this video (http://robodoon.com/VIDEO/Gun%20Control%20Witness.wmv) is Suzanna Hupp, a retiring TX legislator, and her accounts of the Luby's shooting in 1991(?)

I hadn't seen this before and I thought it was interesting.

For those that might get the NRA's Women's Outlook, you might recognize her from this month's cover

Wow. I hadn't seen that either...its MOST interesting.

That was awesome, and she is correct! If I wasn't married... JP

Very well spoken. We need more people like her.

Hoorah!!!!

Well said, but doesn't she have too much common sense to be in politics??

Oh My God...

she was amazing.

Those politikers didn't like too much what she was saying...thats fer shure...

D

She went in there, had her ducks in a row and took care of business.

I think her point about ducks vs. the government is a interesting one.

Sometimes, I forget (I think many probably do) that much of what motivated the 2nd Amendment was a fear (perhaps the wrong word) of tyranical government. So while many of the pro vs anti arguments focus on "sporting uses" and "self defense", the issue of defense from the the gov't and the irony that the gov't is limiting the right to arms is often overlooked in general discourse. Now, perhaps that because so many gun owners do not own guns for that reason, but rather for hunting and self defense, antis feel the original message no longer applies.

Anywho, don't mean to get overly political. Just thought her POV was one to which I hadn't given enough thought. Especially interesting for those of us in a state with lots of hunting, wonderfully little gun law, and a historical distrust of the Federal Govt (see: 1777-1791).

Good find.

jonas

Jonas, it is a good point. There was a fear that a tyrannical government could form and that the right to bear arms oh heck, see the text below.

Text
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'
Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.

Says NOTHING about duck hunting! It doesn't protect duck hunting. The arguement I find most interesting is now over punctuation and capitalization and what it means legally. Lawyers, wonderful aren't they? Since the government uses both in official publications, then both versions should be valid and until they establish Just One through a Constitutional Convention, then we will not know for sure whether it is the right of each and every citizen to bear arms, or the right of the Militia as personified by the National Guard as one side of this hydra of a squabble goes.

The state of current gun laws in Alaska is pleasing to me.

Jonas, it is a good point. There was a fear that a tyrannical government could form and that the right to bear arms oh heck, see the text below.

Text
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."'
Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.

Says NOTHING about duck hunting! It doesn't protect duck hunting. The arguement I find most interesting is now over punctuation and capitalization and what it means legally. Lawyers, wonderful aren't they? Since the government uses both in official publications, then both versions should be valid and until they establish Just One through a Constitutional Convention, then we will not know for sure whether it is the right of each and every citizen to bear arms, or the right of the Militia as personified by the National Guard as one side of this hydra of a squabble goes.

The state of current gun laws in Alaska is pleasing to me.


Oh boy...I belive the term is 'can o'worms'! Very, very interesting. Gotta look more into that...learn me a thing or two.

Yup, AK and VT are just about tied when it comes to this particular Right.

Good stuff!!

jonas

Oh boy...I belive the term is 'can o'worms'! Very, very interesting. Gotta look more into that...learn me a thing or two.

Yup, AK and VT are just about tied when it comes to this particular Right.

Good stuff!!

jonas

We even have our very own "Vermont Carry" Law. :)

We even have our very own "Vermont Carry" Law. :)


Awwww, now you're just buttering me up...

Yeah, its funny...not that may people actually know about that law here...or lack thereof. Despite all the press we get for being a hippie liberal state, and despite all the out of state influence for our neighbors to the south and west, gun laws have remained basically untouched. Even Howard Dean disagreed with Kerry on gun laws...because he knew what the VT constituency thought about it.

A little common sense mixed with a low crime rate (and a tiny population) goes a long way.

jonas