Open-carry law might need some tinkering

New_Hampshire_Open_Carry_2009

Did the Dallas shooting that killed five police officers and injured several others reveal a flaw in the Texas open-carry law?

Consider what transpired during the Black Lives Matter march that turned violent when the shooter opened fire on the cops.

Several individuals were seen at the march carrying weapons in the open, which they were entitled to do under the state’s open-carry law. One young man was arrested, handcuffed and detained for some time while police investigated whether he took part in the shooting. It turns out he didn’t.

Which brings to mind the question: How do police determine who are the heat-packing bystanders in the heat of an adrenaline-filled moment in which tensions run at fever pitches?

Here’s a thought put forward by others, but which seem to make sense: The Texas Legislature ought to consider tweaking the open-carry law when it convenes in January to give cities the option of banning people from carrying weapons in the open during political demonstrations.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/EDITORIAL-Open-carry-doesn-t-mix-with-political-8353183.php

As the Beaumont Enterprise noted in an editorial, guns and political demonstrations just don’t mix.

I’ve been able to take part in simulated shooting demonstrations with the Amarillo Police Department. I can tell you from personal experience — and this involves use of weapons that did not carry live ammo — that the adrenaline that courses through one’s body in a shoot-don’t-shoot situation can cloud one’s judgment.

I cannot imagine the chaos that ensued in Dallas that evening when gunfire erupted. Police responded immediately to protect crowd members. Then some of them spotted spectators carrying weapons. What does a cop do — in an instant?

So, let’s fine-tune this law. If Texans are going to insist on the right to carry guns in the open, then there ought to be some reasonable restrictions on where they can pack them.

It seems quite reasonable to me to let cities decide whether to allow them at political rallies.

 

Big week looms for Republican Party

BN-NZ909_noonan_partyoftrump_20160512180839

I’m not yet sure how much of the Republican National Convention I’m going to watch.

Keynote speech? Sure. Except I don’t know who’s giving it.

Presidential nominee acceptance speech? Absolutely, if only to see if Donald J. Trump veers too wildly off script.

This I do know: The Party of Lincoln/Reagan is going to become the Party of Trump.

God help ’em.

I’m still trying to figure out how the Republican Party establishment plans to speak glowingly of the man they’re about to nominate for the presidency of the United States. He has spent the bulk of the primary season hurling insults in every direction, including at the Republican Party brass! Political memories often become surprisingly short, but they also have this way of retaining insults for an amazingly long time.

Which leads me to believe that the establishment types are going to have little time on the podium during the four-day event in Cleveland.

It’ll be left to the assorted celebrities who’ve lined up behind Trump’s insurgent candidacy. He’s been crowing all along how he doesn’t “need” the power brokers who run the GOP. We’re about to learn whether his boasting will come true.

Just suppose, too, that absent any public service record that the Trumpkins can tout, what will be left for them to say from the convention podium.

Oh! I think I know. They’re going to unsheathe the long knives and plunge them into the Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She will be portrayed as the daughter of Satan. They’re plan — in the words of the late GOP chairman Lee Atwater — “peel the bark” off the Democrats’ presidential candidate.

Yes, indeed. Given that the Republicans are going first in this year’s political nominating convention cycle, they’ll get to set the tone for the campaign for the White House.

Rest assured, Democrats have their own burdens to bear with Clinton. So, they’ll be loaded to the teeth when they convene their convention in Philadelphia right after the Republicans adjourn their convention in Cleveland.

Get ready, folks, for a heck of a wild ride beginning next week.

Self-consciousness sets in

social-media-people

I am feeling a bit self-conscious these days.

Why is that? Well, I’ve been pretty active on Facebook for about five years or so. I’ve developed a pretty healthy list of “friends,” many of whom are actual friends; others of them are “friends” only according to Facebook parlance.

Of late, some of my friends have expressed concern — some of them outright anger — over the politicization of this particular social medium. They don’t like all the politics being spouted on what is supposed to be a place for people to connect, interact socially and exchange good tidings.

I use Facebook, though, as a vehicle on which to distribute my blog. Many folks who read High Plains Blogger’s musings/spewage/commentary do so on Facebook.

High Plains Blogger is meant to be a platform to talk about politics, public policy and what I call “life experience.” You get plenty of politics and policy, for sure. You also get a decent dose of life experience as I enjoy writing about upcoming retirement, andĀ ownership of a rambunctious puppy.

In order to boost my blog traffic, I like using Facebook — along with Twitter, LinkedIn and Google — to spread whatever word I feel like spreading at the moment. Indeed, my Twitter feed is linked also to my Facebook feed. Therefore, when I tweet about this and/or that political event, it goes to Facebook, too.

I should add that I generally don’t post things exclusively on Facebook that deal with politics, although I do admit to “sharing” others’ political points of view.

The day might arrive when I get so much blog traffic that I no longer feel the need to use Facebook to transmit High Plains Blogger’s message — whatever it is.

My particular problem, though,Ā might be in determining when I’ve gotten enough traffic, that I longer need to distribute it on other social media.

Perhaps that day will arrive when I’ve decided I’ve got enough money.

For now and perhaps for the foreseeable future, I guess you’ll have to bear with me.

In the meantime, I also will just have to deal with my self-consciousness.

Newt proposes going to war against Islam

the_crux_of_our_endless_war_on_terror

President George W. Bush stood firm and resolute in the days after 9/11 and declared — without equivocation — that America would not go to war “against Islam.”

Our enemy, he told a grief-stricken nation, are the religious perverts who acted in the name of a mainstream religion.

Then we went to war against terrorists.

President Barack Obama came into office eight years later and said the same thing. He has followed through on President Bush’s declaration. Yet those who condemn Barack Obama’s strategy choose to ignore theĀ war policiesĀ enacted by his immediate predecessor in the White House.

So, what does a one-time congressional leader and former candidate for president of the United States want to do? He wants to go to war against Islam. Newt Gingrich said last night the nation needs to apply “tests” to Muslims to determine if they believe in Sharia law, which he said is incompatible with “western civilization.”

The former speaker of the House has given the radical Islamists a lead-pipe-cinch recruitment tool. He has just delivered to them all the evidence many of the terrorists need to justify their jihad against the United States and our many allies around the world.

Two presidents — one Republican and one Democrat — who’ve been up to their armpits in this on-going war against radical Islamic terrorists have laid down an important marker that Newt Gingrich has declared no longer matters.

Suffice to say, at least, that Newt no longer is in a position to turn his shrill rhetoric into public policy.

Thank goodness, at least, for that reality.

Newt calls for Muslim ‘test’

newt

Newt Gingrich must be making a last-ditch pitch to become Donald J. Trump’s running mate.

Or … he’s feeling frisky now that he appears to be out of the running to join the Republican presidential ticket led by the presumptive nominee.

Whatever the case, the former U.S. House speaker has gone ballistic — and flown off the rails — in the wake of the terrible attack yesterday in Nice, France, in which someone plowed his truck through crowds of people in an apparent terrorist attack.

Eighty-four people are dead. Yes, it is a horrible, despicable act. The group responsible for it must be punished with extreme prejudice.

What is Newt’s response? He wants to apply a “test” to every single Muslim living in the United States of America. If they pass the test, they’re welcome to stay. If they fail, out they go. Deported. Sent to their country of origin.

The basis for Newt’s test is whether these Muslims believe in Sharia law, which he said is “incompatible” with western civilization. Oh, and he wants to “monitor” mosques to see if they’re being used to recruit jihadists.

Holy moly, Mr. Speaker.

My third thought about Newt’s post-Nice rant is that he’s trying to show off his own anti-Muslim credentials to Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gingrich-calls-for-muslim-test-says-trump-veep-is-probably-pence/ar-BBumw4I?li=BBnb7Kz

AĀ few questions come to mind.

One concerns the logistics involved. How do we identify every single Muslim currently in this country? How do we pay for this endeavor? How does the country enlist enough security agents to fan out across more than 3.6 million square miles of American real estate to search for these individuals?

How do we devise this test? How do we establish whether its results prove beyond a doubt that someone is a Sharia-believer?

Has the ex-speaker decided that U.S. citizens who also are Muslim also should be tested in this manner? If so, well, then we have another fairly significant issue to ponder: the U.S. Constitution. That silly ol’ First Amendment says something about religious freedom and guarantees every American the right to worship as they please without government interference.

Moreover, I recall President Bush saying right after the 9/11 attacks that we weren’t going to war against Islam, which his successor, President Obama, has reiterated. Our enemies are the radical Islamists who have perverted a religious faith for political gain.

Of course Americans ought to be outraged over what has happened in Nice. Someone said last night that this attack that occurred while France was celebrating Bastille Day appears to be the costliest attack in terms of lives lost ever committed by a single terrorist. French police shot the driver of the truck to death and then apparently discovered his vehicle contained other munitions, suggesting he was operating as part of an organization.

Is it the Islamic State? Or al-Qaeda? Or some other group?

French intelligence officials are pretty good at rooting out bad guys. And they’ll have plenty of help from U.S., British, German, IsraeliĀ and other international law enforcement agencies as they seek to combat this latest attack.

As for Newt Gingrich’s proposal to go after every living Muslim in the U.S. of A., let’s not allow fear and panic to overtake us.

City’s landscape taking on new look

14161372

I attended a luncheon meeting today atop the Chase Tower in downtown Amarillo.

The office building looms 31 floors above the ground and from the top floor you can get a tremendous look across many miles of the sprawling Texas Panhandle landscape.

I chose to look down, though.

Peering east from the top of the tower I was struck once again by the vast change that’s occurring across the street from the Civic Center and City Hall.

The Embassy Suites hotel superstructure has been topped out next to the performing arts center. Next door is that parking garage that’s going to provide parking for several hundred vehicles along with some retail space on the ground floor.

My amazement continues to be at the sight of all that heavy construction downtown, the cranes towering over the sites.

We’ve lived here for more than two decades. During almost our entire time as residents of Amarillo, my wife and I have seen nothing approaching the level of activity that’s proceeding at this moment.

For too long the city appeared indifferent to the vitality and economic health of its central business district. Does that make as little sense to others as it does to me, that the city wouldn’t want to develop a clearly defined strategy to improve its downtown district?

Amarillo did that a few years ago when it ratified its Strategic Action Plan.

I am gratified to see the progress that is underway downtown.

I’ll reiterate thatĀ the progressĀ looks pretty impressive when you can look at it from the top of downtown Amarillo’s tallest structure.

Terrorist tragedy hits France yet again

BBulElR

France and its heroic citizens are grieving yet again.

This time the terrorist — or terrorists — employed a new and ghastly method of delivering death and destruction.

It came tonight in the form of a truck that plowed into a crowd of revelers celebrating Bastille Day, which is France’sĀ independence day.

As I am writing this brief blog post, the death count stands at 80. Officials, though, think that number will increase.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/truck-attacker-kills-up-to-80-in-nice-bastille-day-crowd/ar-BBulpVJ?li=BBnb7Kz

The world is shocked and in grief over the tragedy that struck in Nice.

World leaders are issuing the appropriate expressions of condemnation.

What now?

It’s not yet clear whether the driver of the truck was from the Islamic State or al-Qaeda. Officials can’t ask him, because French police opened fire on the vehicle and killed the driver in the hail of bullets.

My sense is that we’ll know pretty damn soon just who this guy was and for which organization he was working — if it turns out he was a terrorist agent.

U.S. officials earlier today confirmed that Omar the Chechen indeed was killed this past spring in a U.S.-led attack on ISIS forces in Iraq. No one, quite naturally, believes Omar the Chechen’s death spells the end of ISIS, given that he was a top-tier commander of the terrorist organization.

This is the kind of “war” the world is fighting against these radical Islamist monsters. They attack so-called “soft targets,” causing uncontrollable fear among their victims. Is it at all possible to detect every single attack before it occurs?

As we’ve learned to our horror once again, the world is fighting a cunning and ruthless enemy.

What’s more, the world has received yet another stern lesson on the need to hit the terrorists hard — and keep hitting them hard for as long as it takes.

Gov. Pence is Trump’s go-to guy

pence_122_072811

They’ve spilled the beans.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will be announced as Donald J. Trump’s running mate on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Inspiring choice? Not really. Trump has gone the “safe” route. Meaning he has selected someone who poses zero threat of upstaging the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. He is solidly conservative. He’s a former member of Congress who reportedly has a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

Trump might win Indiana this fall, which until the 2008 election — when Barack Obama won the state over John McCain — has been one of the most reliably Republican states north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Pence, though, doesn’t represent anything resembling a “new direction” for his party.

Let’s remember that as governor, Pence signed a bill into law that allows businesses to discriminate against gay people. He called it a “religious freedom bill.” He vowed to “fix” the bill, but in reality he did hardly anything to change it.

That’s how the Republican Party wants to present itself, as the party that sanctions discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Of course, no one knows precisely what Trump believes about such things. His mind seems to change almost hourly. I guess now he opposes equal rights for gay people. What, though, will be his response to tough questions about the issue as they arise during the fall election campaign?

Trump had planned to announce his selection of Pence on Friday morning. He delayed the announcement in light of the terror attack tonight in Nice, France.

Whenever it comes, perhaps over the weekend or quite early next week, do not expect a huge roar of approval — even from hard-core Republicans. You see, Pence’s role in the campaign likely hasn’t yet been defined.

Something tells me that Gov. Pence’s campaign role will depend on that h-u-u-u-u-g-e ego that belongs to the man at the top of the GOP ticket.

So long, Omar the Chechen

th

Omar the Chechen is dead.

It took a while to confirm that the Islamic State leader had bought it in a U.S.-led attack, but the terrorist group has confirmed The Chechen’s death.

So, what does this mean?

To me, it means a couple of things.

First, it signals that our efforts to eliminate terrorist leaders is gaining ground. The U.S. military — the one that some politicians keep saying is “losing” — is showing that it remains quite a capable fighting force.

Second, The Chechen’s death should not be seen as a final “victory” in this ongoing war against the despicable terrorist organization. It only means that we must keep up the fight and must pursue the enemy — in the worlds of one-time GOP presidential nominee John McCain — “to the gates of hell” if need be.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-state-says-senior-commander-killed-in-iraq/

Omar al-Shishani was born in what was once known as the Soviet Union. He was just 30 years of age.

The fight must go on. There likely will be another madman who’ll step into Omar the Chechen’s shoes.

His death, though, does suggest that ISIS has suffered yet another in a lengthening string of key tactical defeats.

Let there be many more of them.

Justice Ginsburg seeks to make it right

BBuiRBp

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now says she regrets those negative things she said about Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Does she no longer believe what she said? Hardly. She just regrets saying those things out loud.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-apologizes-for-trump-remarks/ar-BBukt9C?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I’m going to give the Supreme Court justice high marks for saying she plans to be “more circumspect” in the future.

She had said Trump’s election as president would be disastrous for the country and joked she might move to New Zealand if Trump is elected.

I am one of those who have said she shouldn’t have made those statements. It is true that there’s nothing written or codified about what Supreme Court justices can say. It’s been a long-standing tradition that justicesĀ steer clear of partisan politics.

Ginsburg lost control of her verbal steering wheel when she popped off about Trump, who not surprisingly responded in his typically crude manner, suggesting the justice had lost some of her mental acuity. He demanded her resignation.

As Reuters reported: “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg added.

That’s good enough for me. Is it good enough for her critics? I’m thinking umm … no.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience