Saw a lady cruise out of a stop&rob parking lot with a left rear tire close to flat. Did I start running and waving my arms to get her attention? Nope, figured she was probably packing heat and I wanted a Coke more than a chance of looking the wrong way on her gun. (Though a stubborn bout of plantar faciitas kind of ruled out running anyway.)
Figure almost anyone here (especially suburban women) is carrying and while it might have some incidental cons, like blownout tires for people who don’t worry about checking their own, I do think it’s an overall positive.
“Maybe a hairy legged, patchouli oil and tie dyed shirt wearing, certain president brings me to a frothing swoon type of therapist could help with the Bubba fixation.”
Patchouli oil and tie- dye / smelly hippie doesn’t appeal to me either.
As usual, it is convenient to leave out the relevant details. To be accurate, what was signed under Bush is not what is in place today.
To say the above is like saying the tax hikes of a president today should be blamed the passing of the Income Tax in 1913. No, tax hikes today are the result of the president today. And what happened was Bill Clinton took a law and expanded to point where soldiers where essentially defenseless on their bases. That is not what Bush signed or dictated to occur.
Let’s start with this article:
Now, why was this newspaper not called out for fabrication and why did the the above stand the scrutiny of blaming Clinton? Because of this reasoning:
Specifically, it was the Army Regulation 190-14 signed by Bill Clinton that made personal self-defense of any soldier essentially impossible on bases - Bush did not implement anything like that restriction.
I am rather familiar with this because I was living in DC at the time and soldiers were pissed to high heaven when Clinton signed this. If it was the same as under Bush, then it would not have been an issue with the military. However, I agree with critics that in 1992 Bush should have never given the opening for a future president, such as Clinton, to be able to institute such severe restrictions.
Yes, but there really should be an adjectives in front of “banned,” something such as “effectively, totally banned.”
What took place under Clinton was it became impossible to allow any soldier to carry on base except for limited military police. Prior to the 1993 Act, there were lots more officers who were still carrying on base. Not everyone, but that is quite different than making it so Hassan can shoot for minutes without anyone being able shoot back.
This is where the rubber hits the road - to put in perspective, under Bush’s law, Hassan would have lasted about 1 minute, not 10 minutes. Several of the people he injured or killed would have been carrying under the Bush law. Under Clinton’s Act, they were disarmed. Worse though, people who would have been armed under the Bush law ran because they were now disarmed, and thus could not help their comrades.
If the changes in 1993 were such bad Clinton policy, how come it wasn’t revised during the eight years that Bush II was president? Why did he keep them in place?
Obviously, I am skeptical that the so-called “extreme” revisions were that extreme from what the DOD instituted in 1992…maybe they were more widely enforced and that ruffled feathers …but if these “extreme” Clinton orders were so bad then surely the next administration, urged on by DOD leaders with the best interests of military personnel in mind, would have revisited and changed them. So why weren’t they?
I only stumbled on this controversy because I was searching for information about why Bush I implemented the gun restrictions in 1992. What was the impetus for the change?
Domestic violence on base? Suicides?
I couldn’t really find any explanation so if anyone knows what was going on 20 some years ago, I’m curious.
In fairness, I don’t think revisiting gun rules on US military bases was high on GW Bush’s national security priority list for the duration of his 8 years in office.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
"It does not, for example, read “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (except on college campuses)”
Scalia wrote for the Majority in Heller:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
If the Pentagon was raising holy hell about it…how much of his attention would it have taken…his signature on a directive. He managed to give his priority attention to other issues despite the war on terror, so why the dodge on this?
My guess is that the Pentagon was not pushing for the so-called “extreme” 1993 changes to Bush I’s directive to be rescinded. Not in the first four years of Bush II and apparently not in the next four years. There must have been support for them in the DOD.
Correct. Scalia is saying that states can implement regulations that limit where and when and how firearms can be owned or carried. He’s not saying that states MUST do any of those things, only that such restrictions wouldn’t necessarily be unconstitutional.
In this case, Texas is not trying to force its view on any other state. It is simply exercising its right as a state, to have its legislature pass the specific gun regulations in its state that it desires.
It’s most likely that a state statute allowing concealed carry at the University of Texas and a state statute barring concealed carry at the University of California would both be perfectly constitutional.
What a state cannot do is pass a law that prohibits the possession of common firearms across the board, in all circumstances, such as the DC law, challenged by Heller, that made it illegal to possess a simple handgun in your own house. That kind of blanket ban is counter to the plain text of the 2nd Amendment according to Scalia and the majority of the Supreme Court.
I don’t agree with many of the things the California legislature enacts. I have made, in my lifetime, an affirmative decision to not move to California. If someone disagrees with the laws of Texas, the same remedy is available. Live in one of the 49 other states. Texas has been leading the country in economic growth for many years now, so apparently a lot of folk are OK with the way they run their state.
“It’s most likely that a state statute allowing concealed carry at the University of Texas and a state statute barring concealed carry at the University of California would both be perfectly constitutional.”
Yes, the right to bear arms is not absolute and can, in fact, be infringed.
Frankly, I really don’t care what they do in Texas, or Florida or any of the other states with nutty gun laws, as long as they don’t allow it in New York. And yes, those states are already on my list to never move to.
Dragonfly, it is. There are other reasons I won’t move to them, either.
Interestdad, the number of shootings doesnt have anything to do with it. I hate guns and have no desire to live any place where people worship guns and gun culture. I find it beyond creepy.
I don’t know anyone who worships guns or who is part of the “gun culture.”
As far as I know, I don’t know anyone who even has a gun in their home, though I’m sure there may be someone, and of course, people hunt, so I’m sure I know people who have hunting rifles.
I don’t care if people don’t want to move here, but that perception of gun culture isn’t my reality at all. Thank goodness. Maybe I just live in a bubble.
Texas isn’t anymore dangerous than all the other states I’ve lived in. Come to think of it – I had a teacher who loved her gun and Robert. E. Lee. Still didn’t feel in danger.
I don’t think Florida had widespread problems with shootings until after WW II when so many people started pouring into Florida from places like New York.