Phil Riddle’s lack of either logic or rational thought

I would like to point out what I perceive as a lack of either logic or rational thought in the editorial by Phil Riddle in the Sunday, May 24 edition of the Democrat (“Guns on Campuses is Bad Policy”). Mr. Riddle devoted quite a few column inches to the argument that this proposed change in the law represents an unacceptable risk to college students. “Look at all those people who could be hurt” he says. “It will confuse the poor police” he continues. Please explain to me *exactly* how different these scenarios are from Wal-Mart on Saturday, the mall, or a crowded restaurant. Answer: you can’t. Any location with citizens present has the same potential outcomes as any other. Mr. Riddle’s argument is either valid for all locations or no locations. He has not made a convincing argument for why there is a difference between campus and the movie theater, nor can he. Young men and women of college age by the hundreds of thousands serve this country every day with weapons far greater than what’s carried for CHL. Employing Mr. Riddle’s logic they’re old enough to go man machine guns to fight and die for us, but somehow the same age standard applied to campuses means they’re automatically too immature, stupid, or untrustworthy to protect their own life or that of others on campus. Were I still that age I would be greatly insulted by this condescension. I applaud Sen. Estes’ support of common sense, rational thought, and the Constitution. When the time comes for a vote to be taken in the House I hope to be able to likewise laud Rep. Phil King.

3 responses

  1. I totally agree! There is nothing conditional about the 2nd amendment. I would like to draw to Riddle’s attention one indisputable fact. Recent history clearly shows that each time there have been mass killings in schools, all the shooters had ONE thing in common. They were the ONLY individuals on the scene who were armed. I am curious as to the burdon of liability Riddle would expect to be placed on the Government if his son was gunned down in a school setting because he was denied the right (BY THE GOVERNMENT) to defend himself.

  2. I too am in complete agreement. The 2nd amendment enumerates an inherent RIGHT to protect yourself. Period. It is not a privilege granted by government and on the whim of bureaucrats. I find it disturbing, to say the least, that neither Mike Manning nor Larry Fowler fully support an adult’s right to protect themselves.
    From the Democrat:
    Weatherford Chief of Police Mike Manning, who describes himself as “in favor of the right to keep and bear arms,” says the proposed law could foster an unsafe environment at the schools.

    Manning and Parker County Sheriff Larry Fowler say they have no problem with allowing CHL qualified students to keep guns in their dorms, since that is their residence.

    However, while admitting the rule could “cut both ways,” Fowler said he’s not sure he would support allowing firearms in classrooms.
    Then again I’m one of those “radicals” that thinks only being “allowed” to carry a handgun for protection if I jump through a bunch of hoops and ask for permission (CHL) is an affront to my right to bear arms. Some people don’t understand “shall not be infringed”

    note: I understand that with every right comes responsibility.

  3. I guess I’m radical too. If you are a law abiding citizen there should be NO law preventing you from carrying a gun.

%d bloggers like this: