Texas Legislative Watch

A conservative information source for Texas Legislative matters & elections

More Copycat Killings and a Proposal.

Posted by Mike O on December 10, 2007

Well, we now have our first copycats from the mall shootings in the Colorado church killings. These were pretty well guaranteed after the News Media gave the mall shooter exactly what he wanted; fame. Others want fame and- since notoriety is now as good as fame for good deeds in our valueless society- they’ll copy the mall killer. These killings, like the shootings that followed the Virginia Tech murders, fall to some degree on today’s merger of notoriety and fame into celebrity and the merchants of this crazed notion, the modern media.

It is unknown at this time if the two church shootings are related, but its ending should be most illustrative to the people concerned about this. It also shows a possible answer. The shooter who died I’m sure never expected to run into an armed individual in a church. ‘Oh My God; someone had a gun in a church?’ will be the reaction of many. If he hadn’t, how many else would be dead?

My first recommendation is that every state pass a Conceal Handgun law; one that requires not only a full background check, but also a significant amount of training. In Texas, I feel the training requirement (10 hours) should be doubled. But every state should have a similar law.

Then, if any business (except bars and clubs) wants to enhance security very cheaply, all it has to do is place very large, prominent signs near all entrances with the following, then abide by its contents:

All Concealed Carry License holders Are Welcome!
Show your Concealed Carry License and Receive 5% off!

This will be looked at by the gun control types as asinine, but it’s not. Do you think for one minute someone looking for victims would try anything in such a place? Nearly every person who makes the effort to obtain a Concealed Handgun License is an upstanding citizen and take the responsibility very seriously. Many of the anti-gun types would be shocked of how few gun owners actually do get a CHL (or whatever it’s called in any given state); In Texas, one of the most pro-gun states around, only 1% of the population has gone through the process. And many do not carry most of the time; a sign like that would increase the tendency to carry more routinely. It’s enough to be an intimidating, unknown force.

Update: Welcome, instapundit readers.  Hopefully, the contents here will not detract too much from his top-notch reputation 🙂


69 Responses to “More Copycat Killings and a Proposal.”

  1. Gullyborg said

    the problem is, many people who are anti-gun would get the license just for the savings at places. it would weaken the value of the license and places would assume they have a lot of “protection” among their patrons when they really didn’t.

    there would need to be some sort of credentialling system for license holders beyond mere training.

    how about a discount for NRA members instead? it would be much harder to get anti-gun people to join the NRA, knowing their membership fees would be used politically.

    what’s interesting is that many businesses DO offer NRA discounts, in the same way they offer discounts for AAA, AARP, and other big membership organizations. they just don’t advertise as much.

  2. Bob Howland said

    Who is supposed to pay for the paperwork, infrastructure, instructor time etc. associated with a concealed carry law – the states or the permit holders? Most laws that I have heard require hefty outlays of cash (e.g., $300 every 2 or 3 years) by the permit holder. This has two effects which never, repeat never, get mentioned (1) it tends to legally disarm the poor, the very people who have to live in a cesspool and who could be most helped by having a handgun, carry permit and training and (2) it probably acts as a revenue source for the state, which is why so many states are enacting these laws.

  3. Charlie Foxtrot said

    I’d gladly patronize that establishment! Even if I didn’t have a CCW.

    An Instareader.

  4. […] do you like this gun control policy? My first recommendation is that every state pass a Conceal Handgun law; one that requires not only […]

  5. JorgXMcKie said

    I’d vote for that.

  6. Skyler said

    What is the justification for any training, let alone doubling the training?

    Guns are remarkably simple to use. The amount of training received does not much improve the chances of safe handling (if that is indeed your point in wishing to require more training). In Iraq I’ve seen negligent discharges of automatic weapons from people with no lack of training.

