TexasCHLforum.com

The Sergeant at Arms of the US Senate has been making the rounds on the cable news networks today and when asked specifically (preset question, I'm sure) whether members of Congress should carry concealed guns in their home districts he flatly states that "adding more guns to the mix" is a not the answer.



As with any distinguished career law enforcement officer, I salute Mr. Gainer for his 40-plus years of distinguished service. But I completely disagree with his assessment, obviously.

Seems typical of high-ranking law enforcement management types on the coasts to reflexively reject non-LEOs carrying guns. More police presence - meaning more budget money and more power for their departments - seems to be their only answer (though not necessarily in this case because he would not be providing more actual boots on the ground officers to politicians in their home districts anyway - but he's a career climber who is former chief of Capitol police and likely wants another bigger job some day, so he has to toe the line on such issues).

Anyway, you can read about it here:

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/s ... he-answer/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -good-idea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I caught him this morning on one of the cable networks..

Whenever I hear a LEO suggest that citizens should not be armed, I roll my eyes..
A member here has a sig quote that I liked...

My paraphrasing.. (because I'm old and can't remember exactly)
"When you're in urgent need of the police, rest assured they are only a few minutes away."

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Also like this one - I carry a gun because a copy is too heavy.

austinrealtor wrote:When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Also like this one - I carry a gun because a copy is too heavy.

Thanks.! (getting old sucks)

RoyGBiv wrote:...Thanks.! (getting old sucks)

No it doesn't. There comes a time to hand off the baton to the young Turks.

I'm rather proud of having survived for three score and nine sometimes tumultuous and danger filled years, times and situations. My biggest fear now is living beyond my finite resources. The young guys can fix the world's ills.

You got that right.

Most high ranking people in law enforcement are more politician than law enforcement officer.

mbw wrote:Most high ranking people in law enforcement are more politician than law enforcement officer.

some just remember what it's like to be a little guy better than others

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/12/s ... ment-93932" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
January 12th, 2011 9:41 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Here's the thing:
Texas homeowners defend themselves more and more.
The Sheriff in San Antonio last week about a dead home invader
"They should think before breaking in "This might be the last house I'll break into"

Severity of punishment is not a deterrent, a high risk of suffering consequences is. Who runs red lights when they see the police car there?

More guns concealed by more people creates a riskier situation for criminals. So if it's a day they "feel lucky" they might be, or maybe not so much.

More guns = less crime.
Even if it didn't, it levels the playing field.a bit.

You want us to play baseball and let the other team use bats, but we can't? Why should they get all the good equipment?

austinrealtor wrote:

mbw wrote:Most high ranking people in law enforcement are more politician than law enforcement officer.

some just remember what it's like to be a little guy better than others

I think this is true across a wide range of career paths.

I find it interesting that many LEO types who are against guns in people's personal possesion will agree that if they were going against a known criminal that a large show of potentiol force is extremely useful. They'll say that by showing the criminal that there is not hope in trying to fight it out since they will lose the criminal will more than likely just give up. For the record I agree. Yet somehow people being armed and therefore more and more criminals getting dissapeared is not a show of force by society and will not make criminals back down and realize there is no use in fighting it out.

I think at this point in my life if someone who is intelligent and yet still says that gun control works I really have to wonder what their real intentions are with furthering that perspective.

Remember, it's not about GUNS it's about CONTROL.

I'm sure there are plenty of good, honest police officials who just truly believe that less guns on the streets equals less crime - or at least less danger to them and their officers. Remember, in many areas of this country cops see guns in the hands of criminals constantly, but rarely in the hands of law abiding citizens because of strict laws in those areas against civilian use of guns.

But there are also others who toe the gun control line as political expediency in areas like NY or Kalifornia where gun control is the norm. And a few others who - similar to the first category but with a much more sinister bent - think only THEY, the professionals, with their superior training are capable of properly handling firearms and/or they like the control that comes with being the only guy in the room with a gun.

I dunno, I'm just glad that MOST cops in Texas are on our side.

Most high ranking people in law enforcement are more politician than law enforcement officer.

I think this is true across a wide range of career paths.

If not EVERY career path.

I KNOW it's true in our military.


While "more guns" is certainly NOT the answer, LESS guns is not the answer either.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the FIRST armed individual on the scene in Tuscon was an armed citizen. People tend to examine the possible negative outcomes that could occur should, heaven forbid [<---note: sarcasm], citizens defend themselves. I, however, tend to examine the positive. Sure, a citizen could dork up a situation, but they could also resolve a situation.

The moral and physical cowardice prevalent in our society disgusts me to no end.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:The moral and physical cowardice prevalent in our society disgusts me to no end.

I agree with you that people should "get involved"... No more Kitty... But I also believe that some folks are just not wired to run towards a fight, in hopes that they might render assistance. And that's OK too. Fear can be paralyzing, I've seen it. I'd never blame anyone for running away from gunshots, it's a very sane thing to do.

What really gets to ME is that the folks in the latter category want to take away my means to protect myself (or render assistance to another should I choose to do so) because THEY cannot see themselves needing or wanting to do so in a similar situation.