The final sentence in this article states:
When will these groups scurry down from their tree homes and start putting people over plants?
Uhmm, how about never?
Radical environmentalists do not picture human beings as part of the environment, but as the destroyers of the environment. Hence, they do not care about jobs or the welfare of people who do work that damages the environment.
They would really like all such jobs to disappear, regardless of the human costs, while they salve their conscious with thoughts of the "green jobs" that these people will be retrained to do.
To radical environmentalists, people are the ultimate pollutant.
Oklahoma will become an open carry state on November 1. While not the first state, by far, to become a shall-issue concealed carry state, Oklahoma has been catching up to the rest of free America fast. I loved this statement by a lonely Democrat:
State Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre, D-Tulsa, opposed the bill when it came up in the Legislature, and she said her concerns stand.
"I still think it's a bad bill," McIntyre said. "Like a lot of other people, I'm apprehensive."
She said many may feel the same, but support for the bill was overwhelming when it came up. If there were detractors, she didn't hear from them.
"When this bill came up, I don't remember being lobbied by anybody at the Capitol to say this is a bad bill," McIntyre said.
Now that it's set to become law, she said she will be nervous whenever she sees someone who is armed and will do what she can to avoid that person.
"I'm afraid of guns for one thing," McIntyre said. "I was a social worker, and I saw children killed by guns, whether it was criminal or accidental."
"It's less frightening if it's someone I know (who is armed), but to be at a place where you don't know the history or the background, it's frightening."
Um, then Senator, perhaps it is not such a bad bill after all? Just because she is afriad of seeing guns in public does not mean that it is a danger to the public. Criminal are already carrying, have always carried, and do not do so openly.
Comments from police officers in the article indicate that they are not expecting any problems, so it seems that Senator McIntyre is simply afraid of guns being visible in public. This one sums up the law enforcement view nicely:
"My prediction would be that this is going to be a non-issue for Oklahoma just like it has the other states," Jordan said. "Gun ownership by good, law-abiding citizens is not a danger to the public."
At least that is the only thing that I can conclude from reading this article written by Christopher Ivory, a 2nd year law student at the University of Miami. What follows is the reply to the article that I posted in the comments section.
"We have strayed away from the purpose of the Second Amendment. Our founders afforded the right to bear arms to citizens for the purpose of a “well-regulated militia” and to insure the following: locals could organize and defend themselves in the event of an English invasion, and citizens could protect themselves from government officials illegally entering their homes and taking property as the English government had done."
Completely and totally wrong. The Second Amendment exists to codify a natural right that pre-existed the Constitution. The purpose of the right was to defend against "any" invasion, not just an English 18th Century invasion, as well as to defend against a tyrannical domestic government, and to provide a means for self-defense against criminals.
"Guns were far less dangerous at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. Semi-automatic rifles, uzis and 12-gauge shotguns did not exist. As Michael Moore told Piers Morgan, “There were only one-shot, long rifles back then. Guns couldn’t spray hoards of people like they can today.” "
This is a specious argument. The flintlock musket of 1780 was a state-of-the-art military grade weapon. To argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear only those weapons is the same as arguing that the 1st Amendment only protect speech that is transmitted via a hand-operated printing press, but not television, radio, or the Internet.
"A study by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that there tend to be more gun deaths in states and regions where guns are more populous and accessible."
Another specious argument. There tend to be more traffic accident deaths in places that have more roads and automobiles.
"Gun ownership allows the antsy Zimmermans of the world to shoot people when the altercation could be solved without deadly force. It allows the young child to take daddy’s gun to school to scare the kid that has been picking on him or her. It allows the jealous boyfriend to threaten his girlfriend."
The trial of George Zimmerman has yet to take place, so we do not know if his actions are self defense or murder, nor do we know if Zimmerman had any other recourse other than deadly force. The author of this article simply assumes so. Gun owners have a responsibility to secure their firearms against unauthorized access, and boyfriends do not need firearms to abuse their girlfriends. More specious arguments.
"There is logic in the argument that legal gun ownership protects against criminals. However, that we would always have to be armed to be prepared to defend ourselves against criminal activity – bad idea."
So, there is logic to the argument that firearms are useful for self-defense, but there is no logic to the idea that citizens should always be armed in case of confrontation? This is just a swipe at the increasingly common liberalized concealed carry laws that have swept the nation in recent decades. Millions of concealed weapon permit holders would flatly disagree with Mr. Ivory on this, as would the individuals involved in these 50 incidents of successful armed self-defense:
http://leftcoastconservative.blogspot.com/p/armed-citizen-self-defense.html
"As for the protection of our homes, we are safer via alarm systems that trigger lights, sirens and immediately alert local authorities upon a break-in, as opposed to criminal hunting in the dark while panicking under ill-advised, adrenaline inspired judgment."
Firearms are not a self-defense panacea, but rather an additional layer of protection, another option to be used in the gravest extreme. What happens if the "local authorities" do not arrive in time? Is the author of this article aware that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that despite demonstrated ineptitude and abuse on the part of police that innocent victims are not entitled to police protection, that there is no duty for police to protect any individual? In essence, each citizen is on their own when confronted with a criminal. If the author, a 2nd year law student does not know this, then perhaps he should pay better attention in class, or request a refund from the law school.
"In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a Washington D.C. law that banned handgun possession. The court said that lawful handgun possession was constitutionally protected. In disagreement with the majority, Justice Breyer stated that the Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests."
The author, a 2nd year law student, should know that dissenting opinions do not make binding case law. The Heller decision blasted the militia-service view on the 2nd Amendment into bits.
"This case set the precedent that gun bans in any state or municipality will likely be struck down. Sadly, this means the Second Amendment will probably not be overturned anytime soon, or ever."
Thank God!
"But regardless of what the law says, the proof is in the pudding. Maybe Batman will teach us how to not use guns because we have proved incapable of doing so ourselves."
Why should anyone pay attention to anyone who opens an argument with an appeal to the behavior of a fictional character?
So much for the quality of education if this is what passes for "critical thinking" in modern academia.
Joan Peterson writes on her blog:
"Can we at least have a national conversation about one of our biggest national public health and safety problem? We all know we have too many gun violence victims. But we sit back as a country and just let them happen because of one mythically uber powerful lobby group- the NRA. This is ludicrous, unacceptable, irresponsible and just plain wrong and dangerous. If you agree with me, check out the we are better than this web site to let Jim Lehrer know you want a question asked about guns asked at the debate. Or check out the demand a plan site to demand that our Presidential candidates and other elected officials come up with a plan to deal with too many people being killed and injured in daily senseless shootings."
Joan, we have had a "national conversation" about this issue, and your position has been rejected by a majority of citizens. You're complaining about it will not make you any more relevant to the political reality that gun-rights are civil rights, and people want to protect them from the restrictions you would impose.
Columnist Philip Morris writes in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
It remains a continuing source of frustration for me to witness the weakness and the impotence of the gun control lobby and those who sympathize with them. Gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment purists have taken complete ownership of the domestic arms race, leaving us without a much-needed genuine debate and resulting compromise.
Mr. Morris, the reason why we gun-rights advocates own this debate is that the so-called gun lobby is not interested in anything that we recognize as "compromise". "Gun control" to them is little more than gun confiscation, they want to control guns right out of citizens hands. Every gun-owning citizen is to them a "potential criminal".
Independent-minded citizens have considered the issues in this debate and have decided in favor of the right to self-defense.
Yet another example of a legally armed citizen defending themselves successfully, this time in Akron, Ohio.