    The fewer reasons that the government claims as reasons to infringe our right to bear arms the better. I’d much rather that concealed permits be done away with and everyone be allowed to carry if and when they want to. The licensing requirement just gives the government more excuses to inflict liability on you if they don’t like something you’ve done and set up a de facto registration list.

  7. E9 RET said

    I’m one of that 1% in Texas and, as far as I can tell, I’m in the even smaller percentage of that that actually carries my weapon everywhere except friends’ home who have asked me not to. I’m probably more comfortable carrying my weapon since I was in Law Enforcement 24 + years. By “more comfortable” I mean exactly that, I don’t notice the weapon and it’s not a physical burden to carry it.

    As for when/if I would pull it in defense of my family, others, or myself the situation becomes judgmental. I find myself constantly updating scenarios in my mind; something that maybe most CHL holders don’t do. All else being equal, I suspect that I would let a gunman depart the convenience store if I was present and no one was in immediate danger of injury or death, after all, I’m no longer a cop. I have, however, already made my mind up that If someone starts shooting in my vicinity I will respond.

    That 1% is a good number to start with. If 1% or so of most states’ citizens carried weapons all the time i believe the cumulative effect would be profound and positive.

    I don’t carry a weapon because I’m a “gun nut,” I carry a weapon because many years of experience has taught me that evil is unpredictable and thus unpreventable. Having a weapon available gives me options to ameliorate the “unpreventable” aspect of the equation.

    I choose to be a sheepdog among the sheep when the wolves visit.

  8. If he hadn’t, how many else would be dead?

    I think it was a she rather than a he.

  9. GruntDoc said

    Under the current CHL in Texas, you’re prohibited from carrying in Church, even with a CH.

  10. _Jon said

    Except that in Michigan, you are not permitted to reveal that you have a CPL or that you are carrying, except to LEO’s….

  11. amr said

    As much as I dislike federalizing what should be state laws, we need a national CCW law. I have a Florida carry permit for a non-resident and I can’t carry in my home state. As a matter of fact I can’t legally transport my 45 in my car unless I’m going to a firing range. A CCW permit is very difficult to obtain, even for retired police officers; it took a federal law on their behalf to authorize them to carry. So technically I can’t take it out of my residence to a surrounding state or states while traveling that does recognize my CCW.

    I have always felt that publicly identifying gun free zones is an act of utter stupidly and potentially deadly. I like the 5% off idea, but I would imagine in the NE it would scare off people. I am constantly amazed at the number of people who are anti-gun and think that the police and government will protect them.

  12. Louis Wheeler said

    It’s all about incentives. The Politically Correct incentive is to pretend that evil, violent people do not exist. And that the government is the solution to all problems. This contention is disproved by the gory headlines.

    You tend to get more of any activity in this world that is rewarded. If you reward good actions by publicizing them, then you get more good. If public spirited people get their names in the newspapers while felons do not, then you will get more of the former and less of the latter.

    The current system could not be better designed to reward criminal actions. It rewards violence; it punishes peaceful and protective activities.

    This all comes from looking at superficial actions rather than their consequences. It comes from hopeful thinking, rather than realistic thinking. It pretends that bad people can be talked out of being bad. That hasn’t ever happened, because bad people like being bad.

  13. mopenshaw said

    The cost of the concealed carry license ($140 in Texas, renewed every 4 years) is a justifiable expense and prevents someone from taking it overly lightly. As for the poor, the cost is significant but not insurmountable; a decent gun costs more.

    As for NO training; simple to use, if you want to use it like an idiot. I prefer untrained people NOT to be armed! In Iraq, you’d have a whole heck of a lot more accidental discharges without the training. Carrying concealed is different than ownership, and should remain so IMHO.

  14. mopenshaw said

    And yes, it was a she and may God bless her for saving so many lives by doing something all sane people dread to do.

  15. Aglifter said

    I realize this sounds like the usual e-net malarky, but wasn’t there an FBI study about 9?% of all defensive handgun uses being less than 3 yards… You don’t need training, and to require either fees or training for the exercise of a right, is revolting. (Which is why, as much as I despise welfare, and the charging of fees, I’m glad TX subsidizes the fees for the indigent — at least it implies the recognition that carrying a gun is a right.)

    Is training beneficial, yes, of course, and if someone wishes to pursue it, and keep up w. it, that’s great. Going through the proper training to maintain a racing license will make you a better driver as well, but, as a society, we have decided that such training is too much of a barrier in terms of cost and time, given the benefit… and driving isn’t even a right…

  16. Bearster said

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Requiring the people to beg for permission, meet arbitrary licensure requiremnts, and generally subjecting him to government scrutiny and taking his time shall not be considered “infringement” for purposes of this section.”

    Oh, right. That’s not what the Second Amendment actually says. Is it?

  17. Daniel said

    That she, with a CC, was a security person hired by the church.

    She was quoted as saying when she heard the shots, she came running into the Church, encountered the culprit in the act – and shot him.

  18. Robb Allen said

    I would suggest that instead, you only require that a person show that they kept themselves “well regulated” if and only if they actually used the firearm in an incident. Show receipts or logs from a gun range, hunting trips, etc. and you’re golden. Unable to show you’ve practiced in the past 6 months? You get a hefty ticket (but no criminal penalties) and points against your permit (which can be worked off at the local shooting gallery).

    You may say this tongue in cheek, but realize that many places offer cops free food and drink because it entices cops to visit their establishment and generally criminals don’t commit crimes in front of the fuzz.

  19. amr said

    The cost for obtaining a CCW permit is $117 plus your cost for finger printing ($5.00 for me) and in Florida it is good for 5 years. The training in large part is for your own good. Revolvers and semi-autos are yes relatively simple to use, but under stress what was simple at the firing range or your backyard becomes much less so. Also retrieving the conceal weapon can be a pain in an emergency unless it has become somewhat routine. So practice is needed so you don’t pull it out, point it at the bad guy and find out the safety is still on and you can’t remember where it’s located as the bad guy blows you away. .

  20. mopenshaw said

    In Texas, it’s not that arbitrary and there is no begging for permission. Felons have their rights taken away and this right is also included (there are also clause for domestic violence misdemeanors, which I personally agree with, but could see a constituitional argument against). Hiding a weapon on one’s person if far different than ownership of said weapon. I do agree that the Arizona law, where anyone is allowed to carry a weapon openly, is a clearer case of honoring the 2nd amendment; Texas has no such law on the books.

    Free speech is infringed by my inability to yell fire in a theater; it’s a matter of the application of common sense.

  21. Chris said

    When I was a goldsmith, I carried even though i couldn’t get a permit then (could now, though; law changed). LEOs who were customers assured me it was far better to be alive and explaining than dead and legal, IF (big “if”) I had used deadly force AT THE RIGHT TIME. In any given situation, that right can come and go, and that’s what I believe CCW license instruction should be about.

  22. megapotamus said

    Yeah, “shall not be infringed.” is a pretty high bar. It seems in plain language to bar ANY control on RBKA. I wouldn’t mind trying that state of affairs and if it proves to be too violent then the 2A would be ammended to allow the sort of control measures that are currently unConstitutional. That’s pretty pie-in-the-sky politically though and it seems RKBA issues have been moving the right way lately anyhow so I’m good with the status quo. You never hear even the whiniest nanny-stater bark on gun control anymore. Folks of tender age do not know how bad it once was and how the trends seemed to point towards total bans back in the ’80s.

  23. Kevin P. said

    Under the current CHL in Texas, you’re prohibited from carrying in Church, even with a CH.

    GruntDoc, this is not quite correct, you are prohibited from carrying in a church only when it has posted the 30.06 sign. Very few churches have posted this. I copied this from another forum:

    It’s a common misconception because the law is a little confusing. You have PC 46.035(b)(6) which says churches are off limits, but then later subsection (i) was added to the statute which reads:

    (i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply
    if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

  24. edh said

    Does anybody think that some facilities of public accommodation should limit the ability to carry in a concealed weapon?

    Two examples: (1) an establishment that serves alcohol, or (2) a crowded stadium?

  25. Skyler said

    Thanks for being so concerned for my “own good,” amr. I’m quite a good shot and I am more than familiar enough with weapons that I don’t think they need any training program to be used effectively. That is the entire point of a firearm, isn’t it? It equalizes the ability to use force.

    If someone doesn’t use their weapon to the degree of efficiency you prefer, shouldn’t that be their problem, not yours?

  26. mopenshaw said

    Robb, I was not being all that ‘tongue-in-cheek’. When was the last time any gun store or gun show suffered multiple acts of violence due to a deranged person? I doubt the Whataburger right next to my normal gun range has EVER been robbed. Very few of these deranged types are actually willing to take return fire; they are looking for a power rush or perceived revenge; there ain’t much of either to be had while duckiing a hail of return fire and peeing in your pants.

  27. Concealed carry holders would frequent those places, but I wouldn’t let anyone in on my little secret… especially not for a measly 5%.

    The biggest deterrent factor of CCW is that the gremlins don’t know who is carrying and who isn’t. So, in effect, by carrying a concealed firearm you are protecting yourself, but in essence increasing the safety of everyone.

  28. Nobody Important said

    Typical fellow gun nuts.

    We’re debating about whether training is necessary to know how to use a handgun.

    But I don’t see that anybody has mentioned about knowing when to use a handgun.


  29. mopenshaw said

    I listed 5% as an example; the main thing is that such places should specifically welcome CHL holders. Many place look as such as ‘not normal’ and some post specific signs disallowing it.

    I go places I feel welcome, whether it saves me a bunch of money or not.

  30. The Ace said

    “I have, however, already made my mind up that If someone starts shooting in my vicinity I will respond.”

    Interesting though. I have CCW’s from VA (resident) and Florida (non-resident) and I carry A LOT. I’ve pretty much taken that approach. Really the only circumstance I’m taking the gun out of the holster is if I hear shots or someone much bigger than me is coming at me with any sort of object (or I guess an attempted carjacking). Being in court for the next 5 years otherwise just isn’t worth it. And yes, the gun controllers have made whole self-defense process an obstacle to responsible firearms ownership as well.

  31. Gray One said

    Reference the argument about no training or more training, in Texas much of the “training” is not firearms proficiency, rather it is training in the legal elements of defense, the limits on carrying, etc. The firearms proficiency test is pretty much pass/ fail, and if you fail, you can go get more training at your own expense and try again later.This makes sense to me- why require a certain amount of hours of training for every CCH applicant, when a proficiency test with known standards will quickly screen out those who are not ready to carry safely. The legal/ ethical training needs to be presented in a standard manner simply to provide a guarantee that all CCH holders _know_ their responsibilities and limits.

  32. DaveP. said

    That’s pretty much the same as it is in NC, Gray One. The handling and shooting test itself is dirt simple (to the point where if you CAN’T pass, you’d be better off with a white cane) but many hours are spent on legal concerns and shoot/no shoot decision making.

    Skyler, if you choose not to know or be trained in little details like when the law justifies lethal self-defense or what to do if stopped by a police officer… i’d say it’s a lot more YOUR problem than mine. Except to the extent that the news articles about your subsequent arrest or funeral will be used to make those of us who are aware of our responsibilities look bad.

  33. Skyler said


    The government holds me responsible for complying with every law in the local jursidiction and federal statutes and even the federal register of administrative laws whether I’ve read them or not. Why would this be any different?

    I’d much rather trust myself to know the law than to trust the government with a list of gun owners with my name on it.

  34. Mike said

    Good idea. However, I think they patron should show BOTH the permit and the gun.

  35. Well, as somebody who trains folks who want to get carry permits, I’m certainly in favor of training. That said, I don’t see that there’s much difference, on the ground, between those states that mandate lengthy training — like Texas — and those states, like Pennsylvania, who only require a permit holder applicant to, well, walk in and apply. The filter for irresponsibility seems to be the requirement to apply, rather than the training. My guess is that folks in Pennsylvania who think they need additional training — and, yeah, the legal issues are more important than the shooting stuff; self-defense shooting takes place at very close range — go and get it.

  36. Caffer said

    First, Texas doesn’t require ten hours of instruction. Second, nobody ever fails the tests, written and practical. Third, many of the folks selling the instruction are frauds interested only in the few bucks per student.

    Finally, why should some clerk in Austin decide who gets to defend her life or the life of his family? Why should it cost large amounts of money to buy permission to defend oneself?

    And, why should the agency who defines what a ‘criminal’ is, decide that a state defined criminal has no right to self defense?

    And so forth.

  37. mopenshaw said

    I took the 10 hours of training required, had two in our class wash out on their shooting test (a bit scary, because it’s not that difficult to at least pass it), and the instructors I had were all retired state police. A jury of your peers determines if you lose your rights for gun ownership, along with the other rights lost with a conviction (like the right to vote). States have always defined felonies, per Constitutional law. And no clerk alone determines any of this.

    And so forth.

  38. Chris said

    The training requirement is bogus.

    I live in NH, where there is no requirement for training, or fingerprints. The state “shall issue” within 14 days, unless you’re a felon or insane.

    Our crime rates are low up here.

  39. ezag said

    This is a variant on the old anti-hijacking idea in the 70s and 80s. Everybody on international flights be required to carry a gun. Unworkable when the hi-jackers are suicidal.

  40. Mandatory Training

    More Copycat Killings and a Proposal
    Have stores post signs and provide a discount to licensed concealed weapons holders.
    Some mass killings have been stopped by private citizens with their own weapons
    Stores increa

  41. Max said

    Mandatory training? By who? People who don’t want you to have a carry permit? How do you think that would work? How do you work training around a job? How do you get hundreds of people through a class that accomodates ten and is held once a year? How do you fill out the application for the class if no application forms are ever printed.

  42. Tim in PA said

    “Guns are remarkably simple to use.”

    In the sense of making them go gang, yes, but the decision to employ them is not nearly as simple. Furthermore, I’ve found that the average gun owner (as opposed to those who have a CCW and carry regularly) have no knowledge of and little interest in such basic things as clearing a stoppage. A simple afternoon-long class wouldn’t hurt.

  43. In MO, the required training is of questionable benefit. One 8 hour class, mostly covering what you can and can’t do with a firearm (off limit places, brandishing, local laws, etc) a review of the 4 rules, and minimal trigger time. There is no written test. The shooting test is to keep 15 out of 20 on a B27 at 7 yards.

    Doubling the duration of the class wouldn’t make any difference. If you take a lifelong firearms enthusiast and a complete newbee and put them in the same class, the enthusiast isn’t going to learn a darn thing, and the newbee isn’t going to know near enough. Doesn’t matter how long the class is.

    Everyone tries to relate a drivers exam with mandatory CCW training. Next time you’re driving in traffic, look around… how effective is that drivers test again?

    ‘One size fits all’ training classes just don’t work. They’re not effective. No matter how long, or what the exam is. The people giving the classes are going to have to pass the majority of their students, or they won’t have any. Since that’s the case, they will train on how to pass the class, not on how to safely carry a defensive weapon.

    Carrying a firearm without the proper knowledge and skills is stupid. Legislation against stupidity is even more so.

  44. mopenshaw said

    Chris, I agree classwork and testing don’t cover things nearly as well as we’d all like. But- like driving tests- it sure beats having nothing. Just read a few of the ‘simple to use’ comments here and I think you’ll agree some people don’t have a clue. A little effort there wouldn’t hurt. The reason I advocated doubling the class is primarily for more practical application, with a couple hours of case study thrown in. The main purpose of the class is really to make sure people take this stuff more seriously than just walking into a stor, plopping down money, shoving a gun into their belt, and walking out.

  45. barrysrib said

    Nebraska’s CCW permit is $100 and is valid for five years. Renewal is $50. The licensee is required to pay for the weapon training, which has to be given by someone approved by the Nebraska State Patrol, following whatever requirements there are. (Couldn’t see any on the website I was accessing) There are about 8-9 states that reciprocate NE’s CCW, but NE does not reciprocate ANY states! Weird…..

    I don’t know that someone having a gun would have stopped what happened at Westroads Mall, but it DID stop what was happening in Colorado. And thank God it did. The woman wielding the gun was a former police officer and kept a level head when needed. That is the type of training I’m all in for where CCW is concerned. I don’t carry a gun because I don’t think I’d have the guts to use it if I needed it – and I don’t want to arm a criminal with my indecision!

    Yes, we knew there would be copycats to what Robert Hawkins did here in Omaha. Stupid Media!! They don’t learn…. and stupid people! They give the “train wreck” information because the people clamour for it. If we’d stop being so darn nosey, they’d stop publishing every little detail they can find.

    You cannot regulate morality, that’s the sad truth of the matter. And the one question no one will ever be able to answer is “At what point did it go so far that (Fill in the blank with perp’s name) felt there was no turning back?”

    Great post – thanks for provoking some thought!

  46. […] a suggestion to improve security around the […]

  47. […] More Copycat Killings and a Proposal. Well, we now have our first copycats from the mall shootings in the Colorado church killings. These were pretty well […] […]

  48. grepon said

    As regards spreading the message far and wide that people carry, I always show my CHL together with my driver’s license when asked for ID, for example when making purchases. It is a weird vibe to send out as regards who I am, and I don’t like that, but on balance it spreads the knowledge that there are people are out there carrying concealed. At least the few % of the population who have to check ID’s for credit card and check purchases, bank tellers and the like, out there will get the message. Hopefully by casual conversation that will spread to potential goblins and deter them.

  49. rmd said

    Re: comment #2, Texas’s CHL law includes a hardship provision which reduces the cost significantly.

    Re: comment #9, I believe you’re referring to PC 46.035(b)(6) but take note of footnote (i) at the end of that section which effectively puts churches on an even footing with all other private properties.

  50. rmd said

    Clarification re #49. First, after posting, I saw that someone else had already addressed the 46.035 question. Secondly, I meant “private properties” in the sense of private businesses as distinct from public operations like government offices. Of course, you are not required to post a 30.06 sign on your home.

  51. Son of Life said

    What good is fame if you are dead to enjoy it?

  52. TTB said

    I see no reason for a carry permit to cost any more than a drivers licence, nor be any more difficult to obtain, nor to last a shorter period.

  53. mopenshaw said

    TTB: in Texas, they are equivelent in effort and duration; the cost is a fair amount higher, which is about economies of scale and the cost of the background checks as much as anything else.

    Son of Life: of no use to most people. But to suicidal people, the News Media- and the public attraction to it with our now valueless judgement of celebrity status- makes it attractive. These people use to just go out and off themselves, which is fine by me.

  54. Fiftycal said

    First, Texas does NOT prohibit carry in churches. The training is 10 hours. And very few people have it. Praise allah that the woman in Colorado was sharp enough to volunteer to serve as a “guard”.

  55. mopenshaw said

    Thank God for Jeanne Assam! Her statement:

    “I saw him coming through the doors” and took cover, Assam said. “I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down.”

    “God was with me,” Assam said. “I didn’t think for a minute to run away.”

    “It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God,” she said.


  56. L said

    There’s a problem with your approach to gun ownership. There should be no licensing or training requirement for concealed carry. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say, “Subjects the state deems trustworthy may be granted a firearm.” The 2nd Amendment does say, “… shall not be infringed.”

  57. mopenshaw said

    One more time, folks: concealed carry and ownership of firearms are two different issues. If anything, ‘the right to bear arms shall not be infringed’ would probably protect OPEN carry more clearly. And would THAT be an interesting Supreme Court case 😀

  58. yopocono said

    I think the common denominator with all of these people is that they never got any kind of positive recognition in their spooned lives, then suddenly they realize the only way to compensate for all the years of being a wanker is to get back at society. Everyone wants respect but respect is like a boomerang, you have to give it to get it. There is no other way try it, to the homeless person thug or banker…be polite courteous and respectfull, and they’ll return it

  59. Concealed Carry should be legal without a permit.
    If we have the right to keep and bear arms, then no permit should be necessary.

  60. […] More Copycat Killings and a Proposal The shooter who died I’m sure never expected to run into an armed individual in a church. ‘Oh My God; someone had a gun in a church?’ will be the reaction of many. If he hadn’t, how many else would be dead? […]

  61. Gerry said

    #20 above. I tire in the effort to correct persons who claim to know the law, or some tiny piece of the law. I refer to inferences, or outright statements that one cannot ” (shout) fire ina (crowded) theater”. That’s just bullshit, though very popular bullshit. It’s an Urban Myth and in places a hoax.
    It originates in the case before the Supremes, 1919, Schenk vs US. Oliver Wendel Holmes makes an aside of what might not be protected speech, “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”. NOTE the “falsely”, something almost every user forgets to include. Idiots, piled on idiots, shoehorned into morons and covered over with ignorant wackos. G]

    [In holding for Schenk’s constitutional right to distribute pamphlets against the draft during war time, both outside of draft boards and through the mails, Mr. Justice O. W. Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court: (extract)

    “But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

  62. Tazbot said

    What a simple solution.

  63. zahraen said

    A test Comment from iran!!!

  64. “It is unknown at this time if the two church shootings are related”

    It now appears that the shootings are connected and linked to a young person who was booted out of their missionary program.

  65. mopenshaw said

    Of course, I tire of somebody who miss the point entirely while peering at the details.

    The point is that the freedom of speech, like to freedom to bear arms, IS constrained to some point. If you don’t like the ‘yelling fire in a theater’ analogy, how about libel and slander provisions? Those are clearly restrictions of ‘free speech’, as is the illegality of me buying and operating a fully armed M1A1 tank on my right to bear arms.

  66. cbgrace said

    This is a hot topic I guess…I just couldn’t read all the other posts. By the way, I am a Texan. I don’t carry a concealed weapon, not that I am opposed to it. One guy asked why double the training to carry – because a gun is so simple to fire, people need training so they can be told to engage the safety. Come on…the training is for those carrying so they don’t shoot themselves in the foot.

    Heck, I say every state should have write to carry a concealed weapon laws…

  67. […] Suggestions after another Campus Shooting February 15, 2008 — Mike O I made some suggestions after the last one, to which Instapundit comment was ‘only 5%?’  Fine, […]

  68. […] Mass Shooting of Innocents. Why? Posted on February 16, 2008 by Mike O I wrote on this before but let’s address it again and expound on […]

  69. […] Will ‘Wanted’ Trigger the Next Columbine? Posted on July 1, 2008 by Mike O I did enjoy the movie ‘Wanted’ (even as my son and I laughed at the unending violations in the laws of physics), but it is a concern that this particular movie will trigger other mass killings.  It has all the same touchpoints of the ‘Matrix’ (which served as a triggering image for the sick pair at Columbine) and it’s clear that Hollywood has not learned the lessons of glorifying violence by ‘deadenders’, any more than the News Media has.  […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: