Monday, July 18, 2011

Arizona Senator Lori Klein - Proud Gun Owner


Tip sent in by Bruce


The dispute was this: Did a local lawmaker intentionally point her loaded .380 Ruger at a newspaper reporter during an interview, or was it all just a silly misunderstanding?

The reporter, Richard Ruelas, who writes for The Arizona Republic, said it was deliberate. Not hostile, mind you, but purposeful: State Senator Lori Klein was proudly showing off her piece. He told this story first in an article published Sunday in The Republic, repeated it in subsequent public comments and went through it one more time on the telephone with me. He sounded incredulous still.

He said that as he sat with Klein just outside the Senate chamber to discuss her gun-toting ways, “I looked down and saw a red dot on my chest.” He looked up and realized the dot was the laser sight of the Ruger, which she carries in her pocketbook. Although he wasn’t sure just then whether it had bullets in it, she informed him — after she’d lowered the pistol — that it always does.

The Republic article caused a public outcry that she had been reckless. Even Arizonans have their limits. She then disputed Ruelas’s account, saying that he had strayed into the gun’s sight as she demonstrated how it worked. After that she went silent.
The author goes on to bemoan the fact that "a cavalier attitude about guns persists and even flourishes" in spite of the recent high profile shooting in Arizona. He states that the Senator's pink gun is not cute and cannot be compared to Häagen-Dazs ice cream. But what in the world does Lori Klein and all the other lawful gun owners have to do with the criminal use of guns? Aren't they two completely separate things? That's what our gun-rights friends keep trying to say.

In my opinion they're all part of the same problem. There's much more in common between criminal gun owners and lawful gun owners than there is between either of them and the gun control folks. Let me explain.

All the guns that are used in crime start out legally owned by someone. In the case of Jared Loughner, he himself was the legitimate and legal owner of the gun, as sad a fact as that is, given the terrible and tragic lack of mental health screening that exists. He bought the gun, and then used it in a crime.

But, the same is true for the inner city hoodlum who shoots a rival drug dealer in Newark. He may have bought the gun from another criminal, in fact his particular gun may have had several illegal owners before it was used in a murder. But if you could trace it back far enough, you would find a point at which it passed from the hand of its legitimate owner to that of a criminal.

This is why we need strong gun control laws at the national level AIMED AT THE LAW ABIDING. No one disputes the fact that criminals won't obey our silly laws. That's exactly the reason, along with the fact that the legitimate gun owners of America seem to have such a hard time holding on to their guns, that we need proper gun control laws.

Of course, if I were writing those laws, Lori Klein would have to relinquish her guns immediately.

How does that sound? Please leave a comment.

9 comments:

  1. "...inner city hoodlum...


    RACIST!

    ReplyDelete
  2. FatWhiteMan:

    "RACIST!"

    Really? "inner", "city" or "hoodlum". Which of those three words denotes "racism"? Or is it just that you read "inner city hoodlum" and immediately think, "not white"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe demmocommie, that he is making a reference to something I wrote here a while back where a conservative racist radio broadcaster used the terminology as political code when calling for people in Atlanta Georgia to go out and shoot 'urban thugs'.

    We've strayed away from what I see as the more important elelment of this story - that no responsible gun owner should be pointing a loaded weapon at another, for demonstration purposes (in this case to show off). That is one way accidents happen, it violates what most people consider safe gun handling.

    There can be significant amounts of black on black violence, with or without firearms. Frank Bruni is not speaking of that here. Why? What makes Bruni's terminology not racist where the other use was?

    Bruni cites Newark New Jersey, which does NOT have an overwhelming (more than 95%)black urban population living in poverty as part of their crime statistics, differing significantly from Atlanta, Georgia; and Bruni does not have a history of being racist.

    Fat White Man likes to conflate things by glossing over the important differences. He is intellectually dishonest that way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry, I have trouble keeping all of the secret code straight.

    URBAN THUG = Black Criminal = RACIST

    INNER CITY HOODLUM = Non Black Criminal = NOT RACIST.

    Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. FWM, How do you feel about what the Senator did?

    ReplyDelete
  6. no one got hurt and her political career is toastJuly 19, 2011 at 4:05 PM

    FWM, How do you feel about what the Senator did?

    She has proved herself an idiot, she should be humiliated, and would never get another vote from myself or any other responsible gun owner I know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course, if I were writing those laws, Lori Klein would have to relinquish her guns immediately.

    How does that sound? Please leave a comment.


    Its the guns fault. Clearly it wanted to be pointed at the reporter. Fortunately it hadn't possessed its owner enough to pull the trigger. No shot fired; no harm really done.

    Question. If someone accidentally kills another with a car. Say late at night, person running across an unlit street wearing all black. You know, 'vehicular manslaughter.'

    This instance is more like swerving out of the way missing the person entirely.

    Are you consistent in advocating that person never be allowed to drive again or obtain a driver's license when they miss (even if driving is part of their occupation)?

    If not, you're a hypocrite. If so, bravo but the gun would have had to have fired to be consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gunzloonz love to use the comparison between driving (a privilege) and owning, shooting, pointing gunz (A GODGIVENRIGHT!!). They're not quite so happy when their "compare and contrast" is shown to the strawman that it is.

    If I'm driving down the street at night and someone runs in front of my car, wearing black then I am not in complete control of the situation.

    If I'm playing with a LOADED firearm during an interview and aim it at someone, well that's not quite the same thing.

    In order to make the "compare and contrast" work, the idiot with the gun would have to be on a firing range that one could assume to be clear of other people between themselves and the target.

    Not even close.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous, Your wacky stream-of-consciousness comment left me a bit confused. Are you actually defending people who point guns at others as song as they don't shoot? You yourself don't go for the Four Rules of Gun Safety? is that it?

    ReplyDelete