Previous Post
Next Post


“I support, as a basic liberty, Americans’ right to own guns. I believe the presence of firearms creates a deterrent to state overreach. At the same time, I do not want any American bearing loaded firearms in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will shoot me or my children is also a basic right. To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.” – Bob Wietin (not shown) in a letter to the editor [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


        • ^ I concur. You ever notice how caught up America has been on emotions? A war on terror? Freedom from fear? A safe place for feelings? The truth is feelings can’t be dictated by others actions but rather your response. Governance, defense and public debate can and should be run on logic and not individual feelings.

  1. “To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly”

    This guy doesn’t seem to understand what the word ‘logic’ means (which is no surprise)…that is simply an assertion, which is demonstrably false.

    • Agreed….. Personally I’m not a big fan of ‘open’ carry but I challenge anyone to prevent my rights to carrying concealed!

      • Thankfully, it’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Fandom. Popular thoughts, words, and deeds usually don’t necessitate protection.

        • There is no distinction made or inferred between carrying open or concealed as far as the Second Amendment is concerned. My being a fan or not also does not matter BUT, in my opinion, carrying openly draws more attention to yourself and could ‘create’ or promote a situation which might not occur if you are carrying concealed. It also makes some people uneasy which is really not a good thing. Think of it like this: Having a sports car that will do 200 mph does not mean you have to drive it that fast every time you get behind the wheel. I’ve got a concealed carry permit for a reason and it’s not to show off my firearm or draw attention to myself. It’s for protection and that is my right under the 2nd Amendment!

        • Thats a good idea for yourself… i don’t (can’t) open carry, but I’ve always viewed open carriers as a “blue canary” of sorts. They aren’t your foe, but will be the first to be targeted in a fight. It allows you to pick your moment. So, from a practical perspective, don’t be so hard on the open carriers.

      • Agreed….. Personally I’m not a big fan of ‘open’ carry but I challenge anyone to prevent my rights to carrying concealed!

        the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        (Still looking for the adverb concealed anywhere in there…)

        I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that all law and court decisions have hinged on carrying openly being the presumed exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and carrying concealed being subject to state regulation.

        Just ask Peruta, et al.

        • But if you stop and think, “carrying concealed being subject to state regulation” makes as makes sense as stating the state has every right to look through your mail as long as it is not used for prosecution,

        • “… it seems to me that all law and court decisions have hinged on carrying openly being the presumed exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, and carrying concealed being subject to state regulation.”

          Yes, in terms of the time it was drafted, that is the way I understand it.

          If we are fortunate enough for Kennedy to retire and SCOTUS grants Peruta cert, I can envision the people of California being told lawful carry of firearms will be happening whether they like it or not.

          In my fantasy, I see the people of California being forced to vote on the mode of carry in their state.

          The clutched pearls, shrieks and pulling out of hair as they debate between the lesser of their perceived evil, that being open carry where they can see the evil gun coming, and concealed, where out-of-sight means out-of mind.

          Since Progressives are fully comfortable with their collective heads firmly planted it the sand like an Ostrich, I bet they’d choose concealed carry.

          Either way, it’s gonna be fun, fun, fun to watch…

        • I can’t argue with the legal aspects of your observation chip, but I hate the legal implications of a right only being a right if the government is able view it in the open and concealment is to be dictated by the government. The government doesn’t control private/concealed speach or regulate the prayers of your heart. We dont say its okay to practice free speech and thought only if the government can see it or we are alowed to go to church to worship but not pray silently as we walk down the street…… i hate big political statements (in your face political jack asses) whether done with speech, churches, or guns, but we either exercise these things freely, openly or privately, or not….. the jackasses I’m willing to live with.

      • Open carry has actually saved me from a violent confrontation. Also when the founders wrote “bear”, they likely meant openly, as concealed was what criminals and cowards did in their day.

      • You’ve already lost. The courts have ruled that concealed carry can be heavily regulated or outlawed. Only OC is protected (offer not valid in some states).

