tagged w/ Second Amendment
-
'...when you combine the First Amendment with the Second Amendment then you have something out here with teeth...''...when you combine the First Amendment with the Second Amendment then you have... more
-
-
As a professor at a public university in Texas, I am delighted that the State Senate has upheld the Second Amendment right of students to carry concealed handguns into college classrooms. I applaud Senator Jeff Wentworth’s persistence in seeing the concealed carry law through, even if he had to append it to a universities budget bill.
Since 2006, I have employed this very policy successfully in my Fashion Merchandising and Textile Science courses at John Salmon Ford State University. That I have had only a handful of gun-related classroom incidents in all that time confirms both the sound theory behind the new law and its proven potential for success.
The virtue of my own policy lies in its few scant rules:
First, because I am staunchly committed to the principle that everyone is inalienably equal, I insist that all students in the classroom be carrying. On the first day of class, I have each student sign a contract promising that by the third week of the term she (more rarely he) will produce both a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) and a certificate of handgun safety training. Because I am reasonable, I waive these requirements for students who are younger than twenty-one and, when pressed, I have permitted some students to circumvent the CHL requirement by bringing their handguns to class UNconcealed.
Second, I insist that students keep their safeties on and that they exercise their right to use the handgun only with proper provocation. While there remains some question about what constitutes proper provocation, the students seem to know the distinction instinctively and to honor it. Most of them prefer to settle their disputes in the traditional manner, anyway, by scratching, pulling hair, and defaming their enemies on Facebook pages.
Finally, I insist that the students subscribe to my axiom:
Guns don’t kill people.
People don’t kill people.
The right KINDS of people kill people.”
As I have already said, I have had only a few minor incidents since establishing this policy. In fall of 2008, what began as a little tiff between two gifted apparel studies students escalated into a brief classroom firefight. While one student sustained a broken femur from a .45 ACP round, the meatier of the two “suffered” only a flesh wound in her abdomen. No bystanders were wounded. In another incident, a female student fired upon the single male in the room when he suggested that an overcast stitch might serve her fashion project better than a blanket stitch. The girl’s boyfriend had broken up with her the previous evening and she was, understandably, very upset with men. The students in the class not only sympathized but also insisted that she take a second shot, for us all.
Only a single misguided student has ever protested this reasonable policy. In 2007, a Q’Shaquaqua Jones asked if perhaps the presence of guns in the hands of everyone in the classroom might not create a more dangerous atmosphere, especially at a university that was seeking to “enlighten and improve humanity as a whole and cultivate a more civilized world” (HER words). She asked naively, “Might this policy, in fact, not undermine the university’s mission of ‘promoting intellectual, social, and ethical growth’ and ‘encouraging peaceful dialogue among diverse peoples’?”
I was nettled by the challenge: “It might NOT. And Ms. Jones, I’m surprised to hear that sort of question from someone of your persuasion.” I repeated politely but firmly that these were my policies. In her defense, Ms. Jones was respectful in her questions. But I exercised my right to drop her from my roll administratively. She has not since been a problem. (For a few weeks afterward, her parents pestered me with e-mails asking anxiously about her whereabouts, but I never felt an obligation to respond.)
I know that some observers across the nation are concerned that the new law will put university teachers like me in danger of violence from students who are upset with the grades that they deserve. My solution has been to discuss grades with students only in face-to-face interviews and to make sure that my own Walther P99 is prominently displayed on my desk. A simple deterrent.
Other academics argue that the greater presence of guns on college campuses will necessarily lead to a statistically higher incidence of accidental shootings, suicides, and rage sprees. I am appalled by their cynical premise that young, emotionally fragile and hormone-driven adults with access to alcohol and drugs are more likely than anyone else to shoot other people, or themselves. I challenge them to find reliable statistical evidence to support their claims.
As the concealed handgun policy has worked well in my own classes, so I am confident it will serve students and professors at other public universities in Texas—and across the nation. I congratulate Mr. Wentworth in his efforts to pass the law. And I hope he understands that, despite the complaints of a very small minority, he has much support from decent, law-abiding college educators and students alike. I urge other states to follow his brave lead.
Bethany Borders, PhD, CFCS
Associate Professor of Family and Consumer Sciences (formerly Home Economics)
John Salmon Ford State UniversityAs a professor at a public university in Texas, I am delighted that the State Senate... more
-
-
PChild
-
added this
-
9 months ago
- |
-
Why Government Cannot "Make Us Safe" by Mandating Security
by Ron Paul
The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable. We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, Internet and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric.
Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House Floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech. Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated. Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws and for government to do something to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee-jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the Congressional galleries only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens.
Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. Remember, liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.
We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed they at least have a chance against armed criminals. Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day.
Since police cannot be everywhere all the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves. Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risk or violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.Why Government Cannot "Make Us Safe" by Mandating Security
by Ron Paul... more
-
-
Stop Gun-Grabbing Politicians!
-
-
-
Now that Jared Lee Loughner's bullets have stopped flying, the air is thick with new bullets in the form of accusations and denials, proposed legislative actions, and the pros and cons of the Second Amendment. But most of these rhetorical bullets are far off the mark.Now that Jared Lee Loughner's bullets have stopped flying, the air is thick with... more
-
-
If you ask an opponent of gun control they would most likely say there is no debate, after all, the second amendment is quite clear.
Those in favor of gun control will have no trouble citing countless cases of innocent bystanders and victims of violent crimes being injured or killed as a result of the lack of gun control and thereby make a compelling argument that guns should be outlawed.
Is it possible that both are, to some degree, right?If you ask an opponent of gun control they would most likely say there is no debate,... more
-
-
Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation Friday filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.
The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran,... more
-
-
Let the buyer beware
Pittsburgh police arrested Richard Welch from Lincoln Place Wednesday when he aimed a shotgun at a census taker who knocked on his door. He will face charges of simple assault, reckless endangerment and a firearms violation. This story is bad enough but it could have ended tragically if Welch had been a bit more unhinged. This is why the tea parties are dangerous.
Read more . . . . http://www.examiner.com/x-14931-Pittsburgh-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2010m7d23-Let-the-buyer-bewareLet the buyer beware
Pittsburgh police arrested Richard Welch from Lincoln Place... more
-
-
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the organization conservatives love to hate, never has been a “liberal” group per sé; it just so happens that the typical incursions on the rights of Americans (e.g. restrictions on free speech, violations of the separation of church and state, open and invidious discrimination, etc.) occur because of governmental policies that conservatives (and, usually, Republicans) wholeheartedly support.
So when the ACLU steps in to protect a gun owner’s rights to his weapons, that’s bound to confuse any right-wing types who actually may be paying attention. Robert Weinstein (pictured) got his pistols back after a hearing Wednesday morning in Broward Circuit Court.
Robert Weinstein got his pistols back after a hearing Wednesday morning in Broward Circuit Court.
Broward Circuit Judge Dale Ross questioned Mila Schwartzreich, the lawyer representing the Broward Sheriff's Office, about the weapons seizure.
"Just as a kind of a query, what legal authority does the sheriff or anybody have to walk in to someone's home and take property?" Ross said. "Don't we call that, in the business, stealing?"
Schwartzreich said state statute allowed the taking of property when there is a breach of the peace, which Ross again questioned.
"Breach of the peace was when Mr. Weinstein threatened suicide," Schwartzreich said.
Ross did not seem satisfied.
"What happens is Mr. Policeman shows up at your house and routinely confiscates property," Ross said. He called the sheriff's deputies' actions "well intended," but added: "You don't really have authority to take them. And now, lo and behold, they won't give 'em back."
The court is the only entity that can inquire into Weinstein's mental fitness, he said. If Ross decides the pistols should be returned, Schwartzreich said the sheriff would have no objection.
Ross said: "If the guy does the worst, the agency can say, 'We didn't give 'em back, the court did.' And that's what we're doing here."
Weinstein, of Pompano Beach, was mourning Dana, his wife of 61 years who had recently died, when his weapons were taken for safekeeping by the Broward Sheriff's Office in February.
According to a BSO report, he told authorities he "wanted to blow his head off."
The retired bar and restaurant owner was upset because three weeks after his wife's death, her remains were not yet at the funeral home that was to bury them.
BSO helped resolve that issue, and Mrs. Weinstein's remains were buried.
Weinstein was taken to a hospital for medical evaluation. He was not arrested, nor was he institutionalized against his will under the Baker Act.
Weinstein said he turned to the ACLU for help when he thought his civil rights had been violated. An ACLU spokesman said he believes this is the first time in the organization's 90-year history that it has helped a gun owner retrieve his weapons from law enforcement.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the organization conservatives love to... more
-
-
http://www.infowars.com/deleted-obama-deception-movie-restored-after-google-nailed-with-calculated-search-blitz/
In response to having the most watched version of his film The Obama Deception mysteriously deleted from an affiliated YouTube director page, as well as his other film Police State 4: Rise of FEMA, radio host Alex Jones instructed his listeners yesterday to search the term “Obama Deception Censored” as many times as possible in order to push it up to the top spot in Google’s search ranking. Listeners from all over the country (and even other countries I can personally affirm) took part.
