- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
Does Rick Perry Carry a Gun While Campaigning? He Won't Say
By Dennis Henigan
Remember two summers ago when most Americans were appalled by the sight of guns openly carried by protesters at presidential speaking events and town hall forums on the health care issue? Now it’s not just the protesters bringing guns to political events. Now it may be the candidates themselves.
Texas governor and newly-announced presidential candidate Rick Perry has taken the incendiary mixture of guns and politics to a new level. When it comes to carrying concealed weapons, Perry certainly walks the walk. He has a concealed carry permit and proudly says that he carries a gun when he is out jogging.
Perry recently was asked if he is armed while campaigning. He didn’t respond by saying the question is ridiculous. He didn’t say that in the close quarters of a rope line, with a multitude of people pulling and tugging at him, a gun could easily drop to the ground or be taken from him. He didn’t say that an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service. He didn’t say any of those things. Instead, he smiled and refused to say whether or not he carried while campaigning. He added, “That’s why it’s called concealed.”
Rick Perry apparently doesn’t think the question is ridiculous. In fact, his sarcasm suggests he has no objection to political candidates carrying guns to campaign events; he seems to imply that he may do so himself. One thing is clear. The governor has been so thoroughly marinated in pro-gun ideology that he is unashamed about taking it to its logical extreme. If it is true that more guns in public places make us safer, why shouldn’t political candidates carry guns? Isn’t it the least they can do for their own safety?
I wonder if this thought ever occurred to Rick Perry: If a would-be presidential assailant is undeterred by Secret Service agents with Uzis, why would he be deterred by a presidential candidate packing heat? Does he think that if Ronald Reagan had been packing a Glock that fateful day 30 years ago, he would have gotten the drop on John Hinckley?
And then there’s Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). On Wednesday of last week, in expressing his frustration at the conduct of some of his Senate colleagues, Coburn told constituents, it’s “a good thing I can’t pack a gun on the Senate floor.” I don’t contest the senator’s subsequent statement that he intended the comment as a joke, although Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, (D-NY), whose husband was killed and son injured by gunfire, powerfully observed, “I don’t think any person who has been or knows a victim of gun violence would find this a laughing matter.”
Coburn’s tasteless joke also brings to mind the expression, “Half of all truth is said in jest.” The fact is that the senator, with one tasteless joke, effectively made the case against legalizing guns in public places. Yes, it is a good thing that senators can’t carry guns onto the Senate floor because the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence. It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders. It is the reason that our streets, restaurants and coffee houses are less safe in states that have made concealed carry easier. It is the reason that college campuses remain far safer than the gun-saturated communities that surround them, because the gun lobby has been foiled in its efforts to force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry
.
I wonder if Rick Perry got Coburn’s joke. Or if he’s wondering, “Why aren’t guns allowed on the Senate floor?”
If Rick Perry is our next president and he has a like-minded Congress, guns on the Senate floor may not be a laughing matter. They may well be the way things are in an American nightmare where, in political discourse, the guns speak louder than the rhetoric.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Every article you losers put
Every article you losers put out is whinier and whinier and makes less and less sense.
.
.
Who cares? Only a liberal
Who cares? Only a liberal would want to get involved in another law abiding citizens choice to be responsible for their own safety. Totally his business, just as its mine and yours. (unless your local leftwing politicians object)
"911 is the joke of your town".... Flavor Fla
Maybe the fact should be
Maybe the fact should be considered that Perry legally can not answer that question in the state of Texas. It is considered brandishing and is a serious offense. Just saying, as some one who legally carries in Texas, Perry made the right comment
For the record, it's only
For the record, it's only considered brandishing if you are using it in an offensive manner. Saying, "I carry" is not considered brandishing.
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
However concealed carry is
However concealed carry is the only form of carry legal in Texas, so acknowledging a carry is paramount to openly carrying or failing to conceal a firearm.
You might want to read PC
You might want to read PC §46.035. It says, "(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun."
It goes on but never states that it is an offense to acknowledge the fact that you are carrying. As a matter of fact in all of the Texas code I couldn't find anything that even mentioned talking about it. I may have missed it though.
www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf
"Does he think that if Ronald
"Does he think that if Ronald Reagan had been packing a Glock that fateful day 30 years ago, he would have gotten the drop on John Hinckley?"
I once met a guy who was in a car accident and was ejected from the vehicle because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The car then fell into a river and sank. Had he been wearing his seatbelt he most likely would have drowned. Is this sufficient evidence that we shouldn't wear seatbelts ?
Lets review the following 10
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured. December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS. October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students. April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church. Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois UNiversity, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage. May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off. Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone 5 incidents
Defenseless victims murdered: 86 Defenseless victims injured: 117
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; murdered: 7 injured: 14
Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.
people with concealed-carry
people with concealed-carry permits are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses. Statistically, concealed-carry permit holders are more likely to obey laws than the general public.
" the presence of guns, even
" the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence. It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders. It is the reason that our streets, restaurants and coffee houses are less safe in states that have made concealed carry easier. It is the reason that college campuses remain far safer than the gun-saturated communities that surround them, because the gun lobby has been foiled in its efforts to force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry"
Care to back up this ridiculous claim with some data? Because I have plenty of data that indicates just the opposite:
* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
*British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect. However, the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Also, since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.
You know, when an
You know, when an anti-freedom liberal gets ahold of figures, some may be correct, but the conclusions are all wrong.
That's because the liberal's values are all wrong.
I suggest that liberals speaking about disputes speak for himself instead of speaking about how others armed increase the risk of arguments. Liberals fear they would settle your disputes in anger: gun owners do not.
Your British figures are all wrong, as crime there has gone unanswered, so it soars.
And Chicago's violence is 40% higher because of the ban.
Wrong conclusions due to poor values.
I'm not sure if you only half
I'm not sure if you only half read my post. I started out quoting the liberal above me and debunking his statement with the statistics I have on file (Report: "Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2008/09." Edited by Kevin Smith and John Flatley. UK Home Office, January 21, 2010. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf Page 20: "Table 1.01 Offences initially recorded by the police as homicide by current classification: England and Wales, 1956 to 2008/09")
If you know this data to be inaccurate please cite a source so I can verify it and update my file.
My Data shows an INCREASE in violent crime since the gun laws in the UK. The statistics for Chicago show a decrease, but that decrease does not trend with the national decrease which suggests that whatever the cause of the national decrease it was impeded locally by the legislation.
Oh Brady campaign, who are
Oh Brady campaign, who are the idiots you get to continue donating to your stupid organization? And how do you get them to donate when the articles you put out are so thoroughly stupid?
"Does Rick Perry Carry a Gun
"Does Rick Perry Carry a Gun While Campaigning?"
Quick answer: None of your damn business.
Whenever a presidential
Whenever a presidential candidate is on a ropeline, if you look closely, you will see that there is a Secret Service agent on either side of them and behind them. Have any of these agents ever had their firearm,"easily drop to the ground or be taken fromt from them?" No, because they wear a proper holster, like I'm sure Perry does. They're not just stuffing it in their pants like a hoodlum. What an absurd argument.
Henigan alludes that, "...an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service." Well, I know a fair number of secret service agents who would welcome a protectee who could participate in their own defense. They're not to happy with the politicians that have no respect for the agents or their mission and would much prefer someone who respects law enforcement.
Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, Congressman and Senators CAN carry firearms on the capitol grounds, already.
BTW, the Secret Service hasn't used Uzi's since probably Reagan's time.
I carry a concealed weapon everyday and the average passerby would never know it, just as many concealed carry permit holders do. I also hope it is a tool that I never have to use, but I am fully prepared to in the event that I have to.
As you asked, why shouldnt
As you asked, why shouldnt political candidates carry firearms to protect themselves? I guess since Reagan having a firearm wouldnt have helped him, we should get rid of secret service agents hovering around the presisent as well since that didnt help Kennedy. Deterrence is only one way to protect yourself. Maybe you could look at it like an air bag backing up a seatbelt in a car accident. If the belt doesn't work, the airbag will fill the gap. If the gunman isn't stopped the thought of candidates and secret service agents being armed, they will be stopped by being shot dead.
I will bet that since your security system may not stop the criminal 30 years from now that can get by it will cause you to drop your service and pull the security system signs from your yard tomorrow. As for the headache for the secret service protecting an armed candidate, I'm sure they can work that problem out with the candidate, without the "help" of the Brady campaign. There is no doubt that a Perry presidency would be a nightmare for you at Brady because of his stance on firearms, but Brady doesn't speak for most of America and we dont share your "dream" of disarming citizens either,
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.