The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
NY Times: Shooting First--and Missing the Target
Just guessing, but I would imagine that if the woman writing that story were at home alone at four in the morning, and an enraged man was trying to break down her door--given the choice as to whether to allow herself to be possibly raped or killed, or to be allowed to have a way to prevent that, she just might just opt for the latter. And she would be justified in that belief. Yet it would seem that she and the NY Times would prefer to other citizens become latter day victims of the mean streets and a violent society, rather than to have the means to defend themselves.
I have seen Carter Albrecht perform--we operated in similar circles and I actually hung out at the beer joint where he and his roommate used to go back in my single days; he seemed to be a genuinely good guy. His death has definitely shaken the music community in Dallas. I am personally sorry he is no longer with us. He was universally well liked and universally respected for his superb musicianship. His death is tragic because in normal circumstances, he is unlikely to have done any serious harm to the elderly man in question. But we will never know for sure because his alleged frame of mind at the time clearly made him appear to be a threat to his neighbor's home and family in the dead of night.
But equally tragic--yet sadly, par for the course--is the NY Times use of Albrecht's untimely death to further its "Imagine there's no heaven"/"We Are the World" political agenda. Maybe John Lennon thought there was nothing to live or die for, but my guess is that many husbands and wives and fathers and mothers would beg to differ... Maybe one day, if enough people understand that to break into a home in the middle of the night is to put one's life in danger, there will be a lot more peace, and a lot fewer break-ins.
The biggest tragedy in this incident is that no one was able to save Carter Albrecht from his own demons that night. But I feel certain that the man on the other side of the door that Albrecht was trying to kick down thought that his terrified wife might just be worth saving, too. Mine sure as hell is, and I will do whatever I have to do to protect her. So I can't really fault the neighbor. And for the uppity leftist NY Times to do so on the back of this man's death is about as disgusting as it gets.
R.I.P., Carter. We'll miss you.
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Fred strikes a chord--Again...
When I was working in television, I spent quite a bit of time in New York City. There are lots of things about the place I like, but New York gun laws don’t fall in that category.
Anybody who knows me knows I’ve always cared deeply about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. So I’ve always felt sort of relieved when I flew back home to where that particular civil liberty gets as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, New York is trying, again, to force its ways on the rest of us, this time through the courts. First, they went after U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking through a lawsuit not only money but injunctive control over the entire industry. An act of congress in 2005 blocked, but did not end, that effort.
Now, the same activist federal judge from Brooklyn who provided Mayor Giuliani’s administration with the legal ruling it sought to sue gun makers, has done it again. Last week, he created a bizarre justification to allow New York City to sue out-of-state gun stores that sold guns that somehow ended up in criminal hands in the Big Apple.
The lawsuit has been a lesson in out-of-control government from the get-go. Mayor Bloomberg sent private investigators to make “straw” purchases – illegally buying guns for somebody else. According to the ATF, NY’s illegal “stings” interfered with ongoing investigations of real gun traffickers.
Obviously, New York won’t get much cash out of the few dozen shops being sued in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia; so the purpose can only be political. Some of those sued have already buckled under the financial strain of legal defense and agreed to live by New York City rules.
Ironically, all of this comes at a time of historically low violent crime rates and historically high gun ownership rates nationally. States where it is legal to carry guns are also at an all-time high, up to 40 from 10 in 1987 by NRA reckoning.
While this attack by New York City on the Second Amendment reinforces the importance of appointing judges who apply the law as written, there is another important legal point. Federalism, though usually seen as a protection of the states from the federal government, actually grew out of the need to protect states from other states that interfered in free commerce beyond their borders – as New York is doing today. In this case, we need Federalism to protect states from a big bully in New York City.
Labels: Fred Thompson, Judicial Activism, Right to Bear Arms
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
An (unintended) Endorsement for Fred Thompson...
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Fred Thompson, Right to Bear Arms
Monday, July 30, 2007
UPDATED Return Fire
UPDATE: Meanwhile, Robert Levy goes after D.C.'s restrictive gun laws with a vengance.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat Sabotage, Right to Bear Arms
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Dems show their hand on Guns
Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Right to Bear Arms
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Decline and Fall of one (very stupid) Anti-Gun Journalist
Labels: Right to Bear Arms
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
A Stealth form of Gun Control
Let's put a stop to this madness.
Labels: Abuse of Power, Right to Bear Arms
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Another Newspaper Publishes Names of Gun Owners with Carry Licences
Now the criminals also know which residences are NOT licensed: and therefore they know whose home is ripe for burglary--and which ones are more of a risk. Wonderful. Why don't they just publish the architectural layouts of the non-armed homes while they are at it... (not to mention they are also advertising to the more adventurous and well armed criminal where they might go to steal weapons...)
If I were living in one of these cities and I was NOT on the list, I would be suing that newspaper for damages the second my home was burglarized.
(Note to criminals: my home and person ARE protected. My Sig and I are very well acquainted. And if I were you, I wouldn't chance it...)
Labels: Media War, Right to Bear Arms, Travesty of Justice
Monday, June 11, 2007
UPDATED Jefferson: The Law should apply to Thee, but not to Me
Meanwhile--Noel Sheppard's question from the above linked post is very relevant: just where is the media, anyway? It does seem like Tom Delay garnered a lot more attention for his lame charges than Jefferson has for being caught red-handed with cash in his freezer. But in this case the media's hypocrisy isn't really about Jefferson; rather this is about the media not wanting to expose a blatant hypocrite who has been extremely outspoken about its pet issue: Gun Control. Kind of hurts your credibility as a Gun Control crusader when it turns out that you are an owner of the very weapons you have been so outspoken about banning....
It is possible that the man with $90K in the freezer might be doing the Republicans more good by not resigning... at least until they lead him away in leg chains to prison... Unfortunately, even the Pelositistas probably have better political sense than to allow it to play out that way.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy wonders why it took the Bush Justice Department two years to bring Jefferson to justice. Good question; especially when you consider the extent to which Al "Pontius Pilate" Gonzalez punted the Plame affair to a Special Counsel for political expediency.
Labels: Corruption, Democrat, Right to Bear Arms
Saturday, June 09, 2007
The Castle Doctrine: a Law whose Time has Come
Here is a quote from Soyer, responding to a defense lawyer's criticism of a homeowner's right to defend his property and loved ones from imminent danger:- The bill would establish, in law, the presumption that a criminal who unlawfully enters or intrudes into your home, occupied vehicle, or place of business or employment is there to cause death or great bodily harm, and you may therefore use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
- The bill would explicitly state in law that you have no “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in a place where you have a right to be present, if you are not the original aggressor, and if you are not engaged in criminal activity.
- The bill would protect persons using force authorized by law from lawsuits filed by injured criminal attackers or their families.
Yeah, well, I’ll keep that in mind next October 31st, but if they’re six-foot-two, wearing a mask, coming in the back door with a crow-bar, and holding a firearm, I’ll assume they aren’t looking for the candied-apples.What the critics of an armed citizenry don't understand is just how well it works everywhere it has been tried; an extensive study of these benefits was conducted by John R. Lott, and published in his book More Guns, Less Crime--now in its Second Edition--and which is heavy on statistical study and remarkable findings:
Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes ... If the rest of the country had adopted right-to-carry concealed handgun provisions in 1992, about 1,500 murders and 4,000 rapes would have been avoided ... Many commonly accepted notions are challenged by these findings. Urban areas tend to have the most restrictive gun-control rules and have fought the hardest against nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws, yet they are the very places that benefit most from nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws. Not only do urban areas tend to gain in their fight against crime, but reductions in crime rates are greatest in the urban areas that have the highest crime rates, largest and most dense populations, and greatest concentration of minorities. ...Below is an excerpt of the "enrolled text" of the Texas Law, which the Governor has signed. If you look at the language, it is pretty clearly and broadly protecting the law abiding citizen from repercussions of defending themselves, to wit, it provides the following test for reasonableness of using "deadly force":
The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who use them in self-defense. Because the guns may be concealed, criminals are unable to tell whether potential victims are carrying guns until they attack, thus making it less attractive for criminals to commit crimes that involve direct contact with victims. Citizens who have no intention of ever carrying concealed handguns in a sense get a "free ride" from the crime-fighting efforts of their fellow citizens. ...
The actor ’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:In Texas, it used to be the case that you could protect yourself under similar, but more restrictive circumstances, however this did not absolve you from a civil suit. This new law protects the citizen from criminal OR civil liability for protecting his/her self.
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor ’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor ’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
[...]
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
I am thankful to be living in a State where the benefits of concealed carry-laws are not only recognized--they are encouraged. Let the criminal beware.
Labels: Carry Laws, Castle Doctrine, Right to Bear Arms
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Colorado Sheriff: Gun Free Zone at VT might have cost lives
So how many more Virginia Techs have to happen before our "leaders" finally get off the schneid? (h/t Instapundit)
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Monday, May 21, 2007
UPDATED Our Pathological European "Allies"
UPDATED: Victor Davis Hanson, in another post today (i.e. other than the one Glenn linked), thinks that all hope is not lost for the Euros, but that they need to Cut America Some Slack. Read it all:
For five years we have been lectured that George Bush ruined the trans-Atlantic relationship. But now we see pro-American governments in both France and Germany, and a radical change in attitudes from Denmark to Holland to Italy. The truth is that the Europeans neither hated nor loved Bill Clinton, whom they on occasion privately seethed at for not exercising leadership, or George Bush who swaggered and talked tough to them during the lead-up to Iraq and seemed to them to be rudely unilateral. Instead, after getting their teen-age anger out, they are starting to see that the United States did not fabricate Islamic radicalism nor order them to let in and then not assimilate millions of now angry Muslims.
For all the cheap shots, the European public is worried about importing half their natural gas from Vladimir Putin, who now bullies Eastern Europeans, former Soviet republics, and dissidents well beyond his borders on the premise that his oil wealth and nukes ensure Europe can’t and won’t do anything.
Europeans know they won’t or can’t stop the Iranians from getting a nuke, but hope someone—that is, the United States—will. And from the Spanish flight from Iraq after the Madrid bombing, the spectacle of the British naval personnel in Iranian hands, and the continental paralysis after the Danish cartoons and other serial Islamic affronts to free expression, Europe knows that radical Islam is both dangerous and has little respect for either European moral authority or force of arms.
So it is they, not us, that are returning to sobriety in matters of the trans-Atlantic relationship, and they are doing this not because of affection for George Bush, but despite their anxiety about him. And that is good news, since it suggests the warming exists apart from personalities, and reminds us that if the so-called and much deprecated “West” were ever to act in unison (the former British commonwealth, Japan, the US, and continental Europe), then radical Islam would simply have no chance against 8-900 million of the planet’s most productive, ingenious and democratic peoples.At some point, European statesmen are going to bump into a great truth: that they spend almost nothing on defense, but intrinsically have access to the United States military, both by shared values, or at least the memory of shared values, and the allegiance of the American people to this now ridiculed, now archaic notion known as the “West.” All they have do is to occasionally show some warmth to the United States, and we crazy American people whether in World War I, II, the Cold War, or the war on terror, give our all to them—at no cost. We sense that Merkle and Sarkozy and the majorities that elected them, finally fear that they were reaching the point of American exasperation at which the old ties were broken for good, adn Europe was truly to be on its own, and thus pulled back—in time?
Labels: Europe, Islamic Fascism, Right to Bear Arms, The Left
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
South Carolina Legislators want MORE Guns on Campus
It would have been nice if something like this had been in place at Virginia Tech.
In case you are not up to date on the statistics of violent crime when carry laws are vs. are not present, go no further than John R. Lott, Jr.'s fine book More Guns, Less Crime. The numbers are very telling.
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Sunday, May 13, 2007
The Shame of Hamline University
When you can no longer even say what you think should happen on a college campus--where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be encouraged--all because your solution might offend someone, then America has officially become Stalinized; only marginally better off than the poor souls who toiled and died in the Gulags of the former Soviet Union...for the same reason.
The good Captain reports that the situation has still not resolved itself:
As it turns out, Troy wasn't even referring to the main campus when he complained about the gun-free zone. He told us that security actually does a good job protecting the main campus, but he attended classes in the school's downtown Minneapolis facilities at night -- which is not a safe place to be, and where Hamline provides no security. Since Troy has a state license to carry a concealed weapon -- which means he's passed the background checks and training requirements -- all he wanted to do was to get their permission to have the opportunity to defend himself in case he got attacked.
So far, the school hasn't budged. Troy doesn't really want to return there anyway under the circumstances, but he worries that the incompletes he had to take and the record of the suspension will damage his chances to get into law school. In fact, he has just about despaired of that career at this point, and isn't sure what he will do now.
The First Amendment is there for a reason. And if there is any place in America where that Constitutional right should be treated as liberally as possible, it is the University campus. Hamline University has disgraced itself for all the world to see. But what is happening here is far more ominous than a simple suspension: what is happening is that Political Correctness is endangering the very foundations of this country and what it is supposed to stand for.
Labels: Indoctrination not Education, PC, Right to Bear Arms, The Left, Thought Police
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
UPDATED Tennessee Newspaper Declares War on Concealed Weapons Permit holders
This is taking journalistic responsibility to new lows, and is yet another example of how laden our newsrooms are with the disease of Stalinist Political Correctness.
UPDATE: Glenn serves up fresh crow for Andrew Sullivan to eat (emphasis mine):
Andrew Sullivan asks: "If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one?"
I think the short answer is that gun rights are about security, and we'd rather keep the criminals guessing. In addition, doubt about who owns guns generates what economists call "positive externalities," meaning that if a substantial proportion of homeowners have guns, or if a nontrivial number of people out-and-about are carrying concealed guns, potential burglars or assailants have to allow for the possibility that a victim or someone in the neighborhood might be armed. That produces a deterrent effect that benefits even those who do not possess guns This is why, for example, we see fewer burglaries of occupied homes in the United States than in countries like Britain with strict gun controls -- breaking into an occupied home is dangerous. Meanwhile, on a more personal level, those who are armed would prefer to have the advantage of surprise. I should also note that there's a difference between owning guns (the "keep and bear" business) and carrying guns, which is what the whole CCW permit thing is about. That distinction is explained at some length here.But I'll turn the question around: If abortion is a civil right, why would anyone object to having a newspaper publish a searchable database of people who've had one?
I'm not ashamed! But some people might worry about prejudice from the "unenlightened and unsophisticated."
Labels: Carry Laws, Media Bias, PC, Right to Bear Arms, The Left
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Guaranteed Body Count: Courtesy of the PC Left
Cartoon by Scott Stantis (click to enlarge)
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Three Years on (post-Carry law) no gunbattles yet at U. of Utah
Let's face it, if the Virginia Carry Bill had not been submarined by Democrats and Academic Lefties, there would likely be many fewer dead kids being mourned at Virginia Tech. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
For someone like Cho to get all of the publicity he was seeking, he needed a place where he could easily rack up a big body count--a "Gun Free" zone provided the perfect opportunity. If he did not have the "assurance" that most people in the building he entered would not be armed (for fear of being expelled from the University), he might not have so eagerly entered that situation. And--secondarily--even if he had still gone in, fewer lives may have been taken had some student in one of those classrooms had a weapon to defend his/her self.
So it begs the question: why are we offering the typical deranged publicity-seeking psycho so many "target rich" opportunities by creating all these "gun free" zones in Right-to-Carry states? I can understand not allowing weapons in bars, but I'm having a bit of a problem understanding why a responsible armed teacher--even in grade schools--cannot have the means to protect innocent children from predators.
The answer is not to ban guns on campus. The answer is to allow citizens (in this case, students and faculty) who have proven themselves to be responsible adults (after loopholes are closed) to have the means to protect themselves and society from those who do not belong in it. Only then in my view will mass murders like the Virginia Tech tragedy subside in this country. It looks like the folks in Salt Lake City have figured that out.
I think it is time we took a hard look at this, before more Virginia Techs or another Beslan occurs here.
UPDATE: Glenn (and Gov. Perry) agrees.
Labels: Carry Laws, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage
Friday, April 27, 2007
Don't Mess with the Discerning Texan (well, hopefully soon anyway...)
Tomorrow comes the State Course, the mandatory testing, and a thorough background check. But hey... in this crazy world, where any nutjob can walk into a mall (or anywhere else) and start killing innocents--or where a terror strike could knock out electricity for days or weeks--it is incumbent upon all responsible citizens to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our country from those who would kill indiscriminately, or from those who would take advantage of a paralyzed society to try and impose gang rule or anarchy.
I am as kind and lovable as a teddy bear--but don't try messing with the lives of me or those dear to me... And no, this is not a reaction to Virginia Tech; it was planned long before. VT just put a punctuation mark on what I had already undertaken. Actually I have been reading up on the laws and practicing weekly at the range for a couple of months now. So hopefully tomorrow will go smoothly.
I was wrestling with whether or not to post on this subject, but--especially in light of recent events and what I have had to say on that topic, I am posting about my personal journey to punctuate my belief on the importance of taking personal responsibility for your safety. Every American should take whatever steps necessary to protect his/her family from those for whom life is not so precious. Call it practicing what I preach; yesterday I linked to one of the most eloquent posts on this topic I have read in quite some time. If you missed it, be sure and check it out here.
Hopefully I will be able to get a couple of posts in tomorrow night after the Training. See you then.
Wish me luck--and let this be a lesson: Don't mess with Texas!
The Duty to Fight Back: A Must Read
Labels: Heroism, Morality, Patriotism, Right to Bear Arms
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Day by Day Triple Play
Chris Muir has been on FIRE since I've been away... For those who have not already seen them: enjoy! Click to enlarge.
Labels: Cartoons, Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Right to Bear Arms