In the end it worked.
By late last evening the search term was number one, as the screen print below shows.
his counter-attack did more than send a message to the Internet search giant– who owns YouTube– by showing it the power of Jones’ liberty loving listeners, but as Jones stated in his broadcast, it also made the subject of Google’s censoring the film the focus of many blogs. This is because bloggers watch Google’s search trends and write stories on the top search topics in order to gain traffic. Numerous articles appeared in the searches shortly thereafter, the authors bringing attention to the issue and curiously asking why Google censored the film.
Certainly it wasn’t good publicity for Google or President Obama, whose name is in the title of the censored movie.
Today Jones’ movies were restored to the YouTube channel, which is run and administered by a listener, along with other films that had been mysteriously deleted in the past. Proof that Jones’ team didn’t simply delete the films and then upload them again comes from the fact that their view counts were the same as before they disappeared, whereas a new upload would have set them back to zero.
As of this writing the movie is back up, free to watch (and pasted below).
If deleting Jones’ films was a test balloon sent up by Google to gage what kind of response such an action would invite, it got its answer. Thanks to the mass awakening taking place through the Internet and around the world, not even petty attacks like the hack of Jones’ page can stop corporate machines like Google from backing down when ordinary people take it upon themselves to flex their collective muscle.
No doubt the empire will eventually strike back again, but at least now it knows what resistance awaits it.
“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.”
–John Quincy Adamshttp://www.infowars.com/deleted-obama-deception-movie-restored-after-google-nailed-with... more
-
-
"Muggers are polite when you follow their instructions, but they get surly when you are rude," said his wife."Muggers are polite when you follow their instructions, but they get surly when... more
-
-
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.
By a 5-4 vote split along familiar ideological lines, the nation's highest court extended its landmark 2008 ruling that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns to all the cities and states for the first time.
In doing so, the justices signaled that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges. The ruling involved a 28-year-old handgun ban in the Chicago area.
The ruling was a victory for four Chicago-area residents, two gun rights groups and the politically powerful National Rifle Association.
It was a defeat for Chicago, which defended its ban as a reasonable exercise of local power to protect public safety. The law and a similar handgun ban in suburban Oak Park, Ill., were the nation's most restrictive gun control measures.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. It left little doubt, however, that they would fall eventually.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, said the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The Second Amendment and gun ownership rights are finally protected. Now people will be able to have their own equal protection from criminals, who have been the only people who owned guns in some areas.WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's... more
-
-
On Tuesday the California Public Safety Committee passed the bill with 4-2 vote that would prohibit law abiding citizens to carry their, unloaded and holstered firearms, in the open. It now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. This bill being spear headed by Democratic assembly-woman Lori Saldana.
"Saldana, at a recent news conference, displayed video of citizens loading firearms within seconds. Such video was used to show how quickly one can bring an unloaded firearm into a ready-to-use condition. A rather contradicting piece from the politician who claims independent citizens “have no training.” The application of such skills and training for the greater good, for personal safety and public safety, seems to be irrelevant when the Assembly only considers what someone malicious might do."
This in the same state who plans to release almost 43,000 inmates early in the next two years in order to relieve prison congestion not to mention lay off law enforcement officers state wide due to budget cuts.
Remember people without guns citizens are nothing more than slaves.On Tuesday the California Public Safety Committee passed the bill with 4-2 vote that... more
-
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-02-court-guns_N.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.
The court heard arguments in a case that challenges handgun bans in the Chicago area by asking the high court to extend to state and local jurisdictions the sweep of its 2008 decision striking down a gun ban in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.
The biggest questions before the court seemed to be how, rather than whether, to issue such a ruling and whether some regulation of firearms could survive. On the latter point, Justice Antonin Scalia said the majority opinion he wrote in the 2008 case "said as much."
The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," said Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the majority in 2008.
At the very least, Tuesday's argument suggested that courts could be very busy in the years ahead determining precisely which gun laws are allowed under the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms," and which must be stricken.
James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years.
The court has held that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws. But Feldman said the Second Amendment should be treated differently because guns are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," he said.
But Feldman ran into difficulty with some of the five justices who formed the majority in 2008. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined Scalia's opinion two years ago, said it seemed to him that Feldman was arguing that the court got it wrong two years ago.
Of the other two justices in the majority then, Justice Samuel Alito also appeared to agree that the Second Amendment should be extended to state and local laws and Justice Clarence Thomas said nothing, as is his custom during argument.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-02-court-guns_N.htm
WASHINGTON (AP)... more
-
-
A fever has been sweeping across America, a Second Amendment paranoia without justification or cause. The election of President Barack Obama struck a Second Amendment nerve, and the gun nuts went crazy.
