Scenes from the March For Our Lives

From Houston:

Nearly 15,000 descended Saturday morning on downtown Houston for the city’s March For Our Lives, advocating for greater gun control in light of last month’s Florida school shooting.

A mix of children and adults gathered in Houston’s Tranquility Park for the student-led march, many carrying signs that illustrated their fear of violence and demand for legislative action.

“I didn’t know what to expect here today, but I just expect change in the government,” said Austin Luchak, a ninth-grader at The Woodlands College Park High School who attended the march with his father. “I hope they follow through.”

Hundreds of marches are taking place across the country, largely driven by students who are organizing the events. The rally in Washington included Texans like Kay Hopper, a retiree from Austin who showed up with her daughter, son-in-law and grandchild. “I’m hoping that what starts here will change the world in Texas,” Hopper said.


In Houston, organizers expected 10,000 to 20,000 attendees to gather in Tranquility Park and march toward U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s office.

“Today, I hope our voices are heard, because we are the ones that go to school,” said Azariah Haro, a junior from Langham Creek High School in Cy-Fair ISD, who traveled to Saturday’s event with three friends. “I really hope we’re able to make a change.”

As protesters milled about shortly before the 9 a.m. start, volunteers worked to register young voters inspired into political action. Many brought signs voicing opposition to the National Rifle Association, while others implored replacing legislators who have been more supportive of expanded gun rights.

Emphasis mine. I’ll get back to that in a minute. Mayor Turner spoke at the rally, and he announced the creation of the Mayor’s Commission to End Gun Violence. Details will be forthcoming. In the meantime, there were rallies around the state as well.

In more than 800 planned “March for Our Lives” events across the country – including in Austin, Houston and Dallas – students and families protested against gun violence and called on lawmakers to take decisive action.

Thousands clogged Austin’s Congress Ave and gathered outside the pink-domed Capitol building, chanting and applauding as speakers – including Mayor Steve Adler, actor Matthew McConaughey and the local high school students organizers of the event – took their turns rallying the crowd.

“We cannot allow one more child to be shot at school. We cannot allow one more teacher to make the choice to jump in front of an assault rifle,” said state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin. “Not one more.” The crowd broke into chants of “Not one more!” as he spoke.

Many of the speakers at the Austin event pointedly described state lawmakers’ dithering on gun-control laws, and called for reforms – like a ban on assault-style weapons and bolstering the background-check process.

“Now there is not one solution that will prevent mass shootings,” Adler, the mayor, said at one point, “but there are common sense solutions most people can agree upon.” He suggested people on airlines’ “no-fly” lists should be banned from purchasing guns, and said, “if you can’t buy a gun in a gun store, you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun at a gun show.”

Watson dismissed a push to arm school staff and educators with weapons by saying teachers in the state are already-overburdened. “Adding sharpshooter to their list of obligations is ridiculous,” he said.

There were many more marches around the country and around the world as well. These are great to see, but what comes next is of greater importance. There is – correctly – a lot of focus on Congress, as there is a lot that can and should be done at the federal level to reform gun laws. Part of the reason for that is because Democrats have a decent chance of retaking the House, and even if they can’t get the Senate this year, it along with the Presidency are very doable in 2020.

It’s a much bigger challenge at the state level – the Lege isn’t flipping, and statewide offices are very much longshots. But we can make gains, and we can state our goals for state government, which if nothing else can serve as both vision and rallying cry. Right now, though, I don’t know what those goals are – I’m not even sure I could say what they should be. We’re pretty clear on things like education, health care, equality, the environment, and criminal justice, but gun issues have not been in the foreground except for when we have had to play defense. Someone asked me recently if I could point them to a legislative scorecard for gun control, and the only one either of us could find was from the NRA. There are local chapters here of national groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, but again that focus has been on the national scene. We know that if we want to change things in Texas we need to win more elections, but we need the candidates we are electing to have gun safety as one of their mandates. What is it we hope to accomplish on this issue in the Legislature in 2019? That needs to be our starting point.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in National news and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Scenes from the March For Our Lives

  1. Flypusher says:

    Cadet bone spurs had a lying toadie praise the courage of all those young people while he detours from his standard route back from playing golf. Typical

  2. Bill Daniels says:

    This was an embarrassing display we saw yesterday. What’s next? Tide pod eaters demanding that troops be quartered in their parents’ houses? Demanding that trials aren’t speedy and that they absolutely do not want the right to confront their accusers in court?

