It’s hypocritical of pro-gun lawmakers to hide behind metal detectors in their workplace
July 27th, 2009 at 11:54am Pat Cunningham
 
 I remember writing a column some 26 years ago about a speech then-President Ronald Reagan delivered at an annual meeting of the National Rifle Association in Phoenix.
 Predictably, Reagan spoke against gun control and extolled the freedoms afforded by the Second Amendment.
 The irony, as I pointed out in the column, is that Reagan was decrying gun control while hiding behind it. None of the ordinary citizens in his audience for that speech was packing heat. Everybody had to pass through metal detectors before entering the hall. Nor did the president object to this violation of the citizenry’s right to be armed.
 These days, we have a similarly hypocritical  situation in Washington. The same federal lawmakers who argue that restrictions on guns do nothing to prevent criminal violence enjoy the protection of such restrictions in the buildings where they work.
 E. J. Dionne SARCASTICALLY ARGUES that it’s “time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation’s Capitol.”
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
18 Comments Add your own
1. echo4charlie | July 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Interesting outlook.
It is a good, and valid point.
2. Ben | July 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Why not? And how about putting a sign on your front porch saying “No Guns In This House” and dismanteling the locks on the doors?
3. Orlando Clay | July 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Richard prattles: “Gun legislation today is all about sticking it to those who follow the law.”
Yeah, how dare we try enact legislation that would help to prevent horrific events like on-campus shootings and cold-blooded murder of law-abiding abortion providers by right-wing nut jobs.
Don’t worry, Einstein. We still respect, as you wrote in an earlier post several weeks ago, your Second Amendment “right to BARE arms.” We’re just trying to stop the wackos from, as you also opined several weeks ago, “PRAYING on the weak.”
Get a clue.
4. echo4charlie | July 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Richard is right. Most firearm-related crimes are carried out by those forbidden (by law) to even own said firearm. Those who are law-abiding citizens with no criminal history are going to be the ones who won’t be getting the weapons.
The criminals will get them no matter what.
It’s like the idea of the lock. Locks are great, and necessary, however, they only keep honest people out.
5. joe | July 27th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“If you follow the Rockford Paper, Tinker Bell Orlando. When is the last time that you read about an arrest that involved a shooting that did not include the charge of no valid FOID card? From what I have read, only about one in a hundred that does not include that charge.”
So we keep guns around because 1 out of 100 shootings is by a legal owner? I love my guns, maybe you shouldn’t be the one selling the room on the right to “bare” arms.
6. Tim | July 27th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
You also have to register your car, insure it, and get a license that says you are capable of driving it. So what is your point?
7. snuss | July 27th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
One other difference: There is no right to “keep and bear” automobiles.
Fear-mongering by the Left is why we don’t have concealed-carry laws in Illinois and Wisconsin. Isn’t it strange that all the new gun violence that Liberals forcasted was certain to follow their enactment in other states, never happened?
As to metal detectors in Congress, there ARE some areas, and people, who require a greater level of security, because they are at greater risk. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need bank vaults, guards, or personal firearms.
8. Craig Knauss | July 27th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
snuss, we have concealed carry out here where I live now. It doesn’t seem to accomplish squat. We are having drive-by shootings all the time. There is plenty of gang violence to go around. Fortunately, the vast majority of it is gang against gang. And I don’t recall one single gun carrying citizen stopping any of it. You’d think with all the rednecks packing heat, that some thugs would get shot once in a while. Well, I’m still waiting to see it happen.
9. Billybeermonicagar | July 28th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Craig, if the violence in your area is gang against gang, why would a “redneck packing heat ” need to get involved? Sounds like you guys should invest in target practice for your gangs so they are more effective with each other.
10. snuss | July 28th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Craig, you seem to have the Liberal (also known as: wrong) impression of what the concealed-carry program is supposed to do. It is NOT to have armed citizens seeking out and shooting gang-bangers, as Charles Bronson did in the Death Wish movies. It is for PERSONAL defence of the one who carries the weapon.
You might find the following of interest:
a. Nationwide, concealed carry laws have worked to drop crime rates. Indeed, a comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. (10)
b. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly. (11)
Read the rest at: http://utahshootingsports.com/usscccw.htm
You can also read this article (Guns as a Crime Deterrent: Does the Issuance of Concealed-Carry Permits Reduce Crime?), starting on page 59, at: http://www.hinckley.utah.edu/publications/journal/2009_Hinckley_Journal.pdf
11. snuss | July 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
@ Orlando, do you remember this?
In Florida, which introduced the “shall-issue” concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses, which had the unintended consequence of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed. Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars.
Note: “since tourists may be readily presumed UNARMED.” Doesn’t that truly explain, even to you gun-grabbing Liberals, why concealed-carry works in deterring crime?
Source: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Concealed_carry_%28USA%29
12. joe | July 28th, 2009 at 11:07 am
How did the concealed carry work out for Vernon Forrest? Could of just been out a wallet, but he had to chase the guy down with his gun. Didn’t work out so well. Turns out the bad guy was a better shot.
13. Tim | July 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Richard, I am all for the second amendment, and personal freedom guaranteed by OUR constitution. I just though what you said in comment 8 was pretty dumb.
14. Craig Knauss | July 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
snuss, You seem to have the conservative (delusional) impression that more guns mean more safety. Maybe you’d like to explain why almost all of the countries with the highest per capita gun ownerships are also among the worst on the rankings for murders per capita? (Such as the U.S.) The only real exception is Switzerland, where every able bodied person is a member of their reserves and is therefore armed and expected to respond on a moment’s notice. There are some countries with high murder rates that have low gun ownership rates, but most of those are in a state of turmoil (revolution, drug wars, etc.). And why do countries like Japan and China, to name a couple, have extremely low crime rates even though almost nobody has a gun? Why is that? Look it up for yourself, if you don’t believe me. And why do you believe that everyone needs a gun under his or her pillow to be safe? (Are you afraid of the boogeyman?) And have you forgotten that every one of the guns used at Virginia Tech, NIU, Columbine, Omaha, etc. was LEGALLY purchased by someone with NO prior felony record? Those creeps were not criminals until AFTER they started shooting. And pick some references that are not holding hands with the firearms industry. (I suppose you’d quote the tobacco industry on the health benefits of chain smoking?) Why don’t you move to Arisona? Those idiots just legalized concealed carry IN BARS! One of my gun-nut buddies was outraged at that bit of stupidity.
15. snuss | July 28th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Quote: “And why do you believe that everyone needs a gun under his or her pillow to be safe? ”
Answer: I don’t. Anyone who is not willing and/or able to handle a firearm in a crisis situation should not do so. But, they should be free to make that decision for themselves.
Whiny Liberals, like you, should not have concealed-carry weapons, because you will probably do something stupid, for example, shooting to try and only wound or disarm an attacker, or fire a shot into your own foot, as you quake in fear.
BTW, did you realize that you used a totalitarian state (China) as an example of good gun control? Why not Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union? I’m certain that they, too, had low gun crime.
The problem with both the Virginia Tech, and NIU shooters, were that their mental health issues were not reported AS REQUIRED BY LAW, to prevent them from obtaining weapons. Also, had one of the students who were attacked been able to carry a concealed weapon, these attacks might have ended sooner, with far less loss of life.
There are FAR more examples of people using guns to defend themselves, and SAVING lives, than these few, though horrible, abberations.
BTW, the worst mass-murder in this country did not involve guns.
The killer used a Ryder rental truck, blue plastic barrels, fertilizer, and diesel fuel.
As to the Arizona law, I would be far more concerned about being killed by a drunk driver, than a drunk shooter. Again, it comes down to personal responsibility. Revocations of concealed-carry permits are measured in one-hundredths of one percent, and many are done for issues unrelated to gun misuse.
16. joe | July 29th, 2009 at 1:08 am
“Tim, I know it was dumb .It was meant to be dumb as the arguments against guns.”
What is dumb is you trying to sell the right to “bare” arms by telling people 1 out of 100 shootings is by a legal owner. Your not making a very good case for less restrictions on gun ownership. If your statistic is true I would not be wanting to share it with the liberals.
“Both shooters (VT/NIU) had a long history of mental problems. The question is asked right on the form.”
Do you really expect the crazy guy getting ready to shot up a school to admit to having mental health issues? You sound like you have been stealing colberts material.
“Also, had one of the students who were attacked been able to carry a concealed weapon, these attacks might have ended sooner, with far less loss of life.”
Guns on campus? You really think that is a good idea? Should they even be able to bring them to sporting events? What happens when the next crazy doesn’t check the box and brings a gun to a ball game and starts emptying clips into the stands? You think that would be good for those of us that would like to keep our toys?
You two do more harm then good with your silly post.
17. SNuss | July 29th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Joe sez: “Do you really expect the crazy guy getting ready to shot up a school to admit to having mental health issues? ”
No, Joe, but I do expect the mental health professionals who treated these people to report their condition to the proper authorities, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, so they cannot acquire guns through legal means.
As to the rest of your blather, I will repeat this:
“Again, it comes down to personal responsibility. Revocations of concealed-carry permits are measured in one-hundredths of one percent, and many are done for issues unrelated to gun misuse.”
Remember, the Second Amendment is one of our Rights, and not to be dismissed on the basis of Liberal knee-jerk whims. Treat it like you would any of the other nine parts of our Bill of Rights.
18. Craig Knauss | July 29th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I hope I didn’t miss the Richard and snuss clown show. Their responses to my comments bordered on retarded. First, have either of you geniuses ever read our Constitution? The 5th Amendment gives ALL Americans the right to due process of law, including the crazy ones. That means until an insane person has his day IN COURT and is judged BY THE COURT to be a danger, he isn’t officially dangerous. (Counselors, psychologists, etc. can only testify. The COURT makes the decision.) That means he can LEGALLY buy firearms. And our rightwing “defenders of freedom”, and the NRA, would raise hell if some psychopath were denied the right to own and bear arms. So Richard, it was YOU who was wrong when you said the VT and NIU shooters bought their guns illegally. Get informed. Second, both of you clowns brought up China. But it’s obvious neither one of you knows s### about China. Have you ever been there? I was there for a plant startup and got to know the place. I’ll readily concede they are far from a democracy, but for snuss to call them totalitarian and compare them to Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union is ludicrous. The Chinese don’t drag people out of their houses and shoot them in the streets. They do have courts, which Richard knows little about. Get informed, will you? And I also mentioned Japan as a country with gun control and very low violent crime. But, both of you clowns completely avoided that discussion. Small wonder. And finally, snuss, someone like you has a lot of guts complaining about whiney liberals not kinowing how to use firearms and quaking in fear. That’s pure b###s%%%. I shot in competition for years. And have handled and fired pistols, shotguns, and rifles, so I know how to use them. And I have a few liberal buddies who are COMBAT veterans and who also know how to use firearms. I’m sure those liberal vets would have something to say to chickens$$$ conservatives who have never been in combat, the military, or served their country in any way. I didn’t duck the draft and I worked for the Dept. of Defense for almost 11 years. And I continue to work on national defense and national security projects. (~ 30 years) What have you done, snuss? Anything?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed