and replaced it with a privilege, so comparing the driver's license to a CHL is basically stating you are all right with the government doing that.
I don't want to re-state my view here, trying reading here.