Wednesday, September 22, 2021
HomePatriot DispatchesHow long can we forgive them for not knowing what they do?

How long can we forgive them for not knowing what they do?

 

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

     It is very, very, very difficult not to feel empathetic and compassionate toward Carolyn McCarthy and Sarah Brady.  McCarthy lost her husband to a deranged gunman, and for all practical purposes, so did Sarah Brady.  So that, in their grief and anger and cries for justice and perhaps genuine intent to protect others from what they went through, they began crusades that ultimately left millions of Americans defenseless, untold numbers fearful and countless law-abiding citizens innocent victims.  And we can likewise genuinely forgive them for their zeal.  Those who lose loved ones to violence are prone to abhor it and often single-minded in doing what they think is right to prevent it.  We can even genuinely forgive those who sign on to the Brady and McCarthy campaigns to root out the evil gun.  We are  much less forgiving for those statists and autocrats and tyrants who would use these women, and their crusade, for their own ends.

     But does our forgiveness know no bounds, no end?  The simplistic arguments they and their allies have offered all these years can be refuted on logical, philosophical and constitutional grounds all day long, and have been.  But what has rarely happened is for the weight of the evidence, on a personal and morbid level, to be  starkly and effectively presented.   A few  lessons can illustrate the point,  and their category is Massacre – The Luby’s Texas killings, the Columbine killings, the Virginia Tech Killings, and the recent Giffords Campaign Rally killings.  This is far from an exhaustive list, and more on the Luby’s case later, but the point is that 60-70  people lost their lives when, in each case, if  one victim or innocent bystander or authority figure in  the vicinity had been in possession of a firearm, some, many or all of those deaths could have been avoided.  The story of the thirteen unarmed soldiers being gunned down at Ft. Hood is a special case involving a politically correct and perhaps glaringly unprofessional military regime instead of civilian law, but it is a travesty nonetheless. And ironically, Ft. Hood is not far from Killeen, Texas.

     Those are the high profile cases, the mass murders, and there are more.  But what of the lesser known cases, the individual killings, where if a victim had not been legally denied the means of self-defense, or had not been intimidated or scared by these anti-gun campaigns and the fawning media and politicians that support them, the outcome could have been much different?  What about the  public policies, local and state ordinances and federal ones, as well as things like the infamous Centers for Disease Controls’ despicable usurpation of the public purse to study gun ownership and possession and gun crime statistics as if possession of firearms is a disease, that cowed law-abiding citizens into not arming, or even disarming, themselves and their loved ones?  What is the death toll?   We can never know, for statistics like that are not kept.  Surely it is in the thousands, if not  tens of thousands.

     How many people have to die needlessly so that Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy can feel a sense of accomplishment in taking X number of firearms out of circulation, or, as happens all too often, demonizing and criminalizing those who wish to defend themselves and their families and their property, indeed perhaps their God-given liberty or their free states?

     One of the most heartbreaking stories you will ever hear, ranking right up there with those of Carolyn McCarthy and Sarah Brady, if not more so because the protagonist, Suzanna Gratia Hupp, was on the scene and an eyewitness to the horror, is the Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas on October 16, 1991.   Twenty three people were murdered inside that restaurant that day, including Hupp’s mother and father, before her very eyes.  And the tragic,  wrenching, maddening lesson of that story is that Suzanna could have perhaps prevented it.  She had a legal handgun in her purse, but she did the politically correct thing and followed the ordinances and removed her handgun from her purse and left it in the car. See, the law said that people weren’t allowed to carry handguns into public restaurants in Texas, ostensibly because guns kill people and if no guns were allowed in Luby’s restaurant, no one could be killed by a gun there.  Hupp’s parents were two of twenty three people killed by a gun, inside Luby’s restaurant.  A gun that wasn’t allowed to be there.

     Hupp’s parents were executed, coldly and methodically, and Suzanna Hupp has to live every day with the knowledge that the means to possibly not have to watch her parents be murdered was agonizingly close, just a few feet away in the parked car outside the restaurant, but not close enough because of gun control laws like those pushed by Sarah Brady.  Carolyn McCarthy and her crusade would come on scene a couple of years after the Killeen Massacre, but it turned into the same type of dog-and-pony show as the Brady Campaign, with hype and hyperbole, sensation and demonization, misnomer and misinformation and hijacking by the forces of statist hegemony.  Hupp became an advocate for shall-issue concealed carry in Texas and the Second Amendment in general and served in the Texas House of Representatives.  If you do not know her story, go here and watch her testimony before Congress. It is riveting. 

     At some point, the American people are going to have to wake up and stop listening to people who do not know what they are talking about, whether it’s meteorology, economics, foreign affairs, child-rearing or how to live securely in a free state, and to protect ourselves and our loved ones while doing so.  Suzanna Hupp knows what she is talking about.

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

7 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

7 COMMENTS

    • Some thoughts on this subject:
      1. IIRC there was unequivocal testimony from one lady who was present the day of the Luby’s massacre in Texas that, she was proficient in firearms and had the law at that time allowed concealed carry, she would have been carrying and she had several clear lanes of fire to end the madness, had she been armed. Much stronger concealed carry rights passed the legislature that year.
      2. Remember the 1992 riots in LA. Where were all the Hollywood Libs to come out and urge restraint to the mobs that were burning down East LA? Oh that’s right, they werebreaking all records (this is a fact) buying, ordering, getting their hands on, guns. If their personal bodyguards didnt already have them. You see, feeling sorry for the suffering minorities only works in Brentwood and Belair until they get on your lawn. In the aftermath of HurricaneKatrina and other natural disasters replete with looting and police abandoning their beats –well, the citizens have been arming up at a steady clip (no pun intended). Only someone as hardcore progressive Socialist as Obama would try to come straight after the Second Amendment a la confiscation. He may yet try, one of his very earliest formed opinions on record from his Harvard Law days, is that he “didnt see the need for all the guns in America.”

      • With Obamacare and other laws, they are trying to put medical records on-line. And they are trying to get colleges to profile students and pursue involuntary mental health evaluations – or the feds will take funding away. soon, that will occur with other state and local government outlets which depend on the feds; then it will happen with anybody who gets government contracts – screen your employees for mental health. And on and on. If you have been forced to undergo a mental health evaluation and it is on-line, it is just a click away from being placed in the FBI’s or ATF’;s background check system

        • bobmontgomery, long answer here, but I’m hoping the info will be valuable to consumers.

          I’m actually on the verge of entering the Health Information field. I had made the choice to enter this field prior to the time that ObamaCare was passed. After passage of the law, I thought about withdrawing but decided against it because we the people are going to need strong advocates to push for protection of patient health information from inside the field and I fully intend to be one of those advocates.

          Just a few facts for now…
          Yes, EHRs are coming into play, but in the majority of cases these are hybrid records. Hybrid records make it far more difficult for anyone outside the system to access data. (The laws says EHRs but doesn’t specify a type, and Hybrids allow HC orgs to protect both PHI and proprietary information).

          At the present time, the protection, security and privacy of patient health info is being very zealously guarded by the Healthcare/HIM industry via HIPAA. They are our “pitbulls” acting behind the scenes, and they don’t intend to let this one go quietly into the night. They are playing it to the conservative, cautious side of the law, which is very much so in our favor right now.

          As to psych evals…the regulations governing release of pysch info are extremely rigid. All the same, most consumers are unaware of their rights under the law and far too often sign consent forms releasing info without reading through the consent form or asking questions. This is where misuse of patient info is most likely to take place.

          But for right now, generally speaking, all that third parties can get their hands on are diagnostic and treatment codes used for billing purposes. If a bill is challenged by a payer, the HC org may have to support that claim which demands releasing additional info. But normally, nothing else will be released w/o obtaining patient consent. It’s against HIPAA. It’s a violation of patient’s rights. Hospitals and providers alike can and have been sued over it. This is something that is taken very seriously in the industry.

          So consumers should make sure that any consent forms signed are read completely. Patients have the right to ask as many questions as they want to regarding release of their PHI. They can opt out for selective release in a lot of states (meaning that patient selects to be contacted prior to release of anything beyond standard data). And they can retract that permission (has to be done in writing) any time they choose.

          • LH- Carolyn McCarthy is advocating , and I think has already introduced legislation, for the mandating of colleges and universities who accept federal funds, to establish regimens and protocols and teams to monitor students’ mental health, including mandatory mental health evaluations. At this point, I don’t care what standards or practices or guidelines or moral compasses health care professionals have. Any government which dictates that if you take the money, you have to look for those ‘telltale signs of mental illness’ (gee, what do you suppose some of those might be? Listening to Rush Limbaugh?), do you think said government would
            restrain itself from saying, “Oh, and by the way, just leave that info on the desk there on your way out with your check.” ? And this notion that consumers bear the burden of responsibility in insuring their records aren’t misused, or that they have the right to ask a lot of questions, is not exactly reassuring, either. Lineholder, we crossed the Rubicon when the Health Care act was passed.. The law of the land is that you WILL, by 2014, have health insurance. I appreciate your willingness to do your part within the system for the rights of the people, but your constitution is already in tatters.

          • bob, I know that we crossed the Rubicon. So do a lot of HC professionals. We need the general public’s help. Most of the HC industry is trying to stay to the side of high morals and ethics as much as they can for as long as they can. Having patients know and take responsibility for protecting and preserving their rights under the law as it currently exists will help us to maintain those standards. It’s better by far than the alternative we’re facing here, bob, because if they can’t do that much, we don’t have a leg to stand on legally. It doesn’t leave us any leeway to fight in their behalf when they can’t do at least this much themselves, okay? Is it a best case scenario solution? No. But it’s all we’ve got right now.

    • EBL, these guncontrol laws are like somuch of US Code……there is just SO MUCH of it , that after a while, it is either just all meaningles ……or…..they can take whatever parts of it they want and do whatever they want.
      Go read the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF is now trying to, presumably because the Statists are in power, go back to provisions of the 1968 act and use them to play god and tell us what shotguns are sporting guns and what are not. As Suzanna Hupp told Congress, the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. When Vassar told us in Part V that the road ahead is starting at square one and deciding what needs done in the public policy arena and who should do it, he did not specifically say to start with scrapping the entire USC, but…..what do you do with all that garbage?

    • Some thoughts on this subject:
      1. IIRC there was unequivocal testimony from one lady who was present the day of the Luby’s massacre in Texas that, she was proficient in firearms and had the law at that time allowed concealed carry, she would have been carrying and she had several clear lanes of fire to end the madness, had she been armed. Much stronger concealed carry rights passed the legislature that year.
      2. Remember the 1992 riots in LA. Where were all the Hollywood Libs to come out and urge restraint to the mobs that were burning down East LA? Oh that’s right, they werebreaking all records (this is a fact) buying, ordering, getting their hands on, guns. If their personal bodyguards didnt already have them. You see, feeling sorry for the suffering minorities only works in Brentwood and Belair until they get on your lawn. In the aftermath of HurricaneKatrina and other natural disasters replete with looting and police abandoning their beats –well, the citizens have been arming up at a steady clip (no pun intended). Only someone as hardcore progressive Socialist as Obama would try to come straight after the Second Amendment a la confiscation. He may yet try, one of his very earliest formed opinions on record from his Harvard Law days, is that he “didnt see the need for all the guns in America.”

      • With Obamacare and other laws, they are trying to put medical records on-line. And they are trying to get colleges to profile students and pursue involuntary mental health evaluations – or the feds will take funding away. soon, that will occur with other state and local government outlets which depend on the feds; then it will happen with anybody who gets government contracts – screen your employees for mental health. And on and on. If you have been forced to undergo a mental health evaluation and it is on-line, it is just a click away from being placed in the FBI’s or ATF’;s background check system

        • bobmontgomery, long answer here, but I’m hoping the info will be valuable to consumers.

          I’m actually on the verge of entering the Health Information field. I had made the choice to enter this field prior to the time that ObamaCare was passed. After passage of the law, I thought about withdrawing but decided against it because we the people are going to need strong advocates to push for protection of patient health information from inside the field and I fully intend to be one of those advocates.

          Just a few facts for now…
          Yes, EHRs are coming into play, but in the majority of cases these are hybrid records. Hybrid records make it far more difficult for anyone outside the system to access data. (The laws says EHRs but doesn’t specify a type, and Hybrids allow HC orgs to protect both PHI and proprietary information).

          At the present time, the protection, security and privacy of patient health info is being very zealously guarded by the Healthcare/HIM industry via HIPAA. They are our “pitbulls” acting behind the scenes, and they don’t intend to let this one go quietly into the night. They are playing it to the conservative, cautious side of the law, which is very much so in our favor right now.

          As to psych evals…the regulations governing release of pysch info are extremely rigid. All the same, most consumers are unaware of their rights under the law and far too often sign consent forms releasing info without reading through the consent form or asking questions. This is where misuse of patient info is most likely to take place.

          But for right now, generally speaking, all that third parties can get their hands on are diagnostic and treatment codes used for billing purposes. If a bill is challenged by a payer, the HC org may have to support that claim which demands releasing additional info. But normally, nothing else will be released w/o obtaining patient consent. It’s against HIPAA. It’s a violation of patient’s rights. Hospitals and providers alike can and have been sued over it. This is something that is taken very seriously in the industry.

          So consumers should make sure that any consent forms signed are read completely. Patients have the right to ask as many questions as they want to regarding release of their PHI. They can opt out for selective release in a lot of states (meaning that patient selects to be contacted prior to release of anything beyond standard data). And they can retract that permission (has to be done in writing) any time they choose.

          • LH- Carolyn McCarthy is advocating , and I think has already introduced legislation, for the mandating of colleges and universities who accept federal funds, to establish regimens and protocols and teams to monitor students’ mental health, including mandatory mental health evaluations. At this point, I don’t care what standards or practices or guidelines or moral compasses health care professionals have. Any government which dictates that if you take the money, you have to look for those ‘telltale signs of mental illness’ (gee, what do you suppose some of those might be? Listening to Rush Limbaugh?), do you think said government would
            restrain itself from saying, “Oh, and by the way, just leave that info on the desk there on your way out with your check.” ? And this notion that consumers bear the burden of responsibility in insuring their records aren’t misused, or that they have the right to ask a lot of questions, is not exactly reassuring, either. Lineholder, we crossed the Rubicon when the Health Care act was passed.. The law of the land is that you WILL, by 2014, have health insurance. I appreciate your willingness to do your part within the system for the rights of the people, but your constitution is already in tatters.

          • bob, I know that we crossed the Rubicon. So do a lot of HC professionals. We need the general public’s help. Most of the HC industry is trying to stay to the side of high morals and ethics as much as they can for as long as they can. Having patients know and take responsibility for protecting and preserving their rights under the law as it currently exists will help us to maintain those standards. It’s better by far than the alternative we’re facing here, bob, because if they can’t do that much, we don’t have a leg to stand on legally. It doesn’t leave us any leeway to fight in their behalf when they can’t do at least this much themselves, okay? Is it a best case scenario solution? No. But it’s all we’ve got right now.

    • EBL, these guncontrol laws are like somuch of US Code……there is just SO MUCH of it , that after a while, it is either just all meaningles ……or…..they can take whatever parts of it they want and do whatever they want.
      Go read the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF is now trying to, presumably because the Statists are in power, go back to provisions of the 1968 act and use them to play god and tell us what shotguns are sporting guns and what are not. As Suzanna Hupp told Congress, the 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. When Vassar told us in Part V that the road ahead is starting at square one and deciding what needs done in the public policy arena and who should do it, he did not specifically say to start with scrapping the entire USC, but…..what do you do with all that garbage?

Must Read