    This is the football kneelers, part II. They are spitting on the graves on the millions of Americans who have fought and died to obtain and keep the rights that these folks are demanding that they not only give up themselves, but take away from all of us.

    Embarrassing, and shameful.

  3. Ross says:

    I would praise the students if I didn’t think they were clueless and misguided, and being cynically manipulated by the forces of evil that think firearms are horrible and should only be possessed by the government. Of all of the proposals I’ve seen, the only semi-reasonable one is better background checks, and that one isn’t really reasonable on its face.

    All of the proposals to ban so called assault weapons are more of the same “ban guns with an appearance we think is scary” crap we’ve seen forever. Want to save more lives than occur in school shootings? Do a better job training police so they quit killing unarmed suspects for no reason other than the officer was “afraid for his life”.

  4. Flypusher says:

    You people who complain about football players protesting in a peaceful and non-disruptive manner, while not saying one word of disapproval over Trump mocking Senator McCain for getting captured in Vietnam, or disrespecting Gold Star families are some of the worst hypocrites ever. But you continue to one up yourselves. Those kids have a valid complaint. No country that’s not a war zone can compare with America’s body count from gun violence. Is this the sort of exceptionalism that you are proud of? The gun fanatics yammer about rights but not the responsibilities that must be paired with them. Keep pretending that we don’t have a serious problem, and don’t be shocked if you became a pariah someday.

  5. Flypusher says:

    You can disagree with them all you want, but saying that they are being manipulated is an an hominem cheap shot. You really think that the trauma they experienced counts for less in forming their opinions than this liver media conspiracy bogeyman?

  6. Bill Daniels says:

    Fly: I once got bit by a cat, so hard that it drew blood. That doesn’t make me a veterinarian or an expert on animal behavior. As to the Gold Star family, you’ve already been disingenuous. Trump hit ONE Gold Star family (not ‘Gold star families’, and that family hit him first, hard, and very publicly. Sorry, you don’t get to hide behind your dead son and attack without being hit back. The shame is the Kahns, not Trumps. I can only take solace in the fact that Trump has probably messed with the Kahn’s money, because he certainly has less business as a lawyer getting his Muslim buddies into the country now.

    As to McCain, he’s been trading on his war experience his whole adult life in politics. I’d say our country has paid whatever debt we owe John McCain a long time ago. Trump correctly pointed out that McCain wasn’t a war hero for being a great pilot, he was a war hero because he was a crappy pilot who got shot down. This is where facts trigger the fee-fee’s of some folks.

  7. Bill Daniels says:

    I don’t often agree with Ross, but he’s spot on right here.

    The only thing I have enjoyed about this whole debacle is the decision that the kids in the FL school must start using clear backpacks. Seeing these student ‘leaders’ upset about that, asking, “why punish all 3,000 kids for the actions of one kid” and being totally oblivious to the irony there makes me laugh.

  8. Flypusher says:

    As is typical Bill, you attempt to deceive through selective omission of pertinent facts.

    “As to the Gold Star family, you’ve already been disingenuous. Trump hit ONE Gold Star family (not ‘Gold star families’, and that family hit him first, hard, and very publicly. Sorry, you don’t get to hide behind your dead son and attack without being hit back. The shame is the Kahns, not Trumps.”

    Except that Trump hit first on that one, when he was frequently disparaging the patriotism of American Muslims in general. The Kahn family had every right to be offended by that. I saw their appearance at the DNC. What did they say that was not true?

    “Trump hit ONE Gold Star family (not ‘Gold star families’”

    You also conveniently forget about the Johnson family and Kelly disgracing himself by lying about Rep Wilson to cover for his boss’s horrid behavior. That’s 2, and counting, because he won’t stop being an insensitive self-centered ass.

    “Trump correctly pointed out that McCain wasn’t a war hero for being a great pilot, he was a war hero because he was a crappy pilot who got shot down. ”

    You and Trump are wrong again. McCain was a hero because when offered a chance to be released 5 years early, he said no because he didn’t want to leave his fellow POWs behind and didn’t want to be made into a propaganda tool to be used against his country. He paid for that choice with 5 years of torment and permanent disabilities. I have plenty of criticisms about McCain over some of his politics. I have nothing but respect for his sacrifice and nothing but contempt for cowards like Trump who mock it and toadies like you who make excuses for Trump’s appealing behavior.

  9. Flypusher says:

    Make that “appalling”

    stupid autocorrect

  10. Another useless march in Houston.

    Texas preempts fire arm laws.

    Maybe if Houston were smarter they’d try and keep city employees out of poverty or pass a simple 5 day paid leave ordinance for roughly 400k workers.

  11. Doug says:

    If you believe, as I do, that a gun owner should be held financially responsible for the damage done by his gun, sign this petition.

  12. Manny Barrera says:

    Sorry Ross, that should have been those that think like Bill.

  13. C.L. says:

    Bill and Ross, there’s a wave a coming, you two knuckleheads. These kids at MSDS are a generation of (new) voters who’ve been living with the memory of Columbine/Sandy Hook/Pulse nightclub/Sutherland Springs/Vegas concert/and now Parkland assault-style rifle shooting events for a while now. Being teenagers who are conditioned with instant gratification on the phones, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter accounts, are in no mind to wait on a bunch old white men with, let’s say, inventive readings of the 2nd Amendment, time, watching them sit on their hands and asses while debating the merits. They want changes in the guns laws and they want it now. Dollar to donuts says they’re going to get it.

    It does not surprise me that you’ve chosen to attack the messenger instead of acknowledging the problems associated with AR’s in the public domain.

  14. Ross says:

    Inventive readings of the 2nd Amendment? The operative words are “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That’s pretty clear. The militia clause us one reason, but it doesn’t stand alone.

    I see no issues wit AR15 type firearms in the public domain. They are no different, functionally, than other firearms that attract no attention at all. They look “scary” to some of the uninformed folks who are irrationally afraid of them, but that’s the only difference between an AR and the others.

  15. C.L. says:

    @Ross… re: “I see no issues wit AR15 type firearms in the public domain.”

    I’m sure you don’t.

  16. Ross says:

    CL, tell me what issues you have with AR type rifles in the public domain, and I will explain why you are misguided, ill informed, or lacking a clear understanding of how firearms function. Lots of folks lack enough understanding of firearms to clearly make an informed decision. There’s nothing wrong with that. What us wrong us to make an uninformed decision based on poor data.

  17. Bill Daniels says:


    You own a car, I’m guessing. You have insurance on that car, in case you accidentally hit someone. Guess what….if you hit someone on purpose, and it’s an intentional act, that isn’t covered. If someone steals your car, then goes out and runs over a family of six, your insurance will cover your car, but not the family of six the thief killed.

    Now, let’s apply that to guns. Take the most recent shooting in FL. Was that an intentional act? Yes? No insurance policy written will pay for that. Let’s look at the Sandy Hook shooting, where the guy STOLE his mother’s gun, then killed her, and then went on his shooting spree. The mother has liability insurance on the gun. OK. No coverage because it was stolen, the same reason you aren’t responsible for the damages of that family of six that thief ran over….IN YOUR CAR.

  18. Doug says:


    I own a car. I understand how auto insurance works. That doesn’t mean that gun owner’s insurance would work the same way with the same rules.

