Stage Five - Original Editorial 1

Proclamation Concerning Armed Residents



 

Whereas, shootings against the unarmed have increased throughout the last ten years.

 

Whereas, the safety of the residents of our great State of Texas is continually compromised by near constant pressure from criminals.

 

Whereas, the border with Mexico is as porous as it is vast and invites a nefarious element to plague our residents.

 

Whereas, the clamor for little to no restrictions on firearm possession has grown louder.

 

Whereas, the need to help equalize the playing field grows each day.

Therefore, I, Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim that each resident, regardless of status, will be issued the sidearm of their choice and a license will no longer be required for either open carry or concealed carry effective 01JAN2016.


Now then, some may see the absurdity in this fabricated proclamation while others may see the legitimate concerns raised.  Ideally, you see both.  I support open and concealed carry for anyone and everyone who chooses to do so (which includes those that are restricted as I feel anything less is impinging on rights).  If you feel that carrying a weapon is not for you then simply do not carry a weapon.

Part of my rationale for unrestricted carrying of firearms is to give more power to the common man.  Our Founding Fathers decided in favor of the Second Amendment to protect against the threat of tyranny which will always apply.  Another point is that there are already a number of firearms in the hands of people up to no good and I feel that they should be well aware that anyone they accost will most likely be armed and ideally educated in how to use their weapon.  Some may ask about putting the Police in more danger and I respond with, "They're already putting themselves in danger because they know what they signed up for."

There are a number of counterpoints to be made and I welcome the opportunity for debate.

Ready . . . Go!

Stage Four - Texas Blog Critique

Burnt Orange Report is a blog that is the, self-described, "leading source for progressive coverage of political news and issues that matter in Texas."  The blog recently published an article describing Texas Senator Ted Cruz's intentions to add amendments to highway legislation that would take away federal government moneys for the Planned Parenthood program.

My initial take on the article was what I always imagined a blog to be: mildly informative and mostly invective.  The author, Katherine Haenschen, makes use of subtle and overt digs against Senator Cruz while not providing much information.  She seems to have enough credibility to get into a Ph.D. program at the University of Texas or maybe she just knows someone. (get it?  I'm playing the invective game.)  Her intended audience seems to include just about anyone however, the slant comes across as favoring those who mostly subscribe to a Liberal point of view.

Evidence supporting the claim in the headline is limited to one quote from the office of Senator Cruz with the rest of the filler consisting of derisions which seem to have the intention of swaying the reader into immediately discounting anything Senator Cruz does.  Examples include alluding to Senator Cruz's supposed allegiance with Donald Trump, calling his intelligence into question and alleging his drastic measures to increase his popularity with potential primary voters.

Overall, the author seems to have succeeded in her effort to inform the public of Senator Cruz's alleged intentions against Planned Parenthood funding and in her effort to denounce him.  I feel her success is mostly due to her low standards for this article as it appears it was thrown together in a period shorter than ten minutes.  Nevertheless, at least it was entertaining.

Stage Three - Major Outlet Critique

An editorial in the San Antonio Express-News discussed the notion of evaluating whether to keep symbols of the Confederacy on public property.  The article casts a wide net as it can appeal to anyone that is aware of the history of the United States and seems to be rustling up support for the cause of taking the symbols down.  The credibility cannot be called into question as the San Antonio Express-News is a major newspaper outlet.

Recent events in Charleston, South Carolina have ignited fierce debate on outlets as far reaching as cable news to our local morning radio programs.  This editorial stirs the pot ever so gently in, what I gather to be, a non-inflammatory way by making superficial observations that a number of these symbols may offend a number of people.  Using the general claim that "It's offensive." (said in a whiny voice) is a tired strategy because everything is offensive to somebody.

In the case of symbols of the Confederacy, it is entirely obvious that they are offensive to plenty of people but the authors of the article should present a stronger argument.  When a symbol universally incites violent action . . . that would be a legitimate reason to discuss its removal.  Another point the editorial makes is that "placement on these spaces confers a legitimacy that seems to say all taxpayers agree with the respect extended."  The same argument can also be applied to canceling every spending decision lawmakers make in our stead because not one law is accepted by every, single taxpayer.

Regardless of your opinion, if you intend to sway people toward a certain point of view, present a decent argument and do not use the aforementioned article as inspiration.

Stage Two - Politifact Texas

A joint venture between the Austin American-Statesman and Politifact.com publishes a web page dedicated to investigating statements made by public figures.

PolitiFact Texas recently published an article discussing the progress of the updated firearm carrying law which will include open carry (limited to shoulder and belt holsters).  Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law on 13JUN2015 with the effective date coming in 2016.

I support people openly carrying firearms and feel they should include all weapons.  A quick rebuttal from others will most likely include a "But, what if . . . ?" statement to which I would simply reply, "Maybe.  Maybe not."  Tragedies will most certainly happen with or without these laws in place as laws only establish consequence for an action instead of actively preventing an action.  For example, it is against the law to not make a complete stop at a stop sign, yet nearly every driver has failed to make this complete stop on multiple occasions.

Granted, others may say not stopping at stop signs and moseying about with a holstered "six-shooter" gently bouncing against my thigh are not the same but, like everything, they boil down to the common ground of an attempt to restrict freedoms.  I understand that a number of laws were put into place to protect the general population but I feel that placing limits on what people can do is the more important issue.  (More on my thoughts about a self-governing society later.)

Nevertheless, the aforementioned article and website make it easy for people to stay informed about what's happening in the realm of politics and how accurate people's claims are.