The irony is that while fear over the election of Obama seems to have started the present stampede towards fire arm anarchy, the fact is that Obama and the Democrats have neither the stomach nor the will to stand up to the well funded gun lobby and fight for what is right.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m2d24-Politics-of-the-gun-American-insanityA fever has been sweeping across America, a Second Amendment paranoia without... more
-
-
But firearms must be allowed by state where park is located
updated 5:47 p.m. PT, Fri., Feb. 19, 2010
WASHINGTON - Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and other national parks under a new law that takes effect Monday.
The law lets licensed gun owners bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law. It comes over the objections of gun-control advocates who fear it will lead to increased violence in national parks.
The national parks law takes effect in a climate that favors advocates of gun rights. The debate shifted dramatically in 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and declared that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes.
Gun owners have rushed in record numbers to get concealed weapons permits, saying they worry President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress may impose stricter gun laws. The National Rifle Association lobbied hard to allow guns in parks and has spent millions to challenge its opponents.
Now gun-control advocates are on the defensive, seeking to preserve some gun restrictions in the face of aggressive assertions of gun rights.
As of Monday, guns will be allowed in all but about 20 of the park service’s 392 locations, including some of its most iconic parks: Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Park. Guns will not be allowed in visitor centers or rangers’ offices, because firearms are banned in federal buildings, but they could be carried into private lodges or concession stands, depending on state laws.
'A paranoid society'
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said national parks are now among the safest places in America, but that could change under the new law. Current rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.
“It really is sad that we’ve become such a paranoid society that people want to take guns pretty much everywhere — including national parks,” he said Friday.
“When you are at a campfire and people are getting loud and boisterous next to you, you used to have to worry about them quieting down. Now you have to worry about when they will start shooting,” Helmke said.
Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, called the new law a sad chapter in the history of the park system.
“People go to national parks to get away from things that they face in their everyday living, where they live and work. Now I think that social dynamic is really going to change,” he said.
Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, said the law would place an unfair burden on park service employees, who will have to wade though a variety of state and local laws to determine whether visitors are breaking the law.
Officials said visitors who want to bring a gun to a national park need to understand and comply with state gun laws. More than 30 national parks span more than one state, so visitors need to know where they are in those parks and which state law applies, the park service said.
Supporter: Concerns overblown
A spokesman for the National Rifle Association scoffed at the idea that parks would become more dangerous, saying people have been assaulted and even murdered in national parks.
“This common-sense measure will enhance the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans and also ensure uniformity of firearm laws within a state,” said Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist.
The National Park Service said there were 3,760 reported major crimes, including five homicides and 37 rapes, in 2008, the most recent year for which data was available. The agency does not note which crimes involve firearms. Crime is down across the system’s parks, according to park service spokesman David Barna.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who led congressional efforts to change the law, said concerns about increased violence were overblown.
“I don’t expect anything major to come from this other than to restore the Second Amendment rights taken away by bureaucrats,” Coburn said
The park service has prepared for months for the new law. “We will administer this law as we do all others — fairly and consistently,” National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said in a statement.
National parks hosted about 275 million visitors in 2008, the agency said.But firearms must be allowed by state where park is located
updated 5:47 p.m. PT,... more
-
-
Starbucks has recently become the unlikely gathering spot for Second Amendment crusaders with guns conspicuously at their sides, asserting their right to openly carry firearms in public.
The “open carry” movement is an effort sponsored by the gun lobby and made up of “gun rights” extremists determined to force their interpretation of the Second Amendment on their fellow citizens by openly carrying handguns in public places.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4383-Portland-Progressive-Examiner~y2010m2d9-Gun-politics-Open-carry-at-Starbucks#Starbucks has recently become the unlikely gathering spot for Second Amendment... more
-
-
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
See the Video Where Sunstein Advocates Banning ALL GUNS....VIDEO....
http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/gun-ban-obama%E2%80%99s-czar-cass-sunstein-wants-to-ban-guns/
In a lecture at the University School of Law on October 27, 2007, Obama’s administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs emphatically stated that you do not have a right to own firearms. “It is striking and noteworthy,” said Cass Sunstein, “that well over two centuries since the founding, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns.”“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in... more
-
-
Everyone must learn to shoot, own a weapon and and keep it at home. Every year there is a holiday where people are encouraged to go to the shooting range and practice, the Ammo is provided by the government. A well armed people are ready to protect themselves.
They have the lowest crime rate!Everyone must learn to shoot, own a weapon and and keep it at home. Every year there... more
-