        • Not necessarily. The theory of Peruta is that the right to bear in public must be afforded in some manner, and that therefore, if the state bans one form, it must allow the other.
          California banned the open carrying of loaded firearms in 1969 (thanks, Ronnie), and after people started a movement for “open unloaded” in 2012/2013, a law was passed banning (with limited exceptions) open carry, loaded or unloaded, in all urban areas. Along with the “may issue” concealed carry law, applied by the San Diego sheriff to require that an applicant have “good cause” greater than that of the average citizen, the result was that the average resident of San Diego is barred from carrying firearms in public. The original Ninth circuit panel agreed that a right to carry must be afforded to all, but that decision was overruled by a Ninth Circuit en banc decision that carefully (and cynically) avoided the larger question presented, ruling simply that there was no right to concealed carry. That decision specifically stated that it was NOT addressing the question of a right to openly bear arms (which as noted, is illegal in most of the places were the need of self defense is greatest). A petition for certiorari is pending, and is on the supreme court calendar for today. Every time it has come up for conference so far, however, it has been kicked over to another date. On the other hand, the last time it was continued, it was only for one week, suggesting that its decision on whether to review the decision is near.

  2. “I support, as a basic liberty, Americans’ right to free speech. I believe free speech creates a deterrent to state overreach. At the same time, I do not want any American expressing his opinion in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will expose me or my children to uncomfortable thoughts is also a basic right. To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more people freely expressing opinions in public, the more likely I will be forced to re-think my world-view.” – Any Progressive (not shown) in a letter to the editor [via most any newspaper]

    • “I support, as a basic liberty, Americans’ right to peaceably assemble. I believe free assembly creates a deterrent to state overreach. At the same time, I do not want any American peaceably assembling in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will show my children how to publicly demonstrate is also a basic right. To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more people peaceably assembling in public, the less likely my children will be to abdicate their duty as citizens.”

      Bob would be happiest in “may issue” non-open carry DC where they also don’t recognize your right to peaceably assemble:

  3. Hey Bob- nice family you got there. Be a shame if something happened to them. And if it did, you’d be on your knees praying that someone with a gun was there to help them.

  4. I believe that freedom from fear that someone will shoot me or my children is also a basic right.

    There is no such right as a “freedom from fear.” In fact, there is no right to “freedom from” anything. You don’t have a right to freedom from death; you have a right to life, and therefore a right to defend your life. You don’t have a right to freedom from oppression; you have a right to liberty, and the agency and means to ensure your liberty. You don’t have a right to freedom from want; you have a right to pursue happiness, and therefore a right to provide for your own means and desires.

    To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.

    That’s not “simple logic”; that’s ex hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Bullets only fly when they come from firearms held by violent scofflaws. The three quarters of a million armed LEO in the country haven’t led to an increase in bullets flying, nor have the 12-15 million armed, law-abiding citizens.

      • That was exactly my thought when I stumbled across this article last night. Clearly, by his “logic,” cops should be disarmed.

        • Newsflash: some dude in Simi Valley is not a Second Amendment purist. Whatever.

      • I believe the Constitution reads ‘Congress shall make no law…’ The government has neither the authority to establish a state religion nor to prevent the religious from sharing their faith with others. You only have the right ignore religion, not a right to never be exposed to it.

        • That is true, however it should not only mean that I have a right to worship as I see fit, but also that I have a right to be free from laws that are a pure manifestation of Judeo-Christian “morality.” Some things are a given, such as murder is universally bad. It deprives another individual of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Others can (and will forever) be argued as grey areas. I’ll just throw the “A” word out there. But some things, such as the ludicrous notion that gay marriage should be forbidden on a federal or state level, are a de facto establishment of religion via law. And per the Constitution, Congress ain’t got no bidness doing that.

        • Marriage laws are a relic of the progressive era. Marriage used to be exclusively an institution of the church, but the state muscled in on the racket, mostly to prevent inter-racial marriage. We like to claim that we live in a ‘free country’ yet in order to marry you must ask permission of the state and pay a fee. How is that living in a free country? If your church approves of your relationship and conducts a ceremony then you’re married, the state should have no say in it.

          However, I believe you misunderstand the issue. The push for gay marriage had nothing to do with gays being free to cohabitate, they had that all along, but rather to use the power of the state to coerce Christians (but not Muslims) into violating their religious beliefs and participating in the ceremonies. This is blatantly unconstitutional, but the leftists in the courts have been eager to participate in this religious persecution.

          As far as laws being based on Judeo-Christian morality, all laws must be based on some morality (except the immoral ones). As an atheist you should be glad to live in such a country. If our laws were based on Islamic morality instead, we wouldn’t be debating the right of gays to marry, but rather how tall of a building to throw gays off of.

