Texas state rep Suzanna Gratia-Hupp explains 2nd ammendment

Absolutely fabulous. Thanks.

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&hl=en#

I met her a few times at NRA meetings.
Her baby crashed into my left leg, in a corredor, in Seattle.

I wrote an article concerning the jurisprudential evolution
of the 2nd Amendment, as treated by the USSC, which I
distributed at some of those meetings, including to her.

The U.S. Dept. of Labor has its Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
which makes on-the-job safety rules. Its ofen called "O.S.H.A."

I told her that gun control is O.S.H.A. for violent criminals,
protecting them on-the-job from the defenses of their victims.

I was kind of thrilled a few years thereafter,
when I saw her interviewed on TV and she said that
gun control is O.S.H.A for violent criminals.

David

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

There are several reasons for the 2nd, any one of which would suffice.

You still read about 60,000 people being killed by snakes every year in India; that could not happen in a country whose people were armed. Snakes are basically what the 20 gauge shotgun was invented for.

Then again, my parents being from NY City and rural Texas and having met during WW-II when everybody was in uniform together, I noticed even as a child the radically different descriptions of the great depression from the two sides of the family. The Texans were telling me about having to live on jackrabbits and other things which could be shot with 22 and 30/30 ammo while the New Yorkers were telling me about people starving. Nobody should have any real problem deciding which side of that one they'd rather participate in...

0 Replies

No one is taking guns away from law-abiding residents of the country. Gun control is legal and is for keeping guns away from criminals and mental cases.

Unfortunately, many on the right have a paranoia connected to 2A. The result is that criminals and mental cases can easily obtain guns, including assault weapons. This is mindless.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
No one is taking guns away from law-abiding residents of the country.
With HELLER, McDonald v. Chicago
and HELLER 2, and with Obama being otherwise occupied,
that appears accurate; however, u assume that there are
"law-abiding residents of the country." That is near impossible;
(for anyone who is able to move around to be "law-abiding".
Some years ago, I attended a legal seminar given by PLI,
a respected institute of learning. It had c.6 experts, very senior lawyers
in a designated area of law answering questions from attorneys.
As to one question, there was very thorough analysis & deliberation
of several federal statutes with interpretive common law,
as applied to a given factual pattern, after which a consesus was
reached and advice rendered accordingly.

A few moments thereafter, one of the attorneys inquired qua
the applicability of a statute of NY State to the designated pattern of facts,
which turned the advice around to a contrary result.

The point is that even among these very senior professional experts,
thay forgot about applicable law n screwed up; ALL of them,
until reminded from the audience. If the very experienced experts
cannot decide among themselves what the applicable law is and requires,
how can a lay citizen live his life as being "law-abiding" ??

Its a hopeless situation.

It takes a miracle to find " a law-abiding resident " but each
citizen has a natural right, recognized by the USSC in HELLER,
of self defense and of possession of the means thereof.

Quote:
Gun control is legal and is for keeping guns away from criminals and mental cases.
That 's fool 's errand,
like trying to hold back an ocean tide with your fingers.
There is no chance that it will work.

Criminals will MAKE their own guns or buy from underground gunsmiths, if necessary.
The Law of Supply and Demand is the Supreme Law of the Land.
If u can 't keep marijuana out of their hands,
how do u expect to keep guns out of their hands ?
Guns are among the very first machines with moving parts,
from many centuries before electric tools & blueprints were available for their manufacture.

What about the Constitutional requirement
of "equal protection of the laws" in a matter of life n death ??

Quote:
Unfortunately, many on the right have a paranoia connected to 2A.
The result is that criminals and mental cases can easily obtain guns, including assault weapons. This is mindless.
Thay CAN and thay always COUD.
What is different ??

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

No one is taking guns away from law-abiding residents of the country. Gun control is legal and is for keeping guns away from criminals and mental cases.

Unfortunately, many on the right have a paranoia connected to 2A. The result is that criminals and mental cases can easily obtain guns, including assault weapons. This is mindless.

No, it's not mindless. If the only thing under discussion were keeping guns away from criminals and mental cases, there would be no debate, since any sane person would buy into that. However, I probably should stop here to say that a law keeping guns from mental cases would have to be defined pretty clearly so that the person in question would have had to have been legally certified as significantly disturbed. It can't be anyone who ever had any mental issue whatever.

We object to law abiding, sane citizens being prevented from buying guns, or having so many obstacles put in their way to buy guns as to make it very difficult. The Washington, DC case decided a year or so ago by the Supreme Court was certainly not about keeping guns from criminals and mental cases.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Advocate wrote:

No one is taking guns away from law-abiding residents of the country. Gun control is legal and is for keeping guns away from criminals and mental cases.

Unfortunately, many on the right have a paranoia connected to 2A. The result is that criminals and mental cases can easily obtain guns, including assault weapons. This is mindless.

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, it's not mindless. If the only thing under discussion were keeping guns away from criminals
and mental cases, there would be no debate, since any sane person would buy into that.

With all respect, I must disagree.
Has there ever in history been a time that a Prohibition
has kept ANYTHING away from criminals ??
Marijuana? Alcohol in the 1920s? Anything?
I don 't think so.
U might as well pass a law about turning water into gold.
Gun control is a fool 's errand.
If a criminal refuses to obay the laws against robbery;
If a criminal refuses to obay the laws against murder;
HOW can u convince him to obay gun control laws ????

As u correctly pointed out, the definition of "mental cases"
woud have to be done clearly and adroitly.
Suppose that some fellow leads a peaceful life for many years
and decades -- a gentle soul, but he thinks that he is the re-incarnation of Napoleon.
Shoud he be legally exposed to defenselessness against predatory violence?
What about "equal protection of the laws" ????

I propose that intolerably dangerous people (judged by their histories)
sane or not, be removed from contact with the decent people
and be removed from contact with the North American Continent, by BANISHMENT.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Interesting.

I note that she survived the encounter even though she had disarmed herself.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

The point is, that her parents DIDN'T survive the encounter, and that was precisely because she had disarmed herself in fear of legal consequences.

3 Replies

@gungasnake,

Why weren't the parents armed? Seems they have only themselves to blame.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Interesting.

I note that she survived the encounter even though she had disarmed herself.

The murderer was too busy murderering other innocent people.
The penalty for obaying that gun control law was death of both of her parents.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The point is, that her parents DIDN'T survive the encounter,
and that was precisely because she had disarmed herself in fear of legal consequences.

Yes, that 's what happened.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Why weren't the parents armed?
Seems they have only themselves to blame.

Its like failing to wear a seatbelt,
or failing to get health insurance; its negligent.

The primary blame is on the murderer.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

she had disarmed herself in fear of legal consequences.

I gathered from her testimony that she disarmed herself quite a while prior to the incident.

She has only herself to blame for not re-arming herself.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
she had disarmed herself in fear of legal consequences.

I gathered from her testimony that she disarmed herself quite a while prior to the incident.

She has only herself to blame for not re-arming herself.

Since that disaster, she has repeatedly said
that she wishes that she were in prison for violating
the gun control laws of the time so that, in consequence,
her parents woud remain alive; i.e., obedience of gun control law = dead parents.

She was subsequently elected to the legislature of Texas
and gun control was rejected and thrown out,
in preference to a scheme whereby the issuing authority MUST
grant a license to possess concealed firearms, unless
there is something drasticly rong with the applicant
in the way of criminal history or insanity.

David

0 Replies

Texas state rep Suzanna Gratia-Hupp explains 2nd ammendment

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know