Default
Safety Considered for Citizens and Members of Congress
Default author
January 11, 2011, 01:37 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF

After the Arizona shooting of Rep Giffords, members of the House plus their families and staff participated in a conference call to discuss improving safety precautions. And who can blame them? Everyone deserves a reasonable expectation of safety.

In other related media news, the left’s talking points immediately focused on accusing conservatives of causing likely schizophrenic Jared Loughner to become violent because of vitriolic speech. It’s been quite the pile on, given that only a few hours had passed since the shooting that killed six in a Tucson parking lot.

(It doesn’t matter to the dinosaur liberal media that the scrambled thought processes of the shooter lean left, according to those who have known him.)

There is indeed plenty of angry talk around, some of which is justified. As the late Terry Anderson used to say, �If you ain’t mad, you ain’t paying attention.� Isn’t the willful refusal of Washington to adequately defend the nation’s borders and sovereignty a reason for citizens to be annoyed?

In south Arizona at least, much of the anger in the minds of traditional citizens has to do with the threat to public safety posed by an open border, with a violent narco-state spilling over on a daily basis. Illegal alien crime is pervasive, remaking Phoenix as the kidnap capital and a center of car theft.

Rancher Rob Krentz was murdered last spring on his own land by an illegal alien, emphasizing the danger to people who live near the border.

In December, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a gun battle with Mexican gangsters miles within the United States.

In fact, the public is now warned by large signs that park lands near the border are no longer safe enough to enjoy because Mexican gangsters control that territory.

So when members of Congress express a desire for greater safety, the press thinks that’s fine — and it is.

But when Arizonans have demanded for years that Washington �shall protect each [state] against Invasion� as guaranteed in the Constitution, that’s �vitriolic.� Citizens are characterized as hateful and even racist for insisting that the government fulfill its responsibility to defend the national perimeter.

And when Arizona passed a law based on national statutes (SB1070) designed to pick up the immigration enforcement slack, the Obama administration attacked the state with a lawsuit.

Should Americans not be angry that Washington is upside down, acting against the clear will of the citizens, not to mention the Constitution? Extreme words are necessary to describe extreme actions.

Finally, some media found it newsworthy that a couple of Congressmen now plan to carry guns when home in their districts:

Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting leads some lawmakers to say they’ll carry weapons to protect themselves, New York Daily News, January 9, 2011

Two lawmakers said Sunday they’ll pack heat back home after the deadly attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The decision by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) raises new questions about whether lawmakers should carry guns for self defense – or need to.

�After the elections, I let my guard down,� Shuler, an ex-NFL player, told Politico. �Now I know I need to have [my gun] on me.�

Meanwhile, in southern Arizona, ranchers carry weapons every day because of the constant danger to their safety from invading Mexicans.