I am opposed to universtal health care and I am opposed to the Federal government running anything other than the minimum. State and local governments should run the majority of the things that the fed now runs.
51% is not a significant majority to me. Not when it has such a large affect on 100% of the people. Fundimentally changing America should require a 75% majority.
Now I do not understand the Nuclear Option very well, but from what I do understand it was created to prevent budget freezes and was written to only pertain to budgetary items. To me that means it can not be used to create law. So are we again going down an unconstitutional road?
These tea parties and town hall meetings should tell people something. As much as the opposition likes to think they were put together by businessmen, I still stand by the fact that you can not get people to go out for something they don't believe in. Yes your friends at home may be influenced by emails, MSNBC, Foxnews, and other media, but getting them out of the house is another matter.
We will see what happens, but I fear this will bring out the radicals as well as the normal people who are just fed up.
Random thought: Ever notice that domestic terrorism seems to be prominant during Democrat rule?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
What is a Right????
I stole this from another blog I follow "The Smallest Minority" and I liked it so much I am posting it up here.
I am going to let the readers comment on what makes a human right a human right.
Here is the email sent to The Smallest Minority:
Sorry to bother, but have been running a few thoughts through my brain recently and wanted to run them by you. I have been thinking about 'rights' and what they really are. Given you are probably the most versed in such subjects of all those I know, I thought you might be willing to discuss your thoughts with me.
To begin with, what is a right? Miriam-Webster defines a right as something a person can make a just claim to. So... what can we make a just claim to? I first started looking at this from an American standpoint, but realized I had to move past that. As American's are rights are only as good as they are recognized by others... which means the list gets really short of what actually are rights. Given that we as a human must have just claim to them, that would imply that all others would agree to that claim. Which means a right is subject to the crowd by which the claim is made. Which means, at least in my mind, that as the crowd increases the likeliness that they will all agree to your claim is less likely.
Moving past the abstract version of a right, I turned to American Rights. Obviously we have the constitution and the Bill of Rights that clearly defines our rights. However, I would argue that, as it was the government that gave us these 'rights' that they could then take them away at will. That for an American to truly have a right to something, even in America, that he/she must have the just claim that his/her fellow Americans agree and support. I could claim I have a right to all the fresh water in the country, but I doubt that many would agree with me... thus I don't have a right to the water. However, let's look at what is defined... I have the right to bare arms. For the most part, my fellow Americans would agree I have the right, but yet there would be those that disagree. Some of those people might even own a business and refuse my right to bear my arms in their establishment. With mere ownership and difference of opinion, they have stripped me of my right. So if the right can be taken away, then how is it really a right so much as just a privilege granted to me by those that would agree with me?
I know you have addressed these issues to great extent on your blog, but I am not sure you covered this outlook. If in fact the 'rights' we are granted by the constitution and the bill of rights are not really rights, but rather privileges... then what expectation can an American have of those privileges simply being taken away at the whim of anyone (or even the government that first granted them) taking them away? And, what recourse would one have against those that resend such privileges? If I grant you the privilege of drinking alcohol in my house, but then change my mind and want you to stop... as it is my house, don't I get to make that decision?
Your thoughts?
I am going to let the readers comment on what makes a human right a human right.
Here is the email sent to The Smallest Minority:
Sorry to bother, but have been running a few thoughts through my brain recently and wanted to run them by you. I have been thinking about 'rights' and what they really are. Given you are probably the most versed in such subjects of all those I know, I thought you might be willing to discuss your thoughts with me.
To begin with, what is a right? Miriam-Webster defines a right as something a person can make a just claim to. So... what can we make a just claim to? I first started looking at this from an American standpoint, but realized I had to move past that. As American's are rights are only as good as they are recognized by others... which means the list gets really short of what actually are rights. Given that we as a human must have just claim to them, that would imply that all others would agree to that claim. Which means a right is subject to the crowd by which the claim is made. Which means, at least in my mind, that as the crowd increases the likeliness that they will all agree to your claim is less likely.
Moving past the abstract version of a right, I turned to American Rights. Obviously we have the constitution and the Bill of Rights that clearly defines our rights. However, I would argue that, as it was the government that gave us these 'rights' that they could then take them away at will. That for an American to truly have a right to something, even in America, that he/she must have the just claim that his/her fellow Americans agree and support. I could claim I have a right to all the fresh water in the country, but I doubt that many would agree with me... thus I don't have a right to the water. However, let's look at what is defined... I have the right to bare arms. For the most part, my fellow Americans would agree I have the right, but yet there would be those that disagree. Some of those people might even own a business and refuse my right to bear my arms in their establishment. With mere ownership and difference of opinion, they have stripped me of my right. So if the right can be taken away, then how is it really a right so much as just a privilege granted to me by those that would agree with me?
I know you have addressed these issues to great extent on your blog, but I am not sure you covered this outlook. If in fact the 'rights' we are granted by the constitution and the bill of rights are not really rights, but rather privileges... then what expectation can an American have of those privileges simply being taken away at the whim of anyone (or even the government that first granted them) taking them away? And, what recourse would one have against those that resend such privileges? If I grant you the privilege of drinking alcohol in my house, but then change my mind and want you to stop... as it is my house, don't I get to make that decision?
Your thoughts?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Racism
Racism, bigotry, and hatred for anything different have been around since the beginning of man. Fear of the unknown and things that are different is a human instinct that only education can overcome. It is a plague upon man that must be eradicated but no one knows how to do it.
It starts in the home. You have heard about my white trash upbringing and how I overcame the teachings in my home to become a successful man who takes personal responsibility for my actions and for my future. It should not surprise you that my white trash stepfather was also a racist. The N word was not used frequently but it was used inappropriately when discussing someone of color who he did not like. At about age nine I made friends with some black kids in my apartment complex and was quickly discouraged from hanging out with them. Mind you that they were probably the behaving kids around.
That was a long time ago, but looking back I do not recall ever thinking about their skin color when I first started playing with them. I had moved from Chicago two years before and was playing with kids of all colors there. My best friend was a Puerto Rican kid who my mom would give a pair of my socks to because he had none of his own. When I moved to Arizona I was surprised that there were so few black kids. My schools were pretty much 50/50 white and Hispanic. Asians, blacks, or Indians could be counted on one hand.
I don’t remember racism being a huge problem in school and if anything I was called a gringo a lot. Like cracker, gringo never really felt like the N word to me. The school was not split up into whites vs. Hispanics; it was split into stoners vs. jocks. This really confused me since I knew some of the jocks smoked weed.
The Air Force was my first experience with people from all over the country and of many different races and backgrounds. You had poor and middle class, country and city, White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian, Polish, Irish, Italian, just about the perfect melting pot. In the AF I don’t remember any racism, but I do remember having long conversations with my black friends about racism.
Since I got out of the AF I have worked with a few black guys, but I wouldn’t say I have had any black friends. The guys I worked with had families when I was single so we didn’t have much in common. Now that I am married I don’t work with any black guys and well, I just don’t feel the need to actively search out and recruit. But I sure would love to have black friends who I could discuss current politics with. (Is that statement in itself racist?)
Somehow, though my home life would suggest I should be otherwise, I am not a racist. To quote Martin Luther King, I judge no person by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I applaud anyone who works hard and succeeds in life, and I abhor anyone who expects something for free.
Teach your kids that racism is bad. Speak out against racist comments when ever you hear them. Shame people for it and do not remain silent hoping it just goes away. It is only through educating both adults and our children that we can overcome our prejudices.
It starts in the home. You have heard about my white trash upbringing and how I overcame the teachings in my home to become a successful man who takes personal responsibility for my actions and for my future. It should not surprise you that my white trash stepfather was also a racist. The N word was not used frequently but it was used inappropriately when discussing someone of color who he did not like. At about age nine I made friends with some black kids in my apartment complex and was quickly discouraged from hanging out with them. Mind you that they were probably the behaving kids around.
That was a long time ago, but looking back I do not recall ever thinking about their skin color when I first started playing with them. I had moved from Chicago two years before and was playing with kids of all colors there. My best friend was a Puerto Rican kid who my mom would give a pair of my socks to because he had none of his own. When I moved to Arizona I was surprised that there were so few black kids. My schools were pretty much 50/50 white and Hispanic. Asians, blacks, or Indians could be counted on one hand.
I don’t remember racism being a huge problem in school and if anything I was called a gringo a lot. Like cracker, gringo never really felt like the N word to me. The school was not split up into whites vs. Hispanics; it was split into stoners vs. jocks. This really confused me since I knew some of the jocks smoked weed.
The Air Force was my first experience with people from all over the country and of many different races and backgrounds. You had poor and middle class, country and city, White, Black, Hispanic, Indian, Asian, Polish, Irish, Italian, just about the perfect melting pot. In the AF I don’t remember any racism, but I do remember having long conversations with my black friends about racism.
Since I got out of the AF I have worked with a few black guys, but I wouldn’t say I have had any black friends. The guys I worked with had families when I was single so we didn’t have much in common. Now that I am married I don’t work with any black guys and well, I just don’t feel the need to actively search out and recruit. But I sure would love to have black friends who I could discuss current politics with. (Is that statement in itself racist?)
Somehow, though my home life would suggest I should be otherwise, I am not a racist. To quote Martin Luther King, I judge no person by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I applaud anyone who works hard and succeeds in life, and I abhor anyone who expects something for free.
Teach your kids that racism is bad. Speak out against racist comments when ever you hear them. Shame people for it and do not remain silent hoping it just goes away. It is only through educating both adults and our children that we can overcome our prejudices.
Monday, February 22, 2010
When should I carry?
I think I have been pretty consistent on my posts when it comes to answering this question. I would like to share what I believe is a perfect example of why I feel the way I do.
Maybe some of you have read about the shooting that occurred at 43rd Avenue and McDowell. A man was shot and killed during a beer run. This is the link to the story for those of you that have not heard about it.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/02/20/20100220phoenix-beer-run-homicide.html
I was the first person on scene after the shooting happened. This leads to my first point.
1. There is only one person you can trust when it comes to the defense of you, or your loved ones.....YOURSELF!
I was less than a half of a mile from the store when the shooting happened. I was also with 4 other officers. I arrived at the shooting scene less than 2 minutes from the time the trigger was pulled. It wouldn't have mattered if I was in the parking lot in this case.
2. Bad things happen in fractions of a second.
I watched the surveillance camera footage of this incident. From the time the dirt bag pulled his gun, until he shot the victim was about 2 and a half seconds. If you can legally carry a gun, do it! Not in your car, not in your house, but on you! There is very few circumstances I can recall where a person has the time to retrieve a gun from another location when its time to defend yourself.
3. Don't think that you can avoid every situation.
The victim was with his mother and wife. I don't believe he would intentionally put them in harms way. The wife actually told the suspect to just take the beer and leave. The suspect then hit her with his gun. After his wife was pistol whipped, he stepped in front of her in order to protect her. He was shot once in the chest.
4. TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.....
Nuff said.
5. Tried by 12, or carried by 6.
I know we have had some great debates on when you can legally defend yourself. I know for a fact the family in this case would want there son alive. PERIOD. Whether he was in a legal jam or not.
I feel strongly about these things. My resolve is even stronger after these types of instances, and this is why. When I arrived on scene, I knew the chances of this man living were extremely remote, no matter what was done. I also knew that the Fire Department would not arrive for at least a couple of minutes. So I performed CPR on this dying man, with his wife and mother screaming and crying next to me, so the family would have some type of hope. I then had to stay with the family and get as much information as I could in order to catch the dirt bag.
Please carry your gun. You may never even unholster your weapon, but have it with you. If you think this type of thing could never happen to you, you're wrong. If you think I'm just being paranoid, think about it this way. The next time you get into your car, don't fasten your seat belt. Why wear a seat belt? You're not planning on getting into an accident, right...?
Maybe some of you have read about the shooting that occurred at 43rd Avenue and McDowell. A man was shot and killed during a beer run. This is the link to the story for those of you that have not heard about it.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/02/20/20100220phoenix-beer-run-homicide.html
I was the first person on scene after the shooting happened. This leads to my first point.
1. There is only one person you can trust when it comes to the defense of you, or your loved ones.....YOURSELF!
I was less than a half of a mile from the store when the shooting happened. I was also with 4 other officers. I arrived at the shooting scene less than 2 minutes from the time the trigger was pulled. It wouldn't have mattered if I was in the parking lot in this case.
2. Bad things happen in fractions of a second.
I watched the surveillance camera footage of this incident. From the time the dirt bag pulled his gun, until he shot the victim was about 2 and a half seconds. If you can legally carry a gun, do it! Not in your car, not in your house, but on you! There is very few circumstances I can recall where a person has the time to retrieve a gun from another location when its time to defend yourself.
3. Don't think that you can avoid every situation.
The victim was with his mother and wife. I don't believe he would intentionally put them in harms way. The wife actually told the suspect to just take the beer and leave. The suspect then hit her with his gun. After his wife was pistol whipped, he stepped in front of her in order to protect her. He was shot once in the chest.
4. TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN.....
Nuff said.
5. Tried by 12, or carried by 6.
I know we have had some great debates on when you can legally defend yourself. I know for a fact the family in this case would want there son alive. PERIOD. Whether he was in a legal jam or not.
I feel strongly about these things. My resolve is even stronger after these types of instances, and this is why. When I arrived on scene, I knew the chances of this man living were extremely remote, no matter what was done. I also knew that the Fire Department would not arrive for at least a couple of minutes. So I performed CPR on this dying man, with his wife and mother screaming and crying next to me, so the family would have some type of hope. I then had to stay with the family and get as much information as I could in order to catch the dirt bag.
Please carry your gun. You may never even unholster your weapon, but have it with you. If you think this type of thing could never happen to you, you're wrong. If you think I'm just being paranoid, think about it this way. The next time you get into your car, don't fasten your seat belt. Why wear a seat belt? You're not planning on getting into an accident, right...?
Happy Birthday to the Blog
I would like wish the ARIZONA SHOOTER blog a Happy belated Birthday. Also I would also like to say how much we appreciate people reading and responding to any and all articles on these pages. We have had over 2,500 visits to the blog in the last year and I hope that everyone always feels welcome to post what they think. Thanks again and spread the word.
- MediumX
- MediumX
True Inspiration - Patrick Henry Hughes
Have you ever felt sorry for yourself? Have you ever asked, "why is this happening to me, its just not fair"?
If you find yourself feeling this way, remember that it could be worse and that there are people who have it worse and handle it a lot better than most.
Below is a story of true inspiration. Patrick's story of overcoming his disability is unbelievable. Beyond that, what touched me was the father. This man is just the best. Works all night, sleeps for maybe 4 hrs, then goes to school and band practice with his son. This is also a man who was able to look past his son's disability and embrace the positive, "Instead of playing baseball, we will play music together".
This is family I would love to call neighbor.
If you find yourself feeling this way, remember that it could be worse and that there are people who have it worse and handle it a lot better than most.
Below is a story of true inspiration. Patrick's story of overcoming his disability is unbelievable. Beyond that, what touched me was the father. This man is just the best. Works all night, sleeps for maybe 4 hrs, then goes to school and band practice with his son. This is also a man who was able to look past his son's disability and embrace the positive, "Instead of playing baseball, we will play music together".
This is family I would love to call neighbor.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Glenn Beck at CPAC
What does conservatism mean? It means taking personal responsibility! - Glenn Beck
I swear he reads my blog, lol. Progressives are the enemy and they are in both parties.
Glenn Beck gives a great speech at CPAC. It is an hour long so watch or listen in segments. Feel free to comment on it below.
I swear he reads my blog, lol. Progressives are the enemy and they are in both parties.
Glenn Beck gives a great speech at CPAC. It is an hour long so watch or listen in segments. Feel free to comment on it below.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Letting anger get the best of you
I am glad no one was hurt in this shooting and without all the details I am going to refrain from passing judgement on the man and his dog.
This incident, as written, has many leasons:
1 - When you are angry and not in danger, leave the gun alone.
2 - When you fire your gun make sure you know what your back stop is.
3 - Learn to friggin aim. I heard this guy fired six or more shot and did not hit the dog. Guess it was bobbin and weavin!!!
4 - Bullets ricochet and still have enough energy to kill. Know what your gun and your ammo can do.
Gilbert man shoots at family dog after it bites his daughter in face
Nathan Gonzalez - Feb. 17, 2010 06:40 AM
The Arizona Republic
A Gilbert man faces a felony weapons charge for shooting at his German shepherd after it bit his daughter in the face Sunday.
Kevin Townsend, 49, was charged with one count of discharging a firearm within town limits, a class 6 felony.
The incident began about 5:46 p.m. when Townsend's 11-year-old daughter was in the family's backyard on the 2500 block of E. Via De Palmas, north of Riggs and Higley roads, Gilbert police said.
The dog bit the child on the face, and Townsend allegedly grabbed a gun. He fired "multiple shots" at the dog, but one bullet strayed and broke a window at a nearby house.
The girl was transported to Gilbert Mercy Hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
The dog was not harmed, but Townsend arranged for someone else to take it, said Sgt. Mark Marino, a police spokesman.
This incident, as written, has many leasons:
1 - When you are angry and not in danger, leave the gun alone.
2 - When you fire your gun make sure you know what your back stop is.
3 - Learn to friggin aim. I heard this guy fired six or more shot and did not hit the dog. Guess it was bobbin and weavin!!!
4 - Bullets ricochet and still have enough energy to kill. Know what your gun and your ammo can do.
Gilbert man shoots at family dog after it bites his daughter in face
Nathan Gonzalez - Feb. 17, 2010 06:40 AM
The Arizona Republic
A Gilbert man faces a felony weapons charge for shooting at his German shepherd after it bit his daughter in the face Sunday.
Kevin Townsend, 49, was charged with one count of discharging a firearm within town limits, a class 6 felony.
The incident began about 5:46 p.m. when Townsend's 11-year-old daughter was in the family's backyard on the 2500 block of E. Via De Palmas, north of Riggs and Higley roads, Gilbert police said.
The dog bit the child on the face, and Townsend allegedly grabbed a gun. He fired "multiple shots" at the dog, but one bullet strayed and broke a window at a nearby house.
The girl was transported to Gilbert Mercy Hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
The dog was not harmed, but Townsend arranged for someone else to take it, said Sgt. Mark Marino, a police spokesman.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Police Officer doesn't like non police to have guns
I love cops and I greatly appreciate what they do for us on a daily basis. But cops like this guy Tuason scare the shit out of me. They have a badge and a gun and they think they are the only ones who should have them.
It is law enforcement officials like this that allow governments to take over peoples lives. Without the "soldiers" to do the down and dirty work, the dirty politicians have no power. I am all for freedom of speech but if your speech speaks out against the very freedoms you took an oath to uphold then you need to find a new line of work. I am sure he can find work in China where he can lawfully jackstomp civilians.
This guy gives good police officers a bad name. The scariest part is that according to a friend and writer on this blog, MOST police officers feel this way.
Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that "open carry" supporters should be shot.
East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend's status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like "Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto" and not just in "hoity toity" cities.
"Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied. "He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"
Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California's Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!" -- referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.
Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason's termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the Facebook thread confirmed gun owners' worst fears.
"Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America's gun owners," Taylor told FoxNews.com. "It's an affront."
California's Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.
"The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment," Taylor said. "Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire."
Tuason's comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective's remarks on his Web site on Sunday.
"[Tuason] didn't realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook," Thomason wrote. "Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend's page. Basically, he's saying 'prone them out' (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don't make this crap up."
Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason's comments were "worth a call" to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department's professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason's First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.
"In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department," Estelle told the newspaper.
It is law enforcement officials like this that allow governments to take over peoples lives. Without the "soldiers" to do the down and dirty work, the dirty politicians have no power. I am all for freedom of speech but if your speech speaks out against the very freedoms you took an oath to uphold then you need to find a new line of work. I am sure he can find work in China where he can lawfully jackstomp civilians.
This guy gives good police officers a bad name. The scariest part is that according to a friend and writer on this blog, MOST police officers feel this way.
Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that "open carry" supporters should be shot.
East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend's status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like "Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto" and not just in "hoity toity" cities.
"Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied. "He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"
Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California's Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!" -- referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.
Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason's termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the Facebook thread confirmed gun owners' worst fears.
"Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America's gun owners," Taylor told FoxNews.com. "It's an affront."
California's Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.
"The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment," Taylor said. "Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire."
Tuason's comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective's remarks on his Web site on Sunday.
"[Tuason] didn't realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook," Thomason wrote. "Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend's page. Basically, he's saying 'prone them out' (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don't make this crap up."
Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason's comments were "worth a call" to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department's professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason's First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.
"In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department," Estelle told the newspaper.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Everyone Go To Starbucks
I decided to visit the Brady Campaign's website. Turns out they have a hard on for Starbucks because they have the audacity to allow people to carry firearms into the store. I KNOW I KNOW how dare they.
So I call on all Gun Owners to show Starbucks our appreciation and do business with them. I don't drink coffee but I might just have to go in and buy a gift card for my wife. The Brady Peeps wouldn't like her either since she is packing as well. If you do go in, try and find a way to tell them that you appreciate them allowing you to protect yourself inside there store.
From the Brady Campaign website:
Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots
Click on arrow to learn more! Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.
So far, Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns. But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores.
It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.
Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances.
The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped.
We have teamed up with CREDO Action to send petitions to Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores.
So I call on all Gun Owners to show Starbucks our appreciation and do business with them. I don't drink coffee but I might just have to go in and buy a gift card for my wife. The Brady Peeps wouldn't like her either since she is packing as well. If you do go in, try and find a way to tell them that you appreciate them allowing you to protect yourself inside there store.
From the Brady Campaign website:
Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots
Click on arrow to learn more! Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.
So far, Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns. But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores.
It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.
Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances.
The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped.
We have teamed up with CREDO Action to send petitions to Starbucks to keep guns out of its stores.
EMP Strike: The Scariest Threat Ever?
Medium X gave me the book "One Second After" written by William R. Forstchen and I just finished it.
This is scarier than all other disaster scenerios. Just imagine if every electrical product in America fried out and could not be repaired. Imagine what it would be like to have no communicaiton, no vehicles, no flashlight.
There is no one coming to help so what do you do?
This is scarier than all other disaster scenerios. Just imagine if every electrical product in America fried out and could not be repaired. Imagine what it would be like to have no communicaiton, no vehicles, no flashlight.
There is no one coming to help so what do you do?
Scottsdale woman fires at intruders
This is great, I'm glad to see people defending them self's and there home. What would have happened if she wasn't armed....perhaps she would have been raped or murdered. Or the best case scenario would for her to get away with her life but the criminals would have cleaned out her house and her sense of security would be damaged for the rest of her life.
-A homeowner shot at two people trying to break into her Scottsdale home after one kicked through the door, according to Scottsdale police Wednesday.
The 47-year-old woman heard the doorbell ringing continuously Tuesday morning while she was sleeping at her home on the 10000 block of North 74th Place. She looked through a peephole and did not recognize the person. She then went to her room to get her cell phone and handgun, according to a press release.
When she returned, the first person, whose face was hidden by a hooded sweatshirt, backed away as another person kicked the door, knocking a hole through it. The woman was knocked down and received some facial injuries, police said.
The woman then placed her gun through the hole and fired two rounds. They fled in a dark Nissan Maxima, police said, and that's when the woman called the police.
The woman, who did not require medical treatment, said she was unsure if either of the two suspects were wounded.
The case is under investigation.
by Jolie McCullough - Feb. 10, 2010 06:15 PM
The Arizona Republic
-A homeowner shot at two people trying to break into her Scottsdale home after one kicked through the door, according to Scottsdale police Wednesday.
The 47-year-old woman heard the doorbell ringing continuously Tuesday morning while she was sleeping at her home on the 10000 block of North 74th Place. She looked through a peephole and did not recognize the person. She then went to her room to get her cell phone and handgun, according to a press release.
When she returned, the first person, whose face was hidden by a hooded sweatshirt, backed away as another person kicked the door, knocking a hole through it. The woman was knocked down and received some facial injuries, police said.
The woman then placed her gun through the hole and fired two rounds. They fled in a dark Nissan Maxima, police said, and that's when the woman called the police.
The woman, who did not require medical treatment, said she was unsure if either of the two suspects were wounded.
The case is under investigation.
by Jolie McCullough - Feb. 10, 2010 06:15 PM
The Arizona Republic
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Hero
I got to spend time with a great man today. I’ve never met him before, and yet I see others just like him everyday. I was fortunate enough to learn a little about his family, his two young daughters and his mother. I was informed that he was “larger than life” in both physical stature and attitude. And what a great sense of humor he had. This man also taught me how precious life is and to cherish it everyday, and never ever take it for granted.
The man I am talking about is Lieutenant Eric Shuhandler. I have attended many ceremonies for fallen Officers. Each one is tougher than the last. I am not ashamed of the emotion that arises every time I go. I don’t know of any grizzled, cynical cop that can keep a dry eye when the eerie sound of the bag pipes start to play or the mournful sound of Taps is heard. But, I continue to go to every one of these funerals. It just feels wrong not to.
So I take off my dress uniform and remove the shroud from my badge. I place the shroud in my locker because I know, no matter how much I wish it wasn’t true, that I will need it for next time.
The man I am talking about is Lieutenant Eric Shuhandler. I have attended many ceremonies for fallen Officers. Each one is tougher than the last. I am not ashamed of the emotion that arises every time I go. I don’t know of any grizzled, cynical cop that can keep a dry eye when the eerie sound of the bag pipes start to play or the mournful sound of Taps is heard. But, I continue to go to every one of these funerals. It just feels wrong not to.
So I take off my dress uniform and remove the shroud from my badge. I place the shroud in my locker because I know, no matter how much I wish it wasn’t true, that I will need it for next time.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Push is on to ease Arizona's gun laws
These bills are still in the works but it is a huge step toward giving the people their constitutional rights back.
I have taken some quotes from the article and commented on them below.
- "These laws are not going to be seen as friendly to business, friendly to children and good for the economy of Arizona," she said. "This is a very critical time, and we are turning people away from Arizona, making them more fearful of coming to the Wild West."
Same arguement based zero fact. I am not most Americans but I feel a lot safer in states that have minimal gun laws. I travel a lot and it is not really an option to take my gun with me everywhere I go. Mostly because I never know if I am going to be diverted to a shitty place like Chicago or San Fran where my gun is not welcome and I will not have the ability or time to properly deal with the weapon. I also feel safer knowing that there is a strong likelyhood that others are armed who can take care of a situation if it arrises. It also means that criminals don't know if I am armed or not, so that is a plus. The part about the kids is just rediculous on multiple points, but just strictly argueing the bills, they have nothing to do with more guns or how people store them. It does not increase or decrease the risk to children.
-"I'm not sure the general public wants to go back to the day when people could walk into any saloon with a firearm strapped to their hip, but it seems like the majority party does."
This is just a using movies to scare people. The old west was not as bad as the movies and regardless, ciminals shoot people, they stab people, and they bludgen people. The only difference are the tools used to perform the assault.
-The largest hurdle these bills face this year, as in past years, is likely opposition from law-enforcement groups. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes Pearce's bill.
"If enacted, (the bill) will take Arizona back to Wild West carry, with no consideration for officer safety," association lobbyist John Thomas said.
It has always baffled me that police are so afraid of the public having guns. I understand that police would prefer it if they were the only ones with guns, but the truth is that not all cops are good guys and cops are never around when you need them. I am sure that if we tried to take their off duty guns from them they would not like it. My other guess is that some cops like gun control because it is job security. With all data (not counting made up crap from The Brady Campaign) pointing at guns lowering crime rates, it lowers our need of more police officers.
-"You have no laws meant to reduce gun violence and protect the public, and you have an active gun lobby there that wants to do away with even the bare threshold of laws you do have," said Ladd Everitt of the Washington, D.C.-based national Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
I am so sick of the term gun violence. How about criminal violence. Studies show that when gun laws were inacted in England and Australia, gun violence did go down. Stabbings, clubbings, rape, home invasions, and other non gun related crimes went up. For the most part, these crimes were committed against people weaker than the criminals. The gun bans took away the great equalizer and put the bullies back in control. Congratulations.
This is the best one
-"You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public," he [Everitt] said.
This guy is an idiot and very naive. Does he think that dangerous individuals and criminals are not currently carrying weapons in public? Does he think these people care about laws? I am pretty sure the definition of a criminal is "person who doesn't give a shit about laws".
Finally some common sense:
"When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he [Pearce] said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."
Push is on to ease Arizona's gun laws
Alia Beard Rau - Feb. 3, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Arizona has always held tightly to its legacy as part of the gun-toting Wild West and a protector of individual rights.
This year, the state's Republican governor and a conservative Legislature may continue that tradition by giving Arizonans some of the least-restrictive weapons laws in the nation.
This session, state lawmakers have proposed more than a dozen bills on expanding rights to carry and use guns and knives.
The proposed laws would allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, end requirements that guns manufactured and kept in Arizona be registered, and allow university professors to carry guns on school grounds.
Although the number of bills on the subject is not unusual, weapons-rights supporters believe this year - with a conservative governor, a Legislature sympathetic to their cause and more freedom to address issues other than the budget - may be their year to lift many limits. It also is an election year, and gun rights have always been a popular campaign platform among conservatives.
"Arizona is very gun-friendly, and we've made a lot of progress over the past probably 10 to 12 years," weapons-rights lobbyist Todd Rathner said. "But, right now, the Legislature and the governor are favorable to a pro-Second Amendment agenda, so we're trying to accomplish as much as we can."
Weapons advocates are so optimistic about their chances this year that a knife-rights advocacy group hopes to use Arizona to launch a national effort to give state Legislatures exclusive authority over local governments to regulate knife use.
The efforts won't be without opposition.
Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said some of the legislative efforts could hurt the state economically.
"These laws are not going to be seen as friendly to business, friendly to children and good for the economy of Arizona," she said. "This is a very critical time, and we are turning people away from Arizona, making them more fearful of coming to the Wild West."
Gun-friendly state
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.
In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer became governor. Lawmakers quickly proposed weapons legislation, and Brewer began signing it.
During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.
Brewer has been a supporter of Second Amendment rights over her elected career, spokesman Paul Senseman said. He said having her as governor has helped the effort in the state over the past year.
"I think last year was very productive in terms of extending the protections of the Second Amendment," Senseman said.
Brewer would not comment on specific legislation before it reached her desk.
"But it will be important that we continue to be judicious and responsible in enacting good protections for our Second Amendment rights," he said.
Testing ground
Rathner said Arizona's current political atmosphere is precisely why Knife Rights Inc. chose this time and this state to propose a bill that would pre-empt local governments from regulating knives.
Rathner for years represented the National Rifle Association in Arizona, but this year, he is lobbying for the national knife-owner advocacy group. Knife Rights, which Rathner said has a few thousand members nationwide, is based in Gilbert and was started in 2006.
"Guns have been pre-emptive for a decade, and there's been no problem with it," he said. "Knives are the next step."
Rathner said about 10 Arizona cities restrict knives, including Phoenix. Phoenix outlaws carrying knives, except for pocketknives. If the bill becomes law, Phoenix's ordinance would no longer be enforceable.
If successful, Rathner said, the group will push other states to pass the law.
Several Arizona cities oppose the bill, including Phoenix.
The Legislature
The gun measure likely to draw the biggest buzz proposes to no longer require people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill. He said his bill simply puts into law what Arizona and the nation's founders always intended.
"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have a right to carry," Pearce said.
Whether they support the bills or not, legislators agree on one thing: Many of the bills have a good chance of becoming law.
Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he has owned guns most of his life. He said that changing the concealed-weapon permit law moves Arizona in the wrong direction but that his opinion may not matter.
"If the Republicans want to push this through, we can't stop it. They run the Legislature, they run the Governor's Office," he said. "I'm not sure the general public wants to go back to the day when people could walk into any saloon with a firearm strapped to their hip, but it seems like the majority party does."
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, warned that nothing is a sure thing in the Legislature, particularly this year.
"The budget is casting such a gloomy cloud over everything that it's hard to get a read," he said.
However, Republican House Majority Leader Chuck Gray said Second Amendment rights also are a priority.
"Most of the gun issues are going to be looked at to make sure they are written correctly, but we will be very favorable toward the rights of the people," Gray said.
The largest hurdle these bills face this year, as in past years, is likely opposition from law-enforcement groups. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes Pearce's bill.
"If enacted, (the bill) will take Arizona back to Wild West carry, with no consideration for officer safety," association lobbyist John Thomas said.
Only nine states have fewer gun restrictions than Arizona, according to a scorecard released last year by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-restriction advocacy group.
If some of the legislation is passed, Arizona will likely move lower on the list.
"You have no laws meant to reduce gun violence and protect the public, and you have an active gun lobby there that wants to do away with even the bare threshold of laws you do have," said Ladd Everitt of the Washington, D.C.-based national Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a permit and the other to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third state in the nation to allow either of the looser restrictions.
Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit "crazy."
"You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public," he said.
Pearce said he thinks the legislation will help make Arizonans safer.
"When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."
I have taken some quotes from the article and commented on them below.
- "These laws are not going to be seen as friendly to business, friendly to children and good for the economy of Arizona," she said. "This is a very critical time, and we are turning people away from Arizona, making them more fearful of coming to the Wild West."
Same arguement based zero fact. I am not most Americans but I feel a lot safer in states that have minimal gun laws. I travel a lot and it is not really an option to take my gun with me everywhere I go. Mostly because I never know if I am going to be diverted to a shitty place like Chicago or San Fran where my gun is not welcome and I will not have the ability or time to properly deal with the weapon. I also feel safer knowing that there is a strong likelyhood that others are armed who can take care of a situation if it arrises. It also means that criminals don't know if I am armed or not, so that is a plus. The part about the kids is just rediculous on multiple points, but just strictly argueing the bills, they have nothing to do with more guns or how people store them. It does not increase or decrease the risk to children.
-"I'm not sure the general public wants to go back to the day when people could walk into any saloon with a firearm strapped to their hip, but it seems like the majority party does."
This is just a using movies to scare people. The old west was not as bad as the movies and regardless, ciminals shoot people, they stab people, and they bludgen people. The only difference are the tools used to perform the assault.
-The largest hurdle these bills face this year, as in past years, is likely opposition from law-enforcement groups. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes Pearce's bill.
"If enacted, (the bill) will take Arizona back to Wild West carry, with no consideration for officer safety," association lobbyist John Thomas said.
It has always baffled me that police are so afraid of the public having guns. I understand that police would prefer it if they were the only ones with guns, but the truth is that not all cops are good guys and cops are never around when you need them. I am sure that if we tried to take their off duty guns from them they would not like it. My other guess is that some cops like gun control because it is job security. With all data (not counting made up crap from The Brady Campaign) pointing at guns lowering crime rates, it lowers our need of more police officers.
-"You have no laws meant to reduce gun violence and protect the public, and you have an active gun lobby there that wants to do away with even the bare threshold of laws you do have," said Ladd Everitt of the Washington, D.C.-based national Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
I am so sick of the term gun violence. How about criminal violence. Studies show that when gun laws were inacted in England and Australia, gun violence did go down. Stabbings, clubbings, rape, home invasions, and other non gun related crimes went up. For the most part, these crimes were committed against people weaker than the criminals. The gun bans took away the great equalizer and put the bullies back in control. Congratulations.
This is the best one
-"You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public," he [Everitt] said.
This guy is an idiot and very naive. Does he think that dangerous individuals and criminals are not currently carrying weapons in public? Does he think these people care about laws? I am pretty sure the definition of a criminal is "person who doesn't give a shit about laws".
Finally some common sense:
"When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he [Pearce] said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."
Push is on to ease Arizona's gun laws
Alia Beard Rau - Feb. 3, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
Arizona has always held tightly to its legacy as part of the gun-toting Wild West and a protector of individual rights.
This year, the state's Republican governor and a conservative Legislature may continue that tradition by giving Arizonans some of the least-restrictive weapons laws in the nation.
This session, state lawmakers have proposed more than a dozen bills on expanding rights to carry and use guns and knives.
The proposed laws would allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, end requirements that guns manufactured and kept in Arizona be registered, and allow university professors to carry guns on school grounds.
Although the number of bills on the subject is not unusual, weapons-rights supporters believe this year - with a conservative governor, a Legislature sympathetic to their cause and more freedom to address issues other than the budget - may be their year to lift many limits. It also is an election year, and gun rights have always been a popular campaign platform among conservatives.
"Arizona is very gun-friendly, and we've made a lot of progress over the past probably 10 to 12 years," weapons-rights lobbyist Todd Rathner said. "But, right now, the Legislature and the governor are favorable to a pro-Second Amendment agenda, so we're trying to accomplish as much as we can."
Weapons advocates are so optimistic about their chances this year that a knife-rights advocacy group hopes to use Arizona to launch a national effort to give state Legislatures exclusive authority over local governments to regulate knife use.
The efforts won't be without opposition.
Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe, said some of the legislative efforts could hurt the state economically.
"These laws are not going to be seen as friendly to business, friendly to children and good for the economy of Arizona," she said. "This is a very critical time, and we are turning people away from Arizona, making them more fearful of coming to the Wild West."
Gun-friendly state
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.
In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer became governor. Lawmakers quickly proposed weapons legislation, and Brewer began signing it.
During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.
Brewer has been a supporter of Second Amendment rights over her elected career, spokesman Paul Senseman said. He said having her as governor has helped the effort in the state over the past year.
"I think last year was very productive in terms of extending the protections of the Second Amendment," Senseman said.
Brewer would not comment on specific legislation before it reached her desk.
"But it will be important that we continue to be judicious and responsible in enacting good protections for our Second Amendment rights," he said.
Testing ground
Rathner said Arizona's current political atmosphere is precisely why Knife Rights Inc. chose this time and this state to propose a bill that would pre-empt local governments from regulating knives.
Rathner for years represented the National Rifle Association in Arizona, but this year, he is lobbying for the national knife-owner advocacy group. Knife Rights, which Rathner said has a few thousand members nationwide, is based in Gilbert and was started in 2006.
"Guns have been pre-emptive for a decade, and there's been no problem with it," he said. "Knives are the next step."
Rathner said about 10 Arizona cities restrict knives, including Phoenix. Phoenix outlaws carrying knives, except for pocketknives. If the bill becomes law, Phoenix's ordinance would no longer be enforceable.
If successful, Rathner said, the group will push other states to pass the law.
Several Arizona cities oppose the bill, including Phoenix.
The Legislature
The gun measure likely to draw the biggest buzz proposes to no longer require people to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, is sponsoring the Senate version of the bill. He said his bill simply puts into law what Arizona and the nation's founders always intended.
"If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have a right to carry," Pearce said.
Whether they support the bills or not, legislators agree on one thing: Many of the bills have a good chance of becoming law.
Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he has owned guns most of his life. He said that changing the concealed-weapon permit law moves Arizona in the wrong direction but that his opinion may not matter.
"If the Republicans want to push this through, we can't stop it. They run the Legislature, they run the Governor's Office," he said. "I'm not sure the general public wants to go back to the day when people could walk into any saloon with a firearm strapped to their hip, but it seems like the majority party does."
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, warned that nothing is a sure thing in the Legislature, particularly this year.
"The budget is casting such a gloomy cloud over everything that it's hard to get a read," he said.
However, Republican House Majority Leader Chuck Gray said Second Amendment rights also are a priority.
"Most of the gun issues are going to be looked at to make sure they are written correctly, but we will be very favorable toward the rights of the people," Gray said.
The largest hurdle these bills face this year, as in past years, is likely opposition from law-enforcement groups. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes Pearce's bill.
"If enacted, (the bill) will take Arizona back to Wild West carry, with no consideration for officer safety," association lobbyist John Thomas said.
Only nine states have fewer gun restrictions than Arizona, according to a scorecard released last year by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-restriction advocacy group.
If some of the legislation is passed, Arizona will likely move lower on the list.
"You have no laws meant to reduce gun violence and protect the public, and you have an active gun lobby there that wants to do away with even the bare threshold of laws you do have," said Ladd Everitt of the Washington, D.C.-based national Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Two bills, one to allow concealed weapons without a permit and the other to exempt guns made and kept in the state from federal regulation, each has more than a dozen legislators backing them. If passed, Arizona would be only the third state in the nation to allow either of the looser restrictions.
Everitt called the proposal to no longer require a concealed-carry permit "crazy."
"You would have dangerous individuals and criminals carrying weapons in public," he said.
Pearce said he thinks the legislation will help make Arizonans safer.
"When you have restrictive laws, the only people you restrict are the good guys," he said. "I've never been afraid of a good citizen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
