tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96219712024-03-14T03:12:27.606-05:00Relentless Pursuit of Wisdom and LibertyThe weblog companion of Trippet.net, dedicated to pondering, "If Patrick Henry could see us now..."JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.comBlogger257125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-64694595914008584822009-04-30T10:08:00.001-05:002009-04-30T10:11:54.085-05:00Open letter to Rep. RodriguezRep. Rodriquez,<br /><br />First, thank you for signing onto the <a href="http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/AWBLettertoHolder309.pdf">St. Patrick's Day letter</a> to the AG's office with 64 of your colleagues, advising him not to pursue the ineffective legislation he mentioned his office was considering. Your inclusion in that number made me a happy constituent.<br /><br />However, <a href="http://www.rodriguez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383">your most recent email</a> to your constituents contains a bit of obfuscation that I hope you can clear up for me. In part, you wrote: "that includes smuggling an iron river of over 10,000 American guns in to the hands of the drug cartels in only 2007 and 2008."<br /><br />First of all, thank you for not blindly repeating the ridiculously fallacious "90%" number that the Executive Branch and some of your colleagues seem to love throwing around. The 10,347 number which reflects the number of guns, seized by Mexico & turned in to BATFE for tracing, that turned out to indeed come from a US source, makes up <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html">only 36% of the total number of arms seized</a> by Mexican authorities over 2007 & 2008. So thank you for that.<br /><br />However, there is absolutely no evidence (none deemed suitable for public consumption that I can locate, at any rate) that all 10,347 were smuggled across the border illegally. It may not have been tactful to suggest this in your recent visit with President Calderon, but it certainly seems relevant to wonder how many of these 10,347 originated as a fully-legal shipment of arms, supplied directly by US manufacturers to the Mexican military (or that of other Latin American countries) via US Dept. of Defense contracts, only to find their way - God only knows how - into the hands of the cartels? How many of these 10,347 are of a type that aren't even legal for civilian purchase in the US (that is, fully-automatic, etc.)? Additional gun control measures aimed at restricting the civilian market in the US will do absolutely nothing about that portion - whatever it turns out to be - of the 10,347 that fits those descriptions.<br /><br />One would certainly expect BATFE to maintain some kind of records of what kind of arms these are that it's tracing, and where they came from - otherwise, how would it be able to determine anything else about them? Is there a way you - or a citizen, through a FOIA request - might gain access to that kind of breakdown of these 10,347 arms that were traced and originated here? That kind of information should certainly inform any policy decisions that are being discussed along those lines, and which shouldn't be carried out with only gross, aggregated statistics like, "over 10,000 of these guns originated in the US".<br /><br />Thank you,<br />Jason TrippetJThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-67021682027912405572009-03-18T15:35:00.003-05:002009-03-18T15:44:28.014-05:00Two bits of good news todayThat are worthy of coming off hiatus:<br /><br />First, the DoD <a href="http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12244">rescinded the new policy</a> that would have severely impacted price & availability of ammunition - expended brass can continue to be sold to ammunition remanufacturers. Thanks to the steadfast Senators from Montana for personally bringing this wrong-headed policy to the right people's attention.<br /><br />And then, wonder of wonders, 65 Democratic Congressmen signed a delivered <a href="http://www.rodriguez.house.gov/images/stories/tx_23_arra_guidebook.pdf">a letter to Attorney General Holder (PDF)</a> as a response to his recent comments that he & the Obama administration will seek to impose a new (so-called) "Assault Weapons" ban. Their response? "Don't even think about it." The letter even specifically points out the two main reasons why it was a pointless bill: that it was ineffective in changing anything crime-related, and that (so-called) "assault weapons" are not special in any way vis-a-vis other perfectly legal firearms that are available today, and have been for over 70 years. And guess whose Congressman is on that list? I may not have voted for Rep. Rodriguez in November, but he just got a big pat-on-the-back email from yours truly.<br /><br />Hat tips to <a href="http://armsandthelaw.com/">Of Arms and the Law</a>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-89879071635130474922008-11-30T15:07:00.000-06:002009-01-26T15:10:33.522-06:00On HiatusWell, there's been plenty to write about, what with a presidential election and all that entails (which mostly would have been me wondering aloud why in the world everyone thinks the President should be so important and/or hold so much power), but with my two wonderful boys at home to play with I just haven't felt the impetus grab me strongly enough to tear me away from them to blog. So I imagine I should just put a little notice up here that I may be back sometime, but for right now, let's just say my priorities are in order.<br /><br />Thanks to the two of you who've been back every once a while,<br />JasonJThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-26338395988774497142008-08-13T11:58:00.003-05:002008-08-13T12:21:44.159-05:00When candy is outlawed......only outlaws will have candy. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7554912.stm">Showing now in Scotland</a>, the logical end-result conclusion of nanny-state policies like, "sorry, you're allowed to neither fight back at all, nor own, possess, or carry an implement likely to aid you in fighting back."<p><br /><blockquote>A man caught carrying a large gobstopper ["jawbreaker" for those unfamiliar with <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/">Willy Wonka</a> - JT] in a sock has been fined £400 after it was found to be an offensive weapon.<br /><br />Sheriff Kenneth McIver told him that, even though it was not in the same category as a knife or axe, it was capable of inflicting a nasty injury.<br /><br />"You will be aware of the ongoing national debate on offensive weapons including knives," he told Harvey.<br /><br />"But all too often this court has to consider other improvised weapons like this."</blockquote><br /><br />And people wonder why we rail against the folks who would make law-abiding citizens in the US just as vulnerable to violent criminals as those in the UK.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-64896609361710202772008-06-26T09:46:00.002-05:002008-06-26T09:52:22.442-05:00Heller - "the people" WINIf there was ever a circumstance that would lift me to the grandiose heights of actually posting something more frequently than every two months, this is it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html">Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Arms</a><br /><br />Woohoo! Still reading the opinion and the two dissents, but the salient points are these:<br /><blockquote>1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.<br />(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative<br />clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.<br />(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.</blockquote><br /><br />Anyhoo, back to reading the 157-page release!JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-31542263099470014032008-05-01T15:57:00.003-05:002008-05-01T16:16:09.840-05:00Open letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison1 May 2008<br /><br />Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison<br />284 Russell Senate Office Building<br />Washington, DC 20510-4304<br />202-224-0776 (FAX)<br /><br />Senator Hutchison -<br /><br />First, thank you for your service to our state and the many sensible positions you hold (and for which you continue to be re-elected) in representing us to the federal government. Thank you especially for joining the other Senators & Congressmen in signing the amicus brief for D.C. v. Heller, argued in the Supreme Court last month.<br /><br />However, in your comments at a Heritage Foundation <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev020708b.cfm">event on February 7</a> covering that amicus brief, you made some comments that should be addressed and corrected.<br /><br />In the Q&A session [<span style="font-style:italic;">just before the 35-minute mark - JT</span>], when asked by a Dallas reporter your position on the "Assault Weapons Ban", you stated that you supported it, for the reason that a regulation of its kind was analogous to those regulating shouting "fire!" in a theater. You reasoned that both regulations clarify that there's a category of action under a Constitutional right that's deemed to be separate and distinct from the basic right (of speech or keeping & bearing arms), that we restrict in order to protect the public from harm by those who would "abuse" that right.<br /><br />There are two important facets to that approach to regulation: whether the concept makes sense in general, and whether its specific applications are successful. Conceptually, the idea is to very specifically restrict certain actions that would normally be protected by a guaranteed Constitutional right, but in certain and specific cases where that action would cause harm through malicious abuse. Sounds reasonable. So we restrict the shouting of "fire" in a theater, and as a result we don't have people being trampled trying to get out of a theater that's not on fire. But notice that we don't restrict the shouting of "fire" in an open-air park, nor the act of shouting, nor the ownership of a loud voice.<br /><br />For the same reasonableness & effectiveness to apply to a ban on a particular class of firearm, the regulation should have to jump through the same hoops. Where the free speech regulation restricted the joining of several elements which are normally, taken separately, unrestricted - being in a theater, shouting, speaking "fire" - what confluence of elements did the "Assault Weapons Ban" restrict, that when taken separately are unrestricted but when joined create a situation that puts the public in greater jeopardy than it would be without?<br /><br />Did it restrict firing rates? No, the 1934 National Firearms Act and 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act were already in place, restricting fully-automatic machineguns. Similarly, semi-automatic (one bullet per one trigger pull) weapons were as available during the life of the 1994 federal law as they were before and after, so the law didn't even mandate a backwards step to bolt-action or otherwise "single-action" (manually cycle between each shot to load a new round) firearms. Firing rates remained unchanged by the "Assault Weapons Ban".<br /><br />Did it restrict the use of more powerful ammunition that can cause relatively "more" damage to a target than one might use for home defense? No, the 1994 federal law didn't affect the availability of any particular type of ammunition, from common hunting calibers like .223 and .308 to the less frequently-used .50 caliber. Any regulations on special "armor piercing" ammunition and the like, reserved for law enforcement, were already on the books and were not mentioned by the 1994 federal law.<br /><br />Did it restrict smaller, more concealable pistols that could conceivably be snuck into crowded places by those with nefarious intent? No, and in fact, during the 20-year period from 1986 to 2006, states in a sweeping trend were passing liberalized concealed handgun laws that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry their small, concealable pistols in public for self-defense - the number of states with such "shall-issue" laws grew from 9 to 39 in that span, which included the period of the 1994 federal law.<br /><br />Did it restrict silencers that could conceivably be used by shooters to hide their location and evade capture? No, restrictions on silencers were included in the aforementioned 1934 NFA, and the 1994 federal law didn't mention them at all.<br /><br />So what did the "Assault Weapons Ban" really restrict in order to protect the public from harm by those who would abuse the right to arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment? It banned the manufacture and sale of certain models that had two or more of the following features, considered by most to be merely cosmetic:<br />- pistol grip<br />- folding/collapsible stock<br />- flash suppressor/muzzle brake<br />- "large-capacity" detachable magazine<br />- bayonet mounting point<br />- grenade launcher mounting point<br /><br />In short, the 1994 federal law restricted a very specific class of weapons that 1) were not appreciably more effective in killing people than those firearms that were left unrestricted are, and 2) were used in a very small percentage of crime to begin with, even pre-1994 (estimates ranged from 2% to 8%). Those two facts contribute directly to the fact that the ban didn't appreciably affect the crime rate during its 10-year period, as concluded by separate DOJ and CDC studies.<br /><br />So hopefully you can see, Senator Hutchison, that the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did absolutely nothing to "protect the public from harm by those who would abuse" an otherwise Constitutionally-protected right. The terms of the ban didn't make any sense conceptually, and so it's no surprise that the application of the ban wasn't successful either. If, in your remarks at the Heritage Foundation, you were specifically speaking about those restrictions placed on fully-automatic machineguns, armor-piercing ammunition, and silencers and the like, well, that's a completely different conversation, and has nothing to do with the now-defunct 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban".<br /><br />Again, I applaud your decision to support the defendant, Dick Heller, with the amicus brief signed by your colleagues, and thank you for your efforts in that regard. I do however encourage you to correct the impression you have about the merits and effectiveness of the "Assault Weapons Ban" that, at the end of the day, was decried by both sides of the gun control debate as being a useless piece of poorly-thought-out and ineffective legislation.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Jason Trippet<br />Helotes, TX<br /><br />Hat tip: <a href="http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-need-to-educate-senator.html">JR</a>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-26895064933470430402008-04-17T09:42:00.005-05:002008-04-17T14:07:49.331-05:00Virginia Tech rememberedYesterday was an emotional day for those involved in last year's shooting, and it was remembered by folks nationwide. One of the activities that took place on campus was the reading aloud of <a href="http://www.remembrance.vt.edu/transcripts/2008-04-16-biographical-statements.html">the accomplishments of the victims</a>, among them <a href="http://www.remembrance.vt.edu/biographies/librescu.html">Professor Liviu Librescu</a>, who used his body to barricade the door to his classroom, delaying the shooter while his class escaped through a window.<br /><br /><blockquote>An internationally renowned aeronautical engineering educator and researcher, with a host of honors from many countries, he embodied profound courage throughout his life, even in its final moments.</blockquote><br />Among the honors he received is the Grand Cross of Romania, for his heroism, awarded to his wife at his funeral in Israel.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine anyone arguing against the selfless sacrifice offered up by Prof. Librescu, or its efficacy in saving the lives of some of his students. It's unconscionable to disagree with his courageous actions.<br /><br />Unfortunately, for many, that's where the thought stops. But let's put our thinking caps on and go for a ride on the logic train, shall we?<br /><br />1) Prof. Librescu embodied profound courage<br />2) That courage demonstrably saved lives by delaying the shooter<br />3) The actions of courageous people on the scene of a shooting can save lives<br />4) Deploying self-sacrificial courage to save lives is an action to be praised & encouraged, not condemned<br />5) More effective actions by those courageous people can be more effective in saving lives<br />6) If Prof. Librescu could have delayed him longer, more lives would have been saved<br />7) Stopping the shooter is the most effective form of delaying him - effectively "delaying" him infinitely<br />8) The most effective means to stop the shooter is to render him unable or unwilling to shoot<br />9) The most efficient and reliable way to render him unable to shoot is to shoot him<br />10) Ergo, logic forces one to wonder, how many more lives could have been saved had Prof. Librescu, who we all agree is to be counted among humanity's bravest souls, been armed?<br /><br />Folks that don't (or refuse to) take this path from "Prof. Librescu was a great man" through "what he did that was great" to "how could he have been even greater" seem to me to be just willfully short-sighted. Why would we deny the Prof. Librescus of the world the ability to save more lives than they would if they're empty-handed?<br /><br />Change the name in that logic train to "Jeanne Assam" and the location to "New Life Church, Colorado Springs, CO" and the situation moves from hypothesis to empirical evidence. Through Prof. Librescu's heroic effort at Virginia Tech, some number of lives were demonstrably saved, but 32 people still fell victim to the shooter, over a time span covering over two hours. Through Jeanne Assam's heroic effort at New Life Church, some number of lives were likewise saved, but the shooter only had a matter of minutes to do his damage and as a result only 2 victims were killed. The difference is stark and undeniable.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-74561872381281450212008-03-27T14:37:00.001-05:002008-05-01T20:39:30.627-05:00LttE - Pollution of languageSubmitted to the San Antonio Express-News on 27 March 2008:<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA031408.01A.councilDWI.38a7954.html">The story</a> about Chief McManus' recommendations for toughening the DWI laws was fine for what it was, a straightforward presentation of the Chief's recommendations, with some statistics and such. Obviously input from law enforcement is invaluable, but the people's representatives will still decide what to press for and what to leave on the back burner (thank God for separation of powers).<br /><br />Cary Clack's accompanying <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/cclack/stories/MYSA031108.01P.clack.23a7e5c.html">opinion column</a> about drunk drivers was a little bit "Boo!" and a little bit "let's take some personal responsibility", and was, for the most part, not too bad. Labeling people who make bad (possibly dangerous) decisions as "terrorists" toed the line of poor taste, but based on the very malleable definition of "terrorist" these days, it was just barely enough to start getting my hackles up.<br /><br />Then letter-writers Jacque Petterson and Judy Halfant <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA031708.01O.letters.271686d.html">wrote in</a> over the weekend and took it a step further. A like-minded Jerry Neely <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA031908.01O.letters.2674fb6.html">added his two cents</a> in the following week. Each one of them leaped enthusiastically over the line and specifically called drunk drivers "murderers", something so callous and uncalled-for that neither Chief McManus nor Mr. Clack had the audacity to do likewise. Mr. Clack even specifically stated that killing is not a drunk driver's intent: "I was still at the mercy of countless other unintentional yet possible killers."<br /><br />Causing someone's death does not make one a murderer. The dictionary definition of murder requires the element of intent - the taking of a life has to be purposefully done. State laws agree - and there are different degrees to account for premeditation - but provide for other charges like negligent homicide and manslaughter to punish those who've taken lives without intending to. To my knowledge (and I'm no lawyer), no one ever convicted of taking a life while driving drunk has been convicted of (or even charged with) murder.<br /><br />Words are important. They're how we communicate and interact in the free marketplace of ideas that makes this country great. Words are like the currency, the medium of exchange, of that marketplace. Imagine what would happen if, in a grocery store, a customer tried to pay for an item with a $5 bill, only to find that the checker would only admit that the bill was worth $4. That's why it's so important that we temper our emotions when we contribute to the marketplace of ideas and make sure we use the words we choose with accuracy and precision. As the saying goes, we all need to call The Same Thing The Same Thing in order to make sense to each other and ensure that fellow citizens are treated fairly and equitably. Nowhere is the need for this more pronounced than in the casual tossing about of criminal charges by noninvolved parties.<br /><br />I know "murderer" is easier to write and much more "zing!"-worthy than "negligent homicidal driver" or "manslaughterer", but please, let's at least try to keep the pollution of the language to a minimum.</blockquote>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-77867502536546788762008-03-03T15:34:00.002-06:002008-05-01T20:37:00.241-05:00LttE - Tony Kosub's positionsSubmitted to the San Antonio Express-News on 3 March 2008:<br /><br /><blockquote>Tony Kosub, the Republican challenger for State Rep. district 122, sure sounds good on paper. He talks about limited (and efficient) government, lower taxes, Second Amendment rights, ending eminent domain abuse, etc. Where he's curiously silent is on education, his website only touching on this important issue in two glib-sounding bullets that are void of substance, addressing the affordability of college tuition and improving the never-defined "quality" of education. He's a middle-school teacher, so one might be forgiven for thinking any candidate might have very detailed points on an issue specific to how he or she makes their living, informed by the very expertise that allows them to make their living in that field.<br /><br />In fact, that's what worries me about Kosub. He's been endorsed by three local chapters of the American Federation of Teachers - not surprising given that he's a public school teacher and one would assume a member of their union (affiliated with the AFL-CIO). With the AFT.org website posting strong positions opposing any form or degree of school choice, vouchers and privatization (three subjects that should be near and dear to any conservative Republican's heart), one is left to just read the sparse bullets on Kosub's website and wonder how much sway the AFT's positions hold for him. If he were to win office and a vote on vouchers were to come up in the next session, how would he see it? Would he vote for his political constituents or his professional colleagues? Especially worrying is the recent California court decision regarding homeschooling - if a vote came up to protect Texas' vibrant homeschooling community from a similar threat, how would our new state Rep. vote?<br /><br />Frankly, the answer to those questions, with such long-term implications for the education of my own not-yet-school-age kids, is not something I'm comfortable guessing on.</blockquote>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-27690280157736425702008-02-29T10:01:00.002-06:002008-02-29T10:07:56.954-06:00Molon Labe - whys and whereforesWell, that "I've got stuff to write about!" didn't work out too well, eh? 3 months later and I finally make the time to post something. In this case, it's a very compelling <a href="http://phlegmfatale.blogspot.com/2008/02/this-is-going-to-be-odd-post-for-me-and.html">re-telling of an event</a> that should get most reasonable folks' hackles up, and in this case prompted the writer to re-evaluate and eventually confirm & escalate her philosophy of resistance to thuggery. Simultaneously, you wish no one (especially loved ones) would have to go through something like that in order to come to the realization she has, and you wish your loved ones would come to that same realization <b><i>somehow</i></b>.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-90281020885166547252008-02-04T15:28:00.001-06:002008-05-01T20:34:14.974-05:00Open letter to Times Online's Kate MuirMs. Muir -<br /><br /><a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3304266.ece">"The dark ages"</a> was an interesting choice of title for your piece, and I hope you'll permit me to explain why, amid what I'm certain are copious amounts of email in your inbox full of all kind of angry hate-mail from other gamers. "Other gamers" - yes, I also play PC & video games, but I like to think of myself as being of the more level-headed variety. I'm also 33, married (since I was 27), and have two adorable little boys (4 months & 3 years) with whom I can't wait to start playing games of all stripes: board, card, sports (gasp! outside even), and video.<br /><br />I find it interesting that you lay a large piece of the blame for families getting started later than they used to right at the feet of the desire of men to play video games for a couple hours a day, on average. The fact that families are starting later is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-31-men-study_x.htm">well-documented</a>, but I think the reasons for those are as diverse as there are people in the world. It would be as irresponsible of me to assert that it's happening because more women these days are putting college educations & professional careers of their own ahead of their desire to start families as I believe it is for you to make your assertion.<br /><br />In the interests of keeping this short, I'll cut to the chase. The reason I believe your assertion is baseless is the reason I find the choice of title interesting (you were wondering if I was going to tie back to that first sentence, weren't you?). "The dark ages" connotes a regression to some period in the past where conditions were less than ideal - but to me it was just another evocation of what videogames really are, in the grand scheme of things: a medium of storytelling.<br /><br />Think about it: the earliest form of entertainment was storytelling, and indeed, one might argue that all entertainment is storytelling of one form or another. It started, pre-written history, with verbal traditions and legends, passed down through generations' memories. Until we discovered that we can write these legends down and therefore not lose them to the winds of history. Then someone decided that they'd have more impact if the action in those legends were acted out on-stage. Theater was predominant (though books, God bless 'em, have withered the tides and remain popular still) until the Industrial Revolution gave us electricity & radio waves, at which point the drama troupes started broadcasting their acted-out stories over the air. This was followed by television (theater productions broadcast with visuals, then by larger-scale productions on the big screen. It's all just storytelling, through media that evolved as time and technology advanced.<br /><br />An interactive movie is just the next logical step in the evolution of storytelling, and if there's a better two-word descriptor for video games than "interactive movie", I honestly don't know what it is. If you had perhaps looked into the demographics & usage data more deeply, you might have found that during the time period where game-playing time has increased among the ever-important "males 18-34" set (only one year left in my membership therein), their time spent watching TV & movies have decreased by almost the same proportion. We men aren't eschewing family & careers in favor of video games; we're eschewing other forms of entertainment - nee storytelling - in favor of video games.<br /><br />There are many factors that are leading people of both genders to postpone marriage and families later than in generations past, but despite what you and <a href="http://www.city-journal.com/2008/18_1_single_young_men.html">Ms. Hymowitz</a> have asserted, the form of entertainment we choose to partake in is hardly a credible option for inclusion into that list.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Jason Trippet<br />San Antonio, TX USAJThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-248228222109059002007-11-16T14:38:00.000-06:002007-11-16T14:42:17.029-06:00Missing in ActionWell, I've been out of writing mode for a while, and I have two reasons why. One is the huge project at work that was in crunch time and finally got done (as much as one can actually say they <span style="font-style:italic;">are</span> done) a couple weeks ago.<br /><br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/kristi.trippet/PicturesOfLogan">Here's the other one - 16 September 2007</a><br /><br />Things are getting back to relative normalcy and there have been some writings about that have made me want to write a bit again. So stay tuned (all 2 of ya).JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-71079713180822839672007-08-20T15:32:00.000-05:002007-08-20T15:52:18.069-05:00Why we fightCurious as to why we fight against any incursion against, or any abridgement of our natural, human right of armed self-defense? Here's a <a href="http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/1053701.html">thoughtful and pointed answer</a>.<p><blockquote>In September, 2005, somebody gave law enforcement officers orders to confiscate legally owned firearms from New Orleans homeowners. Homeowners who had broken no laws, threatened no person, and who desperately needed those guns for self defense were the target of this confiscation edict. The big question that gun owners had pondered for years was finally answered.When given the order to seize weapons and trample on the US Constitution, many officers did not question the legality of the order.Instead, they willingly carried it out. Armed peace officers entered private homes like storm troopers, forced citizens to the floor, seized their only means of protection, and then loaded those defenseless citizens in military trucks for processing and shipment elsewhere. The unknown answer to the most fearful question was supplied to gun owners by the very actions of the officials involved. Undeniable actions yielded an undeniable answer. Yes, armed law enforcement officials will act on illegal orders from God knows where if the order is given a cloak of authority. Gun owners can no longer trust law enforcement to abide by the US Constitution over an illegal edict declared by rats who will later run and hide any trace of having given the order. Innocence was lost in New Orleans. Reality was seen.<br />...<br />The next time anyone says to you: 'Are you just afraid or paranoid?' Look them straight in the eye and say: Remember New Orleans.<br /><br />If they ask you, 'Why does anyone need to own a gun?' Remember New Orleans.<br /><br />If they say to you, "Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?" Look them straight in the eye and say: Remember New Orleans.<br /><br />What's wrong with a 15-day waiting period? Remember New Orleans.<br /><br />What makes you think the government would ever confiscate your gun? Remember New Orleans.<br /><br />Is the second amendment relevant in the 21st Century? Remember New Orleans.<br /><br />That's our battle cry and let's never, ever let them forget it.</blockquote>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-37746969587655175932007-07-28T10:49:00.000-05:002007-08-01T11:40:50.368-05:00A retraction of my opinion on HR 2640I'm a little late to the party here, but it looks like I and a ton of others jumped the gun on excoriating HR 2640. Clayton Cramer, friend to gun owners across the nation, <a href="http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_07_08_archive.html#8885538410731692471">had this to say</a> in correcting those of us who did jump the gun:<blockquote>1. Current law and regulation (as I have previously discussed) required a person to be adjudicated by a court or other due process situation. The D.A. calling the police and telling them, "lock this guy up" doesn't qualify. At a minimum, this guy may have some trouble getting his carry permit back, but if the D.A. thinks this makes him permanently ineligible to own a gun, he better go check the federal statutes and regulations on this.<br /><br />2. HR 2640 hasn't been passed--and yet this guy has already been disarmed for life, according to Gun Owners of America. HR 2640 doesn't change the existing law at all about what categories of commitment disable you from gun ownership. It only expands the reporting. Let's say that somehow the D.A. managed to persuade a court (not the police) to involuntarily commit this guy. Anywhere in America, under the current federal law, he can't own a gun. Since many states are failing to report this, he might pass the federal background check, and be able to buy a gun. But if he comes to the attention of authorities, he's now in the same pile of trouble as a convicted felon in possession. HR 2640 doesn't change anything in terms of legality.<br /><br />3. However: HR 2640 provides a procedure by which someone involuntarily committed might be able to get his rights back again (assuming that Congress funds the program, which they might or might not do). Right now, once you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed with appropriate due process, you are unable to ever own a gun. There is no procedure for getting this straightened out--ever. HR 2640 makes it at least possible.</blockquote>I still don't like HOW the bill was passed (unrecorded voice votes = Reps unaccountable to their constituents), but I feel much better about the bill BEING passed.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-59036721866028012572007-07-10T10:48:00.000-05:002007-08-01T10:56:25.626-05:00How our legislature worksEver notice how long it takes for some bills to get debated, amended, sent out of committee, gutted, re-amended, referred to a second committee, and finally passed? People say watching the process is akin to watching sausage get made - not exactly something you're going to want to do often.<br /><br />What's even more disgusting is when our beloved Congresscritters decide they know best and can introduce a bill, two days later "consider" it for all of 45 whole minutes, vote to <i>suspend the freaking rules</i> and then <i>pass it</i> with an <b>unrecorded</b> voice vote. A VOICE VOTE! Which means we have to take the word of the guy taking notes that the vote actually went that way - we don't even have a record of any of the following:<br />- how many votes were Yay, how many were Nay<br />- which way each Rep voted<br />- how many Reps were there in the first place and voted at all<br /><br />I give you <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02640:@@@X">HR 2640. Awesome.</a> Why am I so concerned with this vote, on a bill with such an ostensibly noble purpose as preventing any more Virginia Tech-style massacres by making the NICS (the background check system) stronger so that guys like Cho can't legally buy guns? Let me count the ways:<br /><br />First and foremost, because this law is directly touching law having to do with the free exercise of the rights guaranteed (not granted, but safeguarded by) the Second Amendment - the one element of the Bill of Rights that safeguards the rest - and for a bill of that magnitude to proceed in this manner is unconscionable, regardless of its motives, noble or otherwise.<br /><br />What this bill essentially does is codify into law the guidelines and regulations used by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) in the NICS, which were explicitly explained in a <a href="http://www.gunowners.org/ne0703.htm">May 9, 2007 letter</a> to every State Attorney General, in which it was pointed out that a "lawful authority" as low as a private practice psychiatrist has the power to "adjudicate someone a mental defective" for even giving the appearance that someone "may be a danger to himself or others". The BATFE even explicitly states that they interpret "danger" as meaning "any danger", not just "substantial" or "imminent", but "ANY". Think there are any mayors, cops, or prosecutors out there who don't like the fact that you're a supporter of the Second Amendment in the sense Tench Coxe and Patrick Henry had, and who'll be able to get a shrink to sign off that that belief alone makes you "a danger" to those around you? That's exactly what happened <a href="http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/194977-man_with_guns_arrested_at_hacc.html">three weeks ago</a> in Harrisbug, PA.<br /><br />Horatio Miller was at a speech on a community college campus, the Concealed-Carry permit holder breaking no law by having a legal handgun in his backpack, and was arrested and committed for saying something stupid. He made a comment to the guy next to him that it'd be worse than Virginia Tech if a criminal stole the guns he had in his car and at home (he owned three handguns total). For that lapse of judgment, here's what the Assistant DA had to say:<blockquote>"Because of the statement I was greatly concerned about this fellow," Chardo said. "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms because he was committed involuntarily."</blockquote>Get that? He was never charged for any firearm possession crime (PA restricts Concealed Carry on the campuses of elementary and secondary schools, but not colleges), but nonetheless, Second Amendment rights for this guy, gone for life, because a prosecutor didn't like something he said.<br /><br />Or they will be, should this law pass and codify into law the guidelines and regulations the BATFE have added over the years regarding, among other things, "adjudication of mental defectiveness".<br /><br />UPDATE: on my opinion of HR 2640 <a href="http://wisdomandliberty.blogspot.com/2007/08/retraction-of-my-opinion-on-hr-2640.html">here</a>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-10669596413411681242007-06-01T10:13:00.000-05:002007-06-01T10:14:34.353-05:00NASA chief's common-sense approach to climate changeNASA Chief Administrator Michael Griffin laid out a very common-sense approach to global warming in an NPR interview <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276722,00.html">yesterday</a>:<blockquote>"I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told National Public Radio's Morning Edition in an interview aired early Thursday. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."</blockquote><p>Ok, fine so far. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and interpretation of the evidence available, and he certainly has more access to that evidence than Joe Blogger does. But his next couple of comments are spot-on:</p><blockquote>"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said.<br />...<br />"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."</blockquote><p>This is the missing voice of reason in the whole global warming debate (and it <b>is</b> still a debate - one side just saying it's over doesn't make it over): the voice asking, "What the heck can we do about it, given the history of the world and our minor place in that tapestry?" Whether it's really happening or not is one piece of the question; if it <b>is</b> happening, what the root causes are is yet another piece of the question; and <b>if</b> it can be shown both a) that human activity significantly causes or contributes to it and b) that the reduction of certain human activity can reduce it, then by all means let's come up with some ways that might help, if they're put into practice. The other major question at the end of all that is how much do we want government to force people to act a certain way? That's a question for a much larger audience than just me or my readers, but by no means is it a settled question.<br /><br />One more quote from Administrator Griffin:</p><blockquote>"Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another," Griffin told NPR. "We study global climate change — that is in our authorization. We think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."</blockquote><p>Bravo to a federal government employee who actually takes the laws that authorize his agency's work seriously and doesn't try to unilaterally circumvent them when he feels like it!</p>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-16568104033789915272007-05-23T15:32:00.002-05:002008-05-01T20:39:50.290-05:00LttE - What's good for the goose....Submitted to the San Antonio Express-News on 23 May 2007:<p><blockquote>Heather and Tyler Smurr’s <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA052007.05H.politicsfocus.20bcae0.html">letter on Saturday the 19th</a> decrying the legislature’s decision on teacher pay raises made an excellent point about the relationship between teacher pay and the desire of teachers to work at public schools: “Texas doesn’t want the best teachers … Who wants to work for a state that doesn’t want to pay you anything?” They’re absolutely right: pay scales are one way (perhaps the most important way) that businesses compete for employees in the free labor market that we’re blessed to have in this country. The good news for teachers is that they can take their expertise and labor and bring it with them to another educational institution where they’ll be paid more.<br /><br />Now consider Michelle Martinez’s <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/stories/MYSA051807.01B.saisd_charters.3421f5a.html">article from Thursday the 17th</a> highlighting charter schools and the way they offer varied curriculums in order to compete (there’s that word again) for students. Some students will want what those charter schools are offering more than they want what their normally-assigned district schools are offering, and they’ll decide to go there instead. The good news for those students is that they can take the tax money that pays for their education and bring it with them to their new school where they’ll get the education they want.<br /><br />With these two stellar examples of how free-market competition continually makes things better, it’s beyond unfortunate that the choice afforded to teachers to choose who benefits from their labor and the choice afforded to charter school students to choose who benefits from their tax dollars is vehemently denied to those students who want to take their tax dollars to other schools who are offering curricula that are different still from the very limited number of charter schools in operation. When will we take our blinders off regarding school choice and recognize that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?</blockquote><p>UPDATE: <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA052507.01O.schoolsfocus.255f9cb.html">Printed</a>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-27832199822539508222007-05-22T12:03:00.000-05:002007-05-22T14:50:09.749-05:00Maybe we're not all wussies after allGreat stories from the past week:<br /><a href="http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070516/APN/705161813">Concealed-carry permit holder holds off murderer/bank robber until police arrive</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/05/15/2007-05-15_captain_kid.html">11-year-old girl foils her own kidnapping and gets the guy apprehended</a><br /><br />Lesson: when faced with adversity of <span style="font-style:italic;">any</span> kind, be it an injury, disease, or hostile strangers with malicious intent, for the love of God, <span style="font-weight:bold;">don't go quietly into that good night!</span>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-67603601577494842922007-05-14T14:41:00.000-05:002007-05-14T14:48:57.715-05:00Welcome, visitor from the NRA!I had a hit today from the National Rifle Association, who MSNed (as opposed to Googled) Utah concealed carry permits and found their way here (or, more accurately, a cached version of the page).<p><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_od5RpZW1Fgg/Rki8BpMA-II/AAAAAAAAAAc/WhEeyDjlxFo/s1600-h/NRA.gif"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_od5RpZW1Fgg/Rki8BpMA-II/AAAAAAAAAAc/WhEeyDjlxFo/s320/NRA.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5064504517400262786" /></a><br><br /><br />Welcome!JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-86517937867261483622007-05-10T14:11:00.000-05:002007-05-10T14:13:46.154-05:00Emailing my congresscritters re: HR 297 & S 1237Sent to Sens. Hutchison & Cornyn:<blockquote>As good law-abiding Texans, I'm sure we agree that the right to own a firearm for personal, family, and community defense is one of the most important rights we have, and should not be surrendered lightly. In the strongest possible terms I urge you to work against the passage of one of your colleague's bills, Sen. Lautenberg's S 1237. This bill gives entirely too much power to those in power to assign an arbitrary label to individuals as being "suspected" of certain activity, which would unconstitutionally restrict that individual's ability to own a firearm for any reason, whether that label was justly applied or not! Obviously Sen. Lautenberg threw out the presumption of innocence our legal system was founded on when he wrote this bill. The way this bill is written, any activist protesting anything (from the latest tax increase to the ingredients in fast food) can be labeled a "suspected terrorist" and therefore not trusted to own a firearm! The application of a restrictive legal status without probable cause or due process is unconstitutional and unacceptable.<br /><br />This language must NOT become law, and your constituents are depending on you to make our voice heard.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />Jason Trippet<br />Helotes</blockquote><p>Sent to Rep. Rodriguez:<blockquote>As good law-abiding Texans, I'm sure we agree that the right to own a firearm for personal, family, and community defense is one of the most important rights we have, and should not be surrendered lightly. In the strongest possible terms I urge you to work against the passage of one of your colleague's bills, Rep. McCarthy's HR 297. This bill gives entirely too much power to those in power to assign an arbitrary label to individuals as being "mentally defective" (even a high-school guidance counselor can do so!), which would permanently end that individual's ability to own a firearm for any reason, whether that label was justly applied or not! The way this bill is written, even if a doctor orders an individual to undergo observation and the observation reveals no defects of any kind, that individual ist still considered to "have been forcibly committed", and therefore not trusted to own a firearm!<br /><br />This language must NOT become law, and your constituents are depending on you to make our voice heard.<br /><br />Thank you,<br />Jason Trippet<br />Helotes</blockquote>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-59614518463055446252007-05-03T09:04:00.000-05:002007-05-03T09:04:28.454-05:00Senators and their reading habitsNo, I'm not talking about novels or poetry, I'm talking about the bills they're foisting on the rest of us. Check out this quote from a U.S. Senator - I've removed the name of the Senator and the specific issue so that everyone reading this can look at it with an unbiased, critical eye.<br /><blockquote>[This congresscritter] said yesterday he no longer supports [this bill] that he helped pass in the Senate.<br /><br />"I would not vote for the same bill," [he] told reporters yesterday morning, saying that after the bill passed the Senate he had a chance to study its effects and decided it led to too much [of something].<br /><br />It's a major reversal for a man who is listed as one of seven original sponsors of the bill, along with [other big-name Senators], who spearheaded the bill.</blockquote><br />Everybody with me so far? He not only voted for the bill, <i>he was one of the seven original sponsors</i> who got it in front of the Senate in the first place!!! And now, only <i>after</i> it passes, he's got time to study the text and its effects and decides that it's no good? I'm all for a guy discovering new information and admitting error and correcting his position in light of that error - but doesn't it make sense that these guys should do these kinds of studies <b>before</b> they pass a law that affects all of us regular Joes?<br /><br />But wait, there's more - his spokesman had this to say:<br /><blockquote>"The congressional landscape has changed with no [his party]-led House conference as a backstop, and the provisions of the bill that the senator did not care for would not likely improve after a bill was passed by a [other party] Senate,"</blockquote><br />Oh, well then Senator, that all makes sense. You couldn't take the time to actually understand the bill <i>you authored and sponsored</i>, so you decided that you'd just pass it, leaving the responsibility for vetting it and stopping it if it turned out that it's no good on the other chamber of Congress, but now that that other chamber is of a different composition than you thought it would be, you've changed your mind. Awesome. This is why I don't trust congresscritters, and why a) the 17th Amendment should be repealed and b) current office-holders shouldn't be able to run for a higher office while already serving.<br /><br />By now you've probably figured out who said all this and the bill he's talking about, but <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070425-110212-8486r.htm">here's the article</a> just in case.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-30471860407725415482007-05-03T07:30:00.000-05:002007-05-03T09:04:10.506-05:00A couple more comments for San AntoniansI just couldn't resist posting just a couple more things in response to some of the comments on the page linked in my last post:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Law enforcement officers are trained to respond to volatile and violent situations where the average CHL has none of that training and are more able to make mistakes and cause unnecessary injuries to others."<br /><br />Are you sure about that? Have you educated yourself on the training that a CHL applicant goes through and what material it covers, from shooting techniques to ethics, from legal implications to situational decision-making?<br /><br />As for law enforcement being less prone to make mistakes and cause unnecessary injuries, I'd challenge you to read Overkill by Radley Balko, formerly of the Cato Institute, who found a disturbing trend of police killing innocent people my mistake. I'd also challenge you to come up with one incident of a lawfully-carrying citizen trying to defuse a violent situation and shooting an innocent by mistake. Concealed-carry supporters can point to several instances where the situation was ended successfully, but I have yet to see any press on a situation where Joe CHL Holder shot a bystander by accident (and don't you think the media would inundate us with that story, should it happen?).</blockquote>And:<br /><br /><blockquote>"BUT MANY PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MUCH SELF-RESTRAINT. AND NO CLASS OR COURSE IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT.<br />...<br />THERE ARE TOO MANY ANGRY PEOPLE WITH ITCHY TRIGGER FINGERS (GOOD AND BAD)<br />...<br />THE FIRST TIME JOHN Q. PUBLIC FEELS INTIMIDATED BY THE BIG TATTOOED GUY AT THE VALERO,... AND BAM, SOMEONE DIES...<br />...<br />THE REASON THAT CARRYING GUNS WAS RESTRICTED IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T RESPONSIBLE, GENERALLY SPEAKING."<br /><br />That may be your gut instinct, and that of many of the other posters here, but the empirical evidence over the last 20 years in the 40 states who have enacted shall-issue concealed-carry laws says different. Florida was the first state to do so, in 1987, and through the first decade out of 400,000 permit holders, there was exactly <b>ONE</b> murder conviction. Here in Texas the arrest rate for CHL holders has been 2/3 <b>LESS</b> than the rate for the general population.<br /><br />The millions of citizens around the country who have been legally carrying concealed for two decades (260,000 in Texas last year) WITHOUT the predicted Wild West/O.K. Corral bloodbaths shows that this isn't some new idea that should scare people. CHL holders have proven themselves over the years to be sensible, law-abiding, and - most important of all - willing to take personal responsibility for the safety of their families and the strangers around them.</blockquote>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-66254824903973396482007-05-02T13:32:00.000-05:002007-05-02T14:38:55.219-05:00Comments on Gov. Perry's statement re: concealed-carryFor some head-shakingly amusing (and yet depressing) comments, solicited by <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/stategov/stories/MYSA050107.07A.perry_guns.30eddd5.html">this article</a> in the San Antonio Express-News, click <a href="http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/feedback/archives/2007/05/13768.html">here</a>.<br /><br />I contributed twice:<blockquote>This might be the wrong forum to pit statistics and figures against emotional outcries, but here goes.<br /><br />"Get a bad grade, shoot the teacher." "Get drunk, get in an argument, shoot the other guy." "Get in a car accident, shoot the guy that hit you." "We're going back to the Wild West, the O.K. Corral all over again!" "When the psycho pulls out his gun and 20 other citizens pull out theirs we'll have an uncontrollable shootout!" "The streets will run red with blood!"<br /><br />You know what? These predictions have been heard, and heard often. We heard them in 1987 when Florida passed the first non-discretionary "shall-issue" concealed-carry law. Did violent crime & shootings skyrocket, as predicted? No - in fact they decreased FASTER than the national rate was already decreasing. We heard them in 2004 when the so-called "assault weapons" ban expired. Did we have a rash of multi-victim massacres, as predicted? No - in fact violent crime continued its decades-long descent with nary a blip in the graph. Those in Utah also heard them in 2004 when the state legislature specfically allowed concealed-carry on college campuses (by legally-licensed holders only, of course). Did students start shooting their teachers, as predicted? Nope - no campus massacres either.<br /><br />Folks, you have to remember that nobody's talking about issuing handguns with driver's licenses or student IDs. The only people we're talking about are those who have put in the time and effort to attend 10-15 hours of education & training, prove their proficiency, pass the strictest of background checks, and who continually keep their noses (and records) clean through periodic renewals. Of the 34,791 criminal convictions in the state of Texas in 2005, only 129 were perpetrated by Concealed Handgun License holders - .37% to be exact (and they all lost their licenses for it). Sounds like exactly the kind of level-headed and responsible people I'd feel good about trusting with the responsibility.</blockquote>And:<blockquote>To the folks stating that the crime rate WILL go up, and not believing any statements about keeping the crime rate down, please do your research before posting. In the midst of the great nationwide decline of violent crime rates over the last 3 decades, the 40 states that have enacted "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws saw their violent crime rates drop FASTER and FARTHER than those states with the more restrictive "may-issue" or "no-issue" concealed-carry laws.<br /><br />The National Academy of Sciences in 2005, the CDC in 2003, and the AMA in 2000 released studies that could not statistically correlate a reduction in violent crime with a single gun control measure - not one.<br /><br />Legally-carried firearms are used to stop crimes far more often (estimates range from half a million to 2 million times a year) than illegally-carried firearms are used to commit crimes (~350,000/year). It's as simple as that.</blockquote>There are quite a few good comments, like this one, hitting on the same point I made in my last letter to the editor:<blockquote>Since when has Texas become a state that doesn't care about property rights? Property rights has always been a major concern in this state, but over the last few years it's fallen by the wayside. Smoking bans circumvent property owners ability to choose the way they run their property, and Perry wants to do the same thing with handguns.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but it's my property. If you have a gun, no badge, and are on my property, you are unwelcome and therefore trespassing. Businesses, office buildings, parking lots, schools, etc, should all decide for themselves whether or not to allow any type of weapon on their premises without interference from the State government.</blockquote>This is Texas, after all.<br /><br />But here are some lowlights:<blockquote>Everyone on here with a concealed weapon permit has just succeeded in making me more scared that I am not safe at work or school.</blockquote>(So she's felt safe in the vicinity of CHL holders in the past, just as long as she didn't know about it.)<br /><br /><blockquote>If you're so insecure and frightened about going out in public that you need a concealed weapon to feel adequate, then you don't have the stones to shoot anyone anyways. So why put yourself in that situation? You'll shoot yourself in the foot out of panic before you shoot someone who's already openned fire on you..you Sally. Life isn't a B movie and you're not Dirty Harry so stop contributing to the problem. Where do think the criminals are getting the guns from anyways? The short answer: They're stealing them from low-browed,slack-jawed, mouth-breathers like you who weren't going to use it to begin with!</blockquote>(Nice. Classy.)<br /><br /><blockquote>What a crazy idea, especially if we are trying to teach kids to be non-violent and having arms only pertuates [sic] the chances of people being hurt. Certainly, bearing guns has a place in our crazy society to be able to protect ourselves against those that are deranged and evil. But, taking guns anywhere contributes to a police state.</blockquote>(Don't worry - I did a double-take on that logic too.)<br /><br /><blockquote>If a person is allowed to carry a weapon, I feel that it will just give them the feeling that they can use it anytime they feel threatened.</blockquote>(Feel, feel, feel - what is it with these guys and their preference for feelings over cold, hard facts?)<br /><br /><blockquote>I can not get a CHL, so why should any of the other stupid idiots that loose control because of alcohol be able to carry or have one. we do not need to revert back to the lawless days of the old west.</blockquote><blockquote>Welcome to the OK coral - only in Texas.</blockquote>(Yeah - 'cause shootouts have been happening non-stop in the 40 states with shall-issue concealed-carry laws.)<br /><br /><blockquote>This is ridiculous; as a person in a school everyday with some kids who already scare me, how many 18 year old seniors would get to show up at school with their guns ready when we're telling them who will graduate and who won't?????</blockquote>(Hello, if you're under 21 you can't get a CHL anyway!)<br /><br /><blockquote>Get pissed at teacher for a bad grade, shoot the teacher in class, then someone shoots the shooter excellent idea.</blockquote><blockquote>Sometimes it's embarrassing to live in this backward state, where the governor would have us walking around like we're living in the Old West. Did he take anything from the Va. Tech tragedy?</blockquote>(Why yes he did, that's the genesis of the suggestion, thanks for asking.)<br /><br />Seriously, do these people even take the 5 minutes it would take to learn about the subject under discussion before posting irrational and pointless comments like these? It's obvious they have no class, but I thought at least they'd find out what requirements are met by each and every CHL holder in the state, what kind of training they go through, etc. Can you believe some of those people were attacking the straw man of high school seniors (who can't get CHL permits in the first place) carrying at their school? Sheesh. There's even the obligatory "ban all first-person shooter video games" suggestion.JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-31078429781653594692007-04-17T17:36:00.001-05:002008-05-01T20:40:10.743-05:00LttE - Rights: property & self-defenseSubmitted to the San Antonio Express-News on 17 April 2007:<p><blockquote>Clay Robison’s <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA041607.03B.Robison_column.3556383.html">article about the conflict</a> between the private property rights of business owners and the self-defense rights of their employees hit the nail right on the head. Kudos to him for presenting the history & state of the issue without injecting any bias either way!<br /><br />It is indeed a very thorny issue that should make every respecter of rights nervous about choosing a side in the debate. The way existing TX law is written regarding self-defense and the extension of the castle doctrine to personal vehicles (in practical terms at least, with peaceable journey and no retreat in place) would seem to indicate that an individual’s car and its contents are part of his castle, and if a business allows employees to park their cars on company property the company should be aware that they have no say in what is in those vehicles.<br /><br />On the other hand, if we value the private property rights of the business and hold to the ideal that the business should be able to use its property as it wishes, who is anyone else to say that the company can’t allow on-site parking for one set of employees but deny it to others? That kind of “condition of employment” shouldn’t be government’s business any more than other arbitrary hire/fire decisions that the business makes on a daily basis.<br /><br />Thorny indeed, and worthy of very thoughtful consideration by the freedom-loving among us, of all stripes.</blockquote><br /><br />UPDATE: <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/letters/stories/MYSA042307.01O.letters0423.23324a7.html">printed</a>JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9621971.post-33072875315584572982007-04-12T08:37:00.000-05:002007-04-12T08:42:12.356-05:00An excellent analogy to keep in mind this April 15thSaw this on a blog comment and it rang so very true I had to post it here.<p><blockquote>The great thing is that people hate the IRS, but somehow manage to forget that it is the Congress which created the IRS, keeps it going, and makes it have to collect 50% of the produce of the free product of the US people. Sort of like hating the mob hit guy, but being okay with the actual mob boss.</blockquote>That is spot-on, period and point-blank. We all love to rail against the IRS 'cause that's who we're making all the checks out to, especially this time of year. But in our ire for the tax collectors we too often forget about the busybodies in the legislature who keep spending all that money, and keep voting the same spending-like-a-sailor-on-leave schmucks back into office! In short, we may hate the IRS, but it's Congress who keeps them in business!JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290459493177200781noreply@blogger.com0