Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

Allowing guns on campus won’t reduce sexual assault on campus — instead, it will increase the risk of homicide.

Two years ago, Republican leaders released a post-mortem analysis of the 2012 election in an effort to better understand how they lost the single women’s vote by 36 percent. The 100-page report recommended that GOP lawmakers do a better job listening to female voters, remind them of the party’s “historical role in advancing the women’s rights movement,” and fight against the “so-called War on Women.” Look no further than recent GOP-led efforts to expand gun rights on college campuses under the guise of preventing campus sexual assault for evidence that conservative lawmakers have failed to take their own advice.

Today, lawmakers in at least 14 states are pushing forward measures that would loosen gun regulations on college campuses. In the last few days, a number of them have seized upon the growing public outcry over campus sexual assault to argue that carrying a gun would prevent women from being raped. (So far they’ve been silent on how we might prevent young men – who, of course, would also be allowed to carry a gun – from attempting to rape women in the first place.)

Republican assemblywoman Michele Fiore of Nevada recently told The New York Times: “If these young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm, I wonder how many men will want to assault them? The sexual assaults that are occurring would go down once these sexual predators get a bullet in their head.” (Really? Hot little girls?) And as the Times highlighted, Florida representative Dennis Baxley jumped on the “stop campus rape” bandwagon recently when he successfully lobbied for a bill that would allow students to carry loaded, concealed weapons. “If you’ve got a person that’s raped because you wouldn’t let them carry a firearm to defend themselves, I think you’re responsible,” he said.

Let’s be clear. People aren’t raped because they aren’t carrying firearms. They are raped because someone rapes them. What a sinister new twist on victim blaming. As if anything positive could come from adding loaded weapons to the already toxic mix of drugs, alcohol, masculine groupthink, and the rape culture endemic in college sports and Greek life on campuses around the country.

These lawmakers have appropriated the battle cry of students who are demanding more accountability from academic institutions to prevent and respond to campus sexual assault. It’s a vain attempt to advance their own conservative agenda of liberalizing gun laws. This is an NRA agenda, not a women’s rights agenda. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, each of the lawmakers who have supported such legislation has received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). They have enjoyed endorsements from the NRA during election years and some – including Fiore and Baxley – received campaign contributions from the organization.

These lawmakers are pointing to the demands of a handful of women who have survived sexual assault and are advocating for liberalized campus gun laws. The experiences of these students are real and deserve to be heard and considered as we debate how to make campuses safer. We must also recognize that these students are outliers. Surveys have shown that nearly 80 percent of college students say they would not feel safe if guns were allowed on campus, and according to the Times, 86 percent of women said they were opposed to having weapons on campus. And for good reason.

Research shows that guns do not make women safer. In fact, just the opposite is true. Over the past 25 years, guns have accounted for more intimate partner homicides than all other weapons combined. In states that that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners. The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. And women in the United States are 11 times more likely than women from other high-income countries to be murdered with a gun. Guns on college campuses would only make these statistics worse.

If the GOP wants to show they care about women – or at the very least care about their votes – this is just one of the realities they need to acknowledge. And they need to listen to the experiences of all women who have experienced sexual assault – like those who have created the powerful Know Your IX campaign – not just those who will help advance their NRA-sponsored agenda.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Cross-posted from the Roosevelt Institute’s Next New Deal blog.

The Roosevelt Institute is a non-profit organization devoted to carrying forward the legacy and values of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Photo: Keary O. via Flickr



Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • Gavrila Derzhavin

    Paradoxically, the gun-control fanatics’ ongoing war against our 2nd Amendment has lead to record firearms sales in these united states.

    • DEFENDER88

      The data is now IN. Not only record sales but the crime and gun crime rate continues to drop. Ask the libs how that is possible?? More guns have, in fact, coincided with less crime.
      There are now about 300mil guns in the US and about 60mil gun owners.
      The “More Guns = More Crime” argument is/was a total farce and a miserable failure.

  • option31

    A woman with a gun has an equalizer at the least, at best it makes her stronger than the biggest toughest man. Why do you people think women should just be good sheep and take what ever with out even the chance to protect herself? Talk about a war on women. You hate them and think they should not be allowed to even the chance of protection. You same people said conceal carry would result in wild west shootings. and maybe you could just let us all know where these wild west shoot outs are. You talk anti violence but then want violent criminals to have their way with out any risk and even better you advocate the state do violence against another human in your name.

    • ps0rjl

      How about if the man is armed too? Is she still stronger than the biggest, toughest man? The reason there haven’t been that many shootings is because most people don’t feel the need to walk around in public with weapons. When I see a person other than law enforcement carrying a weapon in public, I think that this must be one of the most paranoid, delusional persons in the country. I had a 22 when I was 12 years old for hunting, I now have two shotguns which I no longer hunt with. I am a Vietnam veteran and carried an M16. I also have a black belt in karate, and yet I see no reason to walk around in public with a loaded weapon. A case in point against carrying a weapon is the man who was shout outside the Walmart by two shooters who went inside the Walmart and opened fire. He had a weapon, but before he could get it out they shot him.

      • option31

        The woman being armed makes her at least equal, being unarmed makes her a victim for sure. How is her not being armed making her safer? As far as law enforcement with guns, have you seen the news and how many people – unarmed are being shot be police? As far as the Walmart deal, how many armed citizens have beaten criminals to the punch – happens every day. It all boils down to be pro choice, you should be able to choose if you want to defend yourself and what you want to help defend yourself with, it is a basic human right. To say a woman should not have or is not capable to defend herself or even make the choice to arm herself is sexist.

        • ps0rjl

          I am glad you are pro-choice. I hope that extends to the right of a woman to have an abortion.

          • option31

            That would be consistent, unlike others that claim to be pro choice but are not pro choice on anything but abortion.

          • leadvillexp

            I am pro choice on abortion, pro gay marriage, pro gun and not anti. Pro is much better than anti. We all have our rights and they should not be controlled by someone else. I am a male, Agnostic, straight, gun owner just for the record.

          • blcartwright

            I think it’s a bad choice to kill your own children

      • Most people that carry do so concealed, so you would never know who is actually armed. Gun control has nothing to do with guns. It is people control. Disarm the populous and you control the people. Every tyrant in history has disarmed their people first, just like our Emperor seeks to do.

        • leadvillexp

          You are 100% correct!

          • Liberals will never get it.

      • DEFENDER88

        So, you don’t believe in the concept of “Self” Defense.

        Your thinking is somewhat self-centered, arrogant and ignorant.

        Most of us are not war vets with a karate black belt.

        Also when you get to be 70 yo and no longer able to out-run or fight the predators, I want to hear what your thinking will be then.

        Everyone does not have your capabilities or experience.

        I am old and cant out-fight or out-run them anymore but I shoot 500rds a month “tactical practice” and can draw and shoot like hell.

        And have the wisdom and certifications/training to know when NOT TO.

        I want them to “know” there are people like me out there.

        Old feeble “looking” guys who can “take them out” quick if they attack.

        Actually I don’t “Look” that feeble but maybe you get my point.

        How about the 100lb woman cornered by two 200lb thugs?

        Or 1 thug with a knife.

        Or the 150lb man.

        • leadvillexp

          I am in my sixties and a while back hurt my leg. I was walking with a cane and had two teen or twenty something men try to take a pizza away from my wife and I. One was poked with the cane and the other wore the hot pizza on his face. I sometimes carry., when I feel the need. In this place I didn’t feel the need and didn’t. The point is you need to be able to defend yourself. If you had seen his face you would understand why I didn’t bother to call for the police. We bought another pizza and went home.

          • DEFENDER88

            Good for you. Glad you made it. Hand to Hand Combat should be part of any plan for Self Defense.

            I am in my late sixties also. And, like you, “carry” some but not much. Mostly when I am working Church Security(Volunteer) for the day.

            ps I have not done it much but there are Cane Fighting techniques available. Can be a pretty effective weapon.

            Have not seen much on Pizza Defense Tactics:) But hey, whatever works:).

            I have studied Okinawan Karate, Russian Systema, Israel Krav Maga, etc.

            I shoot IDPA(Intl Defensive Pistol Assoc)(Competitions), Some call it “Combat Pistol”. Go to the IDPA web site and look for a match/club near you. Go watch, it will be an eye opener. Think – 6 shots/second. You will learn hard core, advanced combat tactics, speed shooting, etc. Even if you don’t actually shoot a match. We do Scenario shooting with Non-Threats mixed in. Moving threats, moving while shooting. Shooting from all positions. Lot of room/house clearing tactics, etc. We will normally out-shoot most any Police even the SWAT guys. We sometimes teach them. You learn how to use “cover”, how to operate a gun under stress and get back into the fight, when