The NRA seems to have been struck dumb, at least for the moment, in response to the shooting in Louisana. Let me help, because the event demands analysis, not to mention that it’s always correct to say that what we need is more guns.
The tragic events in the Lafayette movie theater could have been prevented if only Louisiana had not disarmed its citizens. If it had ‘shall-issue’ rules for concealed carry, and allowed anyone over, say, 16 open-carry permission, the theater would have been full of armed citizens who would surely have killed the shooter the minute he drew his own weapon…and, in the darkness and confusion, presumably several of each other, grateful for the chance to personally water the tree of liberty. Instead, senseless tragedy ensued. Governor Jindal, when are you going to give your citizens their Second Amendment rights?
Another recent episode teaches us the importance of everyone, always, packing heat; in New York, this woman would never have suffered violence and robbery if she had only been carrying an appropriate weapon and had training to use it.
JamesWimberley says
Like most other US states, Louisiana allows citizens to buy 50-calibre sniper rifles, such as the well-known Barrett M82. These are accurate to a mile, and the massive bullet goes through a house, let alone a deer. It's a small consolation that federal law bans the manufacture and sale of armour-piercing ammunition like the Norwegian military Raufoss round: this will penetrate half an inch of armour plate and set fire to anything inside, like helicopter fuel. But nothing stops you from buying incendiary ammunition in most states, and many gun fans are capable of tweaking their own ammo. The would-be terrorist has to shell out $12,000, which looks a good investment for a bad guy planning on .. better stop there. The Secret Service must have nightmares about Barretts.
One of the unstated advantages of a contested Democratic primary is that it gives you a fallback if the worst happens to the leading candidate. Anybody want to bet that there isn”t enough hatred and paranoia around for this risk to be real?
Keith_Humphreys says
My understanding is that the Barrett resulted in a substantial redesign of how the Secret Service protects politicians. Remarkable and disturbing to think that they have to account at every event for any unobstructed view out to a mile or even farther.
doncoffin64 says
I will just say that there are way too many people out there who do not understand irony…you are in danger of being taken seriously.
JamesWimberley says
I worried about that before posting. But with the RBC readership, the incremental risk is infinitesimal. The wackos don't need tips from liberal blogs to figure this out. There is something very peculiar already about a civilian who spends $12,000 on a Barrett. What's it for?
chris_y says
What's it for? You've already explained that, it's to shoot through armour plate from a mile away. Why would you want to do that? I don't know, but you've got to be READY, man.
call_me_navarro says
speaking as an 8th generation native of texas with friends and relatives who are on all parts of the gun culture spectrum i can give you a couple of other answers to the question of what it's for. for some it's for possessing a precision machine engineered to incredible tolerances which may hang in their gun safe and never get fired. for others it's the thrill of plinking at a half mile out. while still others want to test their ability to shoot accurately at range. i know at least one individual for each of those possibilities who would jump at the chance to own one if they had a spare $12000. these may not be the best reasons to own something like that but they don't require the psychopathy some of you imply.
some of you may remember me from gun control discussions with the unique brett bellmore. if you do, you should recall that i favor increased gun regulation. dismissively snickering about someone buying an expensive firearm is not on point any more than dismissing al gore in the fight against global warming because of the size of his house.
MICHAEL_OHARE says
Well, Rick Perry is on my side here, and no-one ever accused Rick Perry of irony http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/rick-perry…
cartman94501 says
I'm not generally in favor of people carrying guns everywhere they go, but why should a movie theater have different rules from anyplace else?
J_Michael_Neal says
The fact that it's deliberately kept dark is one factor in play here.
thusbloggedanderson says
This post doesn't go far enough, alas. Until everyone in Louisiana is *required* to carry a gun at all times, they will not be truly free!
(Everyone? Everyone. Not kids, you say? Why do you want kids to be defenseless victims?)
MICHAEL_OHARE says
You must be one of those wishy-washy liberals, thusblogged. Carrying a gun (cf. my second example) doesn't cut it: it's every citizen's duty to have a piece in hand, loaded and safety off, at all times. Left hand is OK if you've practiced. Yes, driving, eating, courting, at the movies, in class; all times. Liberty is a stern mistress: if you don't get the drop on the bad guy, you're part of the problem, and f you can't do whatever you're about with one hand, it's not worth doing.
JamesWimberley says
James Thurber's Walter Mitty:
J_Michael_Neal says
Very sinister.