        • Who said I’m an atheist? Atheism requires an absence of faith that is every bit as much of a certainty as faith itself. And I really don’t care what Islamic law would look like, because the Constitution protects us from that nonsense as well.

          I tend to believe that “God” is a giant, glowing ball of light inside a black hole in the center of the universe, and that all life is a part of that, and eventually returns to it. And I don’t believe it gives two fracks what we do. Therefore, the only relevant laws are the laws of man and nature. We should make laws based on what is good for mankind, not based on what we think God or Allah or Shiva or Vishnu or Buddah or Tom Cruise, The Prophet On Earth want us to do.

        • C, one could make a successful claim that atheism is a religion, as it does also require a belief at the end of the day. So, if one has the right of freedom “from” religion, then one also has the right to not be exposed to atheist influenced laws and customs. If that were the case then one could sue the state for not having religious symbols on public display. That sounds stupid, but I can garuntee a good lawyer could argue that in court.

      • And there is no such thing as a right to freedom from religion.

        You have the right of freedom to exercise -or not to exercise – religious beliefs. You do not, however, have a right not to be exposed to the exercise of religious beliefs by others.

        • It isn’t about not being exposed to other people’s religious beliefs. It’s about not having other people’s religious beliefs interfere with my rights and vice versa. We all have the right to believe what we choose, and to practice those beliefs at home, in church, and even in public to an extent. We do not have the right to allow the practice of those beliefs to infringe upon rights that are protected by law. Examples include medical care, such as a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for birth control, government employees refusing to issue marriage licenses, and should also apply to application of taxes to causes that could be considered morally reprehensible, such as Planned Parenthood. The courts and politicians have gotten some of these issues right, but there’s still work to be done on others.

        • We’re human; we screw things up, even with the best intentions and motivated by right principles.

          The state should not be in the business of recognizing marriage, which is by definition a religious institution. The solution is not for the State to force upon society a redefinition of that religious institution, but rather for the State to divest itself from it altogether.

          Let the State grant civil unions to all and sundry under existing contract law, and leave marriage to the church.

          As for abortion (and pharmacists who have a sincere moral conviction against contraceptives): the matter ultimately isn’t religious in nature. Basic science (biology, physiology, and genetics) confirm that a unique human life exists at conception. Abortion unjustly takes an innocent human life.

          The concept of “personhood” is an arbitrary construct, used throughout history by the State to deny basic human rights to specific groups of humans.

          Roe v Wade is in obvious and direct contrast both to science and the constitution. It is not a religious argument.

        • Cj, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the fundamental right to the ‘pursuit of happiness’ while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion. In you’re case of the pharmacist, you cannot have the two freedoms remain intact if the pharmacist is forced by the government to violate his conscience. And bear in mind that the whole contraceptive controversy is wholly fabricated by the Democratic Party. It was first brought up by Clinton stooge George Stepanopolous (sp?) at a Republican debate when he asked Mitt Romney if he thought states had the constitutional right to ban contraceptives to which Romney basically answered by asking GS what he’d been smoking. I don’t know of any religious group that advocates forcing others to abstain from contraceptives. There is the case where the owners of Hobby Lobby defied the federal government in refusing to supply it’s employees with 4 abortifacients as required by Obamacare but did comply in offering contraceptives. The left likes to conflate contraception with abortifacients but they are completely different drugs doing drastically different tasks.

          What we have seen is multiple business owners being punished by the courts declining to participate in homosexual marriage due to religious objections. So, do you have the right to determine your own career or start your own business? Wouldn’t that be considered an integral part of pursuing happiness? But if you are forced by the federal government to abandon your religious convictions if you are allowed to pursue your happiness then you either don’t have the right to practice your religion or you don’t have a right to pursue happiness. And the courts have levied punishments far exceeding the inconvenience their religious convictions caused their would be clients. In the case of the baker in Oregon there were something like 20 other bakers in that town but the courts levied a fine well into the 6 figures. This is religious persecution and it’s selective persecution as there has yet to be a Muslim targeted for this kind of attack. This is nothing but unbridled anti-Christian bigotry facilitated by the federal government.

        • We’ve already covered the case of the Oregon bakery in another TTAG post. That “nice old couple” doxxed the lesbians, which caused them to receive death threats and nearly lose their children. That bakery got what it deserved. The punitive damages were due to the extreme and unwarranted distress that they caused the lesbian couple by releasing their personal information on Facebook, not because they refused to bake a cake.

