Of Senators and empty promises

Bill,

Devastating logic that destroys the opposition's weak point.

Thanks, Kurt. The problem is twofold. In part, Senator Alting says that he voted as a parent, not as a politician, which means that he allowed an emotional response to overtake his logical reasoning. The other part is that I'm told that "Purdue and Ivy Tech have a stake in this", and I am of the opinion that Sen. Alting was prevailed upon to change his vote by one or both of those bodies, behind the scenes.
It is no secret that many educational institutions have been overtaken by liberals, and it would seem that Purdue is no exception. Some seem to think that Northwestern Avenue and the other borders of the campus have some magical area of effect emanating from their centers such that a peaceable, law-abiding citizen crossing into that area immediately becomes a homicidal maniac, but a criminal intent on doing harm to his intentionally and legislatorially disarmed prey will for some reason also not cross that line armed and will forego his criminal intentions because the campus is a "gun free zone".

Unfortunately, Sen. Alting has adopted the liberal viewpoint presented to him and in his attempt to safeguard his children from harm (an admirable goal, obviously) he has in fact gone the wrong way around and actually endangered them further, not to mention disregarded both the Federal and the State Constitutions he swore to uphold.

I don't know what the answer is, if he does not see his error for himself and return to the maintenance of his oath of office. Hopefully, next session will provide us with more legislators who understand that party politics have no place in a debate on the Constitutionality of a bill.

Thanks again for writing.
Bill

Bill,

One day after your last comment, we once again have to endure a heart-rending massacre on a "gun-free" college campus. I hope Senator Alting is taking note.

Sadly, these kinds of things seem to happen more when a big election is coming up or when something momentous is about to receive a vote. Columbine happened "coincidentally" on the day that CO was to vote on some measure-I forget, offhand, if it was to stop forbidding CCW in schools or to relax rules about CCW in general. It is known (but little publicized) that one of the two murderers at that school, and I will not name them here, was opposed to the measure and was closely following the progress of the law. Now, if he was willing to carry as he was and use the guns with ill intent, why do you suppose he might oppose law-abiding, peaceable people being armed? Could it be because he was fearful of opposition?

Sadly, the liberal news media is making sure to point out all the fallacies in the law and is totally missing the point that the law restricting those who obey it as punishment to the people who don't (and/or who are already dead at their own hands!) is flawed at it's core. Trying to "fix the law" is, as was once broadcast on Bob and Tom, like trying to sterilize fecal matter. The quote was, "You can sterilize poop, but it's still poop." Hard to argue with that.

Senator Alting may be convinced to see that only an armed defender can stop an armed attacker. I don't hold much hope for this, but I won't discount the possibility. He may surprise me by opening his mind to the wishes of his constituents. Based on the number of arguments he's focused on "Purdue", however, I think he's serving their interests before those of the electorate. Hell, even Obama supposedly saw that the police cannot stop these crimes and so people must be present who can-not that I hold any illusions that he's actually in favor of the true, unadulterated, uninfringed Second Amendment.