    Who do you think should pay when umpteen or fifty-something people are damaged or destroyed by a gun? The shooter, of course, but the shooter may do more damage than the shooter can possibly pay for, which leaves somebody on the hook. The victim? Society? I say it should be gun owners. Then the insurance company can assess your risk to society and assign a price to it. If you’ve got nothing but a 22 caliber rifle that you keep in a safe, you won’t pay much.

    Doesn’t violate any amendments. It just makes gun owners pay for the damage that guns do.

  19. Bill Daniels says:


    Sounds like you want ObamaCare, but for guns. What? Every gun owner pays into a victim pool and victims of crimes involving guns file a claim with the pool? That’s not very fair to the people who got run over and killed by trucks of peace, now, is it? It’s not fair to people who have been blown up, as we saw in Austin, and not fair to people who were stabbed or poisoned to death. What about THEIR loss? Who pays for them?

    I want to send police into your house to assess how many knives you have, and if you have any ‘assault knives’ like a machete, a Marine sword, etc., then make you pay into the knife victim pool. Do you see how absurd that is? Who pays into the bomb victim fund? It’s predominantly Muslims who bomb, so should Muslim families pay more, followed by white people, and then blacks and Hispanics paying less because they aren’t known for blowing people up?

    More on topic, how about a victim fund for the victims of illegal aliens, like the family of Kate Steinle. Who pays those victims? I’d say only leftists who want open borders should be taxed for that victim fund, because hey, people like me don’t want illegals here at all, so why should we pay? You don’t own a gun, so you wont pay the gun tax. Fair is fair, right?

  20. C.L. says:

    Oh Ross, I’m well aware how firearms operate. Grew up with guns in the house, I’m the grandson of a US Calvary office, the son of a Korean War vet, the stepson of a Lt. Commander in the Navy, and for the past 25 years have worked directly with two Medal of Honor recipients and a former Vietnam POW, OEF/OIF vets (both active duty and retired), gunny sergeants, bomb disposal guys, guys who worked the deck on the USS Lincoln in the Persian Gulf and guys who flew the jets, etc. I know guns don’t kill people, that the flying lead from the barrel is the actual cause of death… and I know there’s little to no reason to for the public to own an assault rifle, an instrument of war, a bringer of death, the hand of God. Yup, I also understand the argument your group continues to use, that the Second Amendment gives you the right to collect anything you want…and it pains me that you don’t understand the need for and the capabilities of a 1776 rifle or flintlock versus the lack of need for and the human-harming capabilities of a 30 round 2018 assault rifle. Fun to shoot, yup, but it has no place in the public domain, plain and simple.

  21. Doug says:

    Obamacare is not insurance, it’s wealth redistribution mislabeled as insurance.

    If you have a suggestion on better regulation of explosives, I’m interested.

    When a machete-wielding lunatic kills 58 and injures hundreds, we can talk about the need for knife insurance.

    Now, I’m going back to work on the nuclear bomb in my attic. I know you have no problem with that, neighbor.

  22. Bill Daniels says:


    I’m a libertarian. I support your right to own nukes, tanks, fighter jets, or whatever else you want.


  23. Doug says:


    Not all libertarians agree with you:

    Are you sure you’re not an anarchist?

    Anyway, I don’t expect you to sign the petition. I hope that supporters of “gun control” will sign it because, even though it’s not all they want, it’s a compromise that they’re more likely to get. Some gun owners, at least, are willing to accept responsibility for the risks that guns impose on everybody, even as they insist on keeping their guns.

  24. Ross says:

    CL, an assault rifle, by definition, can fire more than one round per trigger operation. There aren’t many of those in private ownership.

    If you know something about firearms, why would a law ban an AR variant, but not a Ruger Mini 14 or Remington 7400, which are functionally identical to the AR, but not scary looking? What makes an AR more dangerous in private hands than any other semiautomatic firearm?

  25. Manny Barrera says:

    FYI, not all gun deaths are intentional, don’t believe me, have Dick Cheney invite you hunting.

  26. Bill Daniels says:


    According to the Washington Post, your trying to educate people about guns, AKA ‘gunsplaining,’ is bullying people who don’t know much about guns and their function. Therefore you lose.

    There’s a WP tweet to that effect that I can’t post here.

  27. Steve Houston says:

    Manny, Cheney’s victim didn’t die.

    CL, why do you think you gained personal knowledge of weapons by association with various relatives and such? Until you are personally in the trenches and go through all the training they did, your knowledge of weapons is questionable at best. And our forefathers understood advances in weapon technology, their reasoning for recognizing the right of free men to own whatever weapons the government had being pretty obvious.

    Doug, mass killing by means of knives are not uncommon in places where gun control is strong, the Smithsonian Magazine ran an article on it awhile back if you’d like a reference point. And given the sheer number of guns already in the public realm, one could say the horse has already left the barn in regards to any effective gun control of the kind mentioned. I don’t own a bunch of guns and never owned a rifle but a demand to use a work around policy involving insurance to defeat the Second Amendment seems just as unconstitutional as some of the demands being made now. If you truly want to change the Constitution, by all means avail yourself of Article 5 of the document.

    Paper laws are not followed by criminals now so any more of them will be unlikely to impact those misfits wanting to harm others. Bill already pointed out how none of the proposed changes would have altered the outcomes of these recent events yet some of you are in denial that further controls would magically work better. And those who think existing gun owners have no impact on criminals must be willfully ignoring the truth about it because as much as I don’t care for weapons myself, I’ve seen it work a number of times.

  28. C.L. says:

    Just so I have it straight… there is no correlation to the 19 mass shooting incidents (155 deaths, 1984-94) pre-assault weapon ban, the 12 mass shooting incidents (89 deaths) during the 1994-2004 ban, and the 34 mass shooting incidents (302 deaths) since the ban was lifted in 2004……

    Got it.

    @Steve.. re: “Until you are personally in the trenches and go through all the training they did, your knowledge of weapons is questionable at best.” That’s the rub, right ? Any Joe can walk into Carter Country, etc., and purchase an assault rifle with zero experience or training with the weapon. Armed Forces personnel drill with the weapon as OJT… Nikolas Cruz, not so much.

    Also, an assault rifle, by definition, is one that is magazine fed, capable of rapid fire, and designed for infantry use. Doesn’t have to be a fully automatic weapon.

  29. Steve Houston says:

    CL, yet a correlation and causation are two completely different things. One does not make intelligent policy based on correlation, or at least shouldn’t but exactly what do you expect from these mental midgets that have been raised on hunter/killer videogames and mind altering drugs prescribed on a whim, all the while being told nothing they do is their fault?

    And the comment made was in regards to your belief that you were “well aware of how firearms operate” based on your family and associates that had actual training. I had a few discussions with a neurosurgeon once, does that qualify me to operate on you? I think not. Frankly, most of the rocket scientists that have been responsible for these mass shootings have displayed ample technical knowledge of how to use them so that is not the issue, what is at issue is whether we should collectively prevent most people from having modern weapons because of your belief that the Second Amendment only refers to muskets. Cannons were available at the time our Constitution was written yet our forefathers said nothing about limiting them, many of those farms said forefathers owned had such stationed in plain view too.

    Ultimately, there are already millions of weapons out there and the whole “rapid fire, magazine fed” line is all fine and dandy except most deaths by firearm do not involve those, and mass shootings would be better controlled by hardening the intended targets where mentally disturbed creeps know few weapons will be around to stop their rampages.

  30. C.L. says:

    Yeah Steve, call me crazy but I don’t think the problems with shootings can be solved by arming more of the citizenry.

  31. Doug says:

    @Steve, re mass killings with knives.

    I don’t your source. Here’s something from Australia:

    The most recent NHMP report (Virueda & Payne 2010) indicated that in 2007–08, more homicide victims died from stab wounds than from any other single cause of death. The number of homicides involving knives had remained relatively unchanged since 1989–90, although due to the decline in firearm homicides, knife-related homicides comprised a larger proportion of homicides recorded in the more recent data. In both 2006–07 and 2007–08, knives/sharp instruments were involved in 43 percent of homicides; by way of comparison, in 2000, knives and other sharp instruments accounted for only 30 percent of homicides.


    As for the rest, telling the rest of us that we have to arm ourselves too, we have to live in hardened bunkers, we have to hire security officers is depriving us of our right to be left alone. And claiming that a change of law is pointless because it will not have an immediate effect and because some will disobey the law is anarchy, because it is an argument against all laws.

  32. Bill Daniels says:

    Personally, while I support American’s God given and 2nd Amendment rights to support private ownership of cannons, I personally would be happy with maybe one howitzer and a few dozen Panzerfausts.

    You might be a redneck if you mow the grass and find an artillery piece.

  33. Manny Barrera says:

    Steve, I realized that but I wanted to write not all shooting victims are shot intentionally.

    But that was not the point being made, I don’t believe there are stats for how many accidental shootings occur, those would be covered under the insurance scenario mentioned.

    Guns are design to kill,

    Weapon. Weapon, an instrument used in combat for the purpose of killing, injuring, or defeating an enemy. A weapon may be a shock weapon, held in the hands, such as the club, mace, or sword. … The history of weapons of war is treated in the article military technology.

  34. Steve Houston says:

    CL, most of the weapons used in these attacks are stolen already so I don’t see newly imposed limits doing as much good as in some of those countries where gun ownership was modest to begin with. Every source I’ve seen claims there are more guns out there than there are people, and those don’t include all the illegal guns. Every time there’s talk about limiting specific weapons, sales fly through the roof too so limiting legal weapons isn’t the answer either. Schools are targeted because shooters know there are going to be very few weapons at the location and there are lots of helpless victims. But lets just say there was a way to make all existing guns disappear overnight, guns would still pour into the country faster than immigrants and crazies would just resort to other methods of killing scores of people.

    Doug, I mentioned the Smithsonian Magazine because that is where I last read about knives used in mass killings. Every time I post links, my comments need approval but a quick Google search shows there are millions of hits for the subject. Otherwise, the “right to be left alone” is implied, not stated, while the right to gun ownership is specifically stated so the nod goes to the latter. The suggestion regarding hardening potential targets is simply a case of being practical, any place where large numbers of people gather while mostly unarmed is a potential target for some crazy to rack up a high score as it were. Schools, churches, and concerts will always be bigger targets than say a local gun show, an NRA convention, or a police station in case you haven’t noticed. But I didn’t say a change in law was pointless, merely that those of you who want to override the Second Amendment have the means to do so via Article Five, simply adding new laws when the old laws already apply doesn’t add to your protection at all.

    Manny, okay but in most cases, the intention is to cause harm by the very nature of the beast. The reasoning might vary from protection to criminal activity but there are legal reasons why people resist changes to the laws, even if we don’t always agree with them. The vast majority of legal gun owners do not abuse their ownership, most of the statistics we read about are regarding criminal uses or state uses such as how many people were shot by police. Nobody keeps statistics on lawful uses of weapons which likely outweigh all criminal episodes by a huge margin. You might appreciate the comment of how the right seems determined to vilify undocumented migrants based on a few bad apples while the left seems determined to vilify all guns based on the limited number of bad uses of such, I’m paraphrasing but I’m sure you catch the drift.

  35. Doug says:

    Steve, you have falsely accused me of being a foe of the second amendment.

    As Justice Scalia wrote, in D.C. v Heller:
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

    I agree with Scalia in this. By suggesting a limitation on gun rights, I am not opposing the right that the second amendment grants.

  36. Steve Houston says:

    Doug, I never stated you were a “foe of the Second Amendment”, I simply pointed out that you had the ability to change the law of the land by virtue of the Constitution itself using Article Five. Whether we like to discuss it openly or not, our culture here is different from other countries people cite. I’d suggest those calling for more gun control be very careful of presenting our current line up with the opportunity to expand gun owner rights given Gorsuch is to the right of Scalia on the issue, the standing law of the land is that there is an individual right to bear arms with limits on felons, mentally ill, and so forth

    I have yet to see anything proposed that would realistically end the possibility of mass shootings, virtually every measure suggested would just limit or impose added costs to law abiding citizens with little or no impact on reducing the level of danger. Does requiring car insurance stop people from driving without insurance? No, it does not. Would adding a longer waiting period or including a mental health screening prevent criminals from obtaining weapons? No, they would not. Does facility “hardening” mean we have to turn elementary schools into “bunkers”? No, but adding levels of protection to slow down a crazed gunman while authorities respond or providing for at least SOME at the schools to possess firearms makes such places more secure than redundant paper laws ever will.

  37. Doug says:

    Steve, you wrote “… those of you who want to override the Second Amendment have the means to do so via Article Five.” Which implies that I seek to amend the constitution to override, or eliminate, the Second Amendment. I intend no such thing. I agree that there is a right to bear arms, with limits. We’re arguing about those limits here. I’m arguing that “will not take financial responsibility for the harm does with own weapon” ought to be a disqualifying limit, just like “felon” is now. I’m trying to work with the second amendment, while you are adding meaning to it that is not there and daring those who disagree to throw the whole thing out. That’s not a good long-term strategy.

  38. Manny Barrera says:

    Frankly, I think if people won’t consider getting rid of the second amendment as Justice Steven’s wrote, then I think a state should decide if they need a militia. If there is no need for a militia to protect it from the federal government then there is no need for anyone to own a gun.

    I don’t carry a gun (weapon) not because I fear the criminals but because when I was young I had more reason to fear the boys in blue. Thus I was quoted by Chronicle in the 90’s.

    I have a lot of friends and relatives that wore or wear a blue uniform.

    By the way most police officers would support gun laws as the carrying of weapons make their jobs harder.

  39. Bill Daniels says:


    DWS now wants background checks to buy cartridges, or as she refers to them, “bullets.”

    Do you want to send moderates to Team Trump? This is how you send moderates to Team Trump.

    https :// (close the space after https)

  40. C.L. says:

    Bill, relax. At this point in his presidency, it would take a cataclysmic event to send anyone over to Team Trump. I’ve always been a firm believer POTUS doesn’t do much to move the Country one way or another, but considering the clown car shit show this administration is, there aren’t many people looking to join his circus, regardless of the social issues.

  41. Bill Daniels says:


    You see guns as a “social issue,” like mandating that girls with penises shower with all the girls who do not have penises. It’s a lot more serious than that. Private ownership of guns is LIBERTY. It’s what separates citizens from subjects. It’s the difference between freedom and tyranny. Trying to take guns IS a cataclysmic event. Even Bill Clinton admitted that the 1994 AWB was what lost him control of the House and Senate.

    And now, leftists are emboldened enough to admit their real goal, the “Final Solution,” taking all the guns. That’s the kind of stuff that gets otherwise non political, disinterested couch potato-Americans out to vote.

    Have we learned nothing from history? Gun grabbing results in tyranny, misery, and death.

    How many examples of that do we need to have before that’s clear? Speaking of, why isn’t Bernie Sanders touting Venezuela as a socialist paradise anymore? He’s gone radio silent on that.

  42. Steve Houston says:

    Doug, you don’t necessarily have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment via the process, you can also openly modify provisions to change it as you see fit. Isn’t that more sensible than trying to backdoor change things like a thief in the night via burdening responsible gun owners with a multitude of insurance provisions or hoops to jump through?

    Manny, I hear what you’re saying, I’ve never felt any safer carrying a gun but can understand how some get a false sense of security doing so, many ending up victims of their own weapon if government statistics can be believed. Of course I’ve never felt particularly threatened by those here illegally and that issue drives some in the community off the deep end too.

  43. Bill Daniels says:


    You aren’t thinking this thing through. The police have a database from insurance companies of which cars are insured. Give them a database of which homes have gun insurance, and a companion database of which homes have lapsed gun policies. The police then raid those homes and seize the uninsured guns. Easy Peasy.

    “Sorry Mr. Smith, your payment on your gun liability policy was 2 days late, so we rammed your front door with an APC, held your family at gunpoint, and seized your guns. Next time, maybe you should allow for more mailing time when you send your gun liability insurance premium check.”

  44. C.L. says:

    Bill, re: “Private ownership of guns is LIBERTY. It’s what separates citizens from subjects. ” Huh ? Assault rifle ownership allowed or assault rifle ownership disallowed, the US is a constitutional federal republic and presidential representative democracy – that’s what defines the citizens versus subjects issue. You love your gun(s), I get that, but not every attempt or interest in eliminating the weapons of mass destruction from the public domain is a ‘zombie apocalypse, the gov’ment is coming to seize ALL our weapons’ event.

  45. Doug says:

    Steve, I do not prefer to change the constitution when a law change will suffice. I am in no way a ‘thief in the night’, trying to sneak anything past your vigilant self. Don’t resort to insults.

    Who are responsible gun owners? Was Nancy Lanza a responsible gun owner before her son killed her? I don’t think so. She took too little responsibility for a lethal weapon when she was alive, and left nothing behind to rebuild lives when she was gone. And there are boatloads more just like her, who you call responsible.

  46. Steve Houston says:

    Bill, when the police start raiding homes to confiscate cars that have lapsed insurance, I’ll buy into that scenario. Were insurance to be mandated for gun ownership, the same people complaining about bail, ID’s for voting, and a laundry list of other infringements on rights will jump up and down how poor people shouldn’t have to pay for coverage and must be subsidized.

    Doug, I wasn’t referring to you personally so calm down about it. Until the Supreme Court decides such a scheme is not an infringement on one’s rights, changing the Constitution to suit the desired changes is the only straightforward way to go. Former Justice Stevens seems to think so and he was one of those elites for a long time. Besides, unless you want those of us without guns to subsidize the boondoggle, good luck finding insurance companies willing to absorb the risks knowing they won’t be allowed to discriminate based on actuarial numbers. And insurance still won’t cover the intentional acts, nor will criminals be lining up to buy it.

    As far as Nancy Lanza, considering she was her son’s first victim and I don’t care to start blaming the victims of horrific crimes, I’m not inclined to judge how responsible she was based on the couple of news accounts I read back when this was all fresh. Granted, the Washington Post is light years more credible than anything we have in Houston and the other account made it clear that she tried very hard to instill a sense of responsibility in her son, but our society no longer warehouses mentally ill people in institutions or imposes controls upon them until something goes wrong so clearly we need to change how we treat such people rather than blame their victims.

  47. Bill Daniels says:


    If you keep your car in the garage, or on the driveway, and don’t take it on the public roads, then lapsed car insurance isn’t an issue. Your car is only a potential problem if you are driving it in public.

    The gun grabbers see your gun as a problem 24/7, even if it is safely in your home, in a safe. That’s why lapsed insurance for your gun is different from lapsed car insurance. I do agree with your assessment that “gun insurance” would be another ObamaCare boondoggle, a wealth redistribution program, as Doug correctly labeled it, and for the exact reasons you highlighted.

  48. Doug says:

    I could accept a policy that only required you to insure a gun that you could take outside of your own house. No one raids garages looking for uninsured vehicles, and no one is going to bother raiding your house to look for uninsured guns anyway.

    To be an Obamacare-like “wealth distribution program”, we’d have to ensure that gun owners with a history of violence who own machine guns would have to pay premiums no greater than 3 times as much as the premiums paid by pistol wielders with no criminal history, and we’d have to have a program where the government paid the cost of insurance for poor folks, so that everybody could be insured whether they could pay or not. That has not been proposed by anybody.

  49. C.L. says:

    Hold on… The Affordable Care Act mandated people buy medical insurance ? Spoiler Alert – it didn’t.

Comments are closed.