          As for the pharmacists, they took an oath not to interfere in the care between a doctor and a patient unless a doctor makes a mistake and prescribes drugs that conflict with other drugs the patient is taking or that might otherwise cause harm. At that point, they have a duty to inform the patient. They do not have the right to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds, as that interferes with doctor/patient care. They do have the right to find another job that doesn’t conflict with their religious beliefs.

          I am aware of the difference between pre- and post-contraceptives. I don’t see how preventing a woman from ovulating is fundamentally any different from preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant all the time. It’s all just semantics anyhow. Either you believe that birth control interferes with God’s plan, or you don’t. And if you believe it does, you should also believe condoms, pulling out, shots, implants, and everything else equally interferes. And if you believe that… well then you should believe fertility trearments interfere as well.

        • An egg is part of a woman’s body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases, including preventing it from being created in the first place. However, once fertilized it contains his or her own unique set of human DNA. Drastic difference between killing a human individual and preventing ovulation.

    • I move that the first paragraph of Chip’s comment be featured in a separate post for all to see. It is the best response to the arbitrary claiming of rights I have ever seen.

    • +

      “At the same time” = But . . .

      LOVE THIS: “I offer simple logic: The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.”


  5. Another idiot acting as OSHA for rapists.

    He only wants bullets going one way… into the victims.

  6. Oh sure but when we apply this logic to anything else it’s no longer common sense. We could for example say that more refugees equal more chances of a terrorist attack. Or more old people driving equals more car accidents. Or I don’t know more politicians would equal to more cost to taxpayers. It’s just too bad that these brilliant politicians could not come up with a way to create more non-government sponsored jobs.

    • It’s not up to politicians to create non-government jobs. In fact, the only way that government could help much in that endeavor would be to disband, or at least get out of the way of the free market. Not going to happen, of course. Unless someone gives the old dominoes a good push…

      • I’ve always liked you, MamaLiberty. Not enough Mises/Rothbardians in these parts sometimes. I always have hope but it gets pretty thin sometimes.

  7. “I believe the presence of firearms creates a deterrent to state overreach.”

    I’m actually a bit pleasantly shocked that he admits that…

  8. Bob is ignorant of the issues. I don’t blame him however. The media is manipulating everyone to push their agenda to reach a gun free America.

    At the same time, I do not want any American bearing loaded firearms in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will shoot me or my children is also a basic right.

    Freedom from fear???? How can anyone have freedom from fear? Fear is completely subjective and varies person to person. Bob fears people in public with guns. Some people fear other drivers of cars. Some people fear heights. Some people are afraid of dogs. Some people are afraid of open or crowded spaces. Legislation based on fear is a bad idea.

    To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.”

    The same argument could be made regarding gun ownership in general, but that is acceptable to him. Somehow he is also okay with cops running around with guns as well. Regardless, his premise is false:

    Bob rationale is nothing but fear. He is thinking that people will just start shooting each other – blood in the streets – etc. The usual arguments. The bottom line is – people actually don’t want to get shot or have a gun fight in the street. That’s some Hollywood nonsense right there. A criminal is less likely to commit assault/rape/armed robbery/etc. if he thinks the victim could be armed. Armed society = polite society.

  9. The biggest problem with his argument, aside from the horrible misrepresentation of logic, is that there is zero evidence to support the claim. Legally armed citizens shooting bystanders is incredibly rare, far less common than police doing the same. Of the 8,000 or so gun homicides in America per year, only about 200-300 are committed by persons with no criminal record or not in relation to another crime. He overwhelming majority, 6500 or so, are gang related. America does not now, nor ever has had a GUN problem, we have a GANG problem, from the Irish “Gangs of New York” in the late 1800s to the Italian Mafia of the early 1900s to the Bloods, Crips, MS13s, Arkansas Nation and Mexican cartels of today.

    • +1

      In a country of 312 million (conservative counting) for additional perspective.

      As Drew says, most of our gun violence comes from very tiny percentage of our society, in very small geographic areas, from criminals often well known to law enforcement. In too many areas of our major cities the armed gang members fear being caught unarmed by a rival thug-gang far more than being caught by the police. Why? They know the court system will probably give them a slap on the wrist versus keeping them off the streets.

      America does not have a gun problem, but a thug-gang-drug culture problem. Things will improve when we finally start treating the disease, but that’s not politically viable for a certain party who is almost always the ones running these violence plagued communities.

      Go take 30-40 of our most violent zip codes out of our crime data and reexamine our gun murder rates, bet the results would be jaw dropping.

      • While you are partially right, if you continue to follow your logic, its not a gang problem but a demographic problem.

        Keep importing 3rd worlders, and subsidizing the lowest wrung of the social/economic scale to breed and eventually you become a 3rd world country.

        Keep adding water to whiskey and you don’t end up with better whiskey, you will eventually end up with water.

  10. With all the highly restrictive gun laws California has – and keeps piling on – I have to wonder why he has any concerns at all? The place should be a freakin’ utopia by now.

  11. I believe in the 1St Amendment. You’re entitled to your free speech. Just don’t express in public or publicly or outside of your home. Because if you and everyone else does, then I am going to realize that I can be offended when you don’t agree or correspond with my beliefs. Can’t have people disagreeing with me and making me feel ignorant. Ya gettin it yet BBBHHHHOB?! Constitutional Rights doesn’t stop at the door when I leave my house you boob.

  12. “I believe that freedom from fear that someone will shoot me or my children is also a basic right.”

    Bob, Bob, Bob — that irrational fear is called “paranoia.” Seek help for it.

  13. Religious idiots. God will protect him…you know, until God doesn’t because God works in mysterious ways and sometimes God has a greater purpose that we humans cannot understand or some horse shit like that.

    • Your comment confuses me. Nowhere in any of this, either in the original article or even in the comments here*, have I seen anyone talk about religion. Are you just having a bad day and felt like ranting about people of faith to feel better, or did I miss something?

      *the exception may be if someone used the phrase “God-given right” which may be possible, I’m not reading all the comments again to check for it.

      • TrappedInCommiefornia,

        No need to read all the comments: press your “control” key and the letter “F” at the same time to invoke a search function that will search the current website which you are viewing for whatever word/phrase you provide. Of course that assumes that you are browsing this sight from a desktop or notebook computer (or a really cool tablet or smart phone that somehow provides for the same function without a keyboard!).

        Anyhow, I used that function and did not see any other occurrence of “God” in this article or the comments.

      • And even then, “God-given” is simply used to establish an absolute that can’t be challenged; it’s meant to convey that rights are not conferred upon us by any human institution, and therefore no earthly authority has the power to take them away.

        And since nobody else mentioned religion before he chimed in with his needlessly combative little seizure, I’ll go with Occam’s Razor: This guy just wanted to let a bunch of people know that he’s a obnoxious asshole, but he was in too big a hurry to go door-and-door informing everyone.

  14. “The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.”

    Well, duh. He says that like it’s a bad thing, or rather, like it’s the worst thing. I consider rape, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes of violence and major property loss to be worse than a few bullets flying.

    If it takes being armed at home and in public, and the will to shoot if necessary to prevent those outcomes, then I accept that trade-off.

    The more that the criminal underclass encounters defiant, armed citizens, the more likely they are to get the message and perhaps give up the life.

  15. “At the same time, I do not want any American bearing loaded firearms in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will shoot me or my children is also a basic right”

    No such right exists but following his train of thought I am living free from fear that someone will shoot me by carrying a firearm so that I can defend myself. His “simple logic” is also disproven by statistics. Additionally I don’t give a fuck what he wants. He can jump right off a cliff. As if he’d rather be unarmed when a couple thugs jump him with knives. Idiot.

    And this is a grown “man” everyone.

  16. This guy sounds like one of the industry trolls that says similar things like ‘you have a right to make your own medical decisions, but keep your un-vaccinated kids at home’.

  17. At the same time, I do not want any American bearing loaded firearms in public

    Clearly un-American, and a terrorist. Because:
    1) It’s not the Bill of Wants/Needs… [what he wants is irrelevant]
    2) He clearly doesn’t mind if non-Americans are bearing loaded firearms in public.

  18. I do not want any American bearing loaded firearms in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will shoot me or my children is also a basic right. — Bob Wietin

    So, “freedom from fear” is a basic right? Well I fear that, if I am unarmed, I cannot stop a violent attacker from inflicting great bodily harm or killing me with a club, rock, hammer, ax, machete, or knife. And since being armed alleviates that fear, I have a RIGHT to possess self-defense firearms wherever I go.

    That was some “logic”. Except in my case, my right that alleviates my fear DOES NOT COMPEL OTHER PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST THEIR WILL. Mr. Wietin’s claimed “right” compels millions of other people to do something that they do not want to do … and which JEOPARDIZES THEIR LIVES. Who is right and who is wrong?

  19. He doesn’t want any American carrying loaded guns in public?

    I think he should rethink that. I would wager he’s perfectly fine with cops carrying loaded guns in public.

  20. “I support, as a basic liberty, Americans’ right to have OPINIONS. I believe the presence of OPINIONS creates a deterrent to GROUP THINK overreach. At the same time, I do not want any American having contrary OPINIONS in public, as I believe that freedom from fear that someone will DISAGREE me or my children is also a basic right. To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more OPINIONS there are in public, the more PEOPLE WILL BE OFFENDED.”

    Well, would you look at that! When you apply his same logic to the 1st Amendment. It seems quite silly.

  21. The more loaded guns out there, the more bullets will fly.

    There will be blood in the streets.

    It will be like the Wild West.

    Same ignorant rants every time, and yet they never happen after concealed carry or open carry is approved. So much for their so-called logic. My logic is based on factual evidence, not feelings.

    • They do suffer from different disorders that lead to hoplophobia. These are namely paranoia and transference. Some may even suffer from serious mental illness that should be treated.

  22. When the gang bangers, thieves, robbers, low life’s and extremists stop carrying then I just might consider leaving my side arm at home. Just let me know when that happens. Thank you.

  23. The “common sense” belief that “more guns will result in more gun violence” is held by most big city police chiefs across the nation (and of course their staffs), and is the basis of the restrictions imposed in LA, San Diego, their surrounding areas, and the Bay Area on the issuance of concealed carry licenses. When deposed, both the (then) sheriff of LA and the LA City Police chief repeated this refrain, although neither could point to any study that supported their belief. Unfortunately, Dr. Gary Wintemute, a Davis ER doc and avid anti-gunner provided the necessary “expert” testimony that is the basis for courts here upholding the carry limitations of the may issue law.

    • “and is the basis of the restrictions ”

      Not even remotely. These lies are the excuses, the tools used to create fear in the ignorant folks looking for guaranteed “safety.” The “basis” and reason for the use of the lies is CONTROL. That control is the most addictive drug in the world… control of other people. They’ll use any lie to promote it.

  24. Freedom is dangerous.

    When you are fearful of law abiding trained citizens with firearms you suffer from paranoia.

    Most states require a class(es) that must be passed before they issue a carry permit. My state of Florida is one of these states. Classes are taught by trained individuals mostly law enforcement and retired law enforcement.

    People should be glad that these people are willing to stand up to evil. All evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing.

  25. If you like your auto, keep your car at home in your garage. I don’t want people just driving around everywhere risking other peoples lives. Who knows, all it takes is one accident and that could cause a multi-car collision….people could die!

  26. “I believe the presence of firearms creates a deterrent to state overreach.”

    I’ll give him half-credit, in that not many Fudds will cede that point; most of them seem to believe that the U.S. Constitution only protects our right to hunt pigeons and deer.

    Too bad 50% is still an F.

    • Typical liberal elitest bait & switch talking points, he doesn’t think the peasants for which the talking points were crafted would be smart enough to figure out that what he’s actually saying is “I’m all for your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms as long as your guns are unloaded and locked up at home”.

  27. “To those who object, I offer simple logic: The more loaded guns there are in public, the more bullets will fly.”

    Simple mindedness is what he’s actually offering.

    Histrionic gun haters with their dire predictions of blood running in the streets when the Texas concealed carry law took effect two decades ago and again as open carry followed campus carry became Texas law within the last 17 months have unequivocally been proven wrong when the “bullets flying” mayhem they predicted never transpired.

    I personally believe that with few exceptions depending on the location and circumstance, open carry is a dumb choice if you’re serious about carrying a handgun for defensive purposes, but the Texas OC law turned out to be much ado about nothing as OC’ers are a rarity in the Lone Star State as common sense prevailed with the overwhelming majority of Texas handgun carry licensees opting for concealed carry and not open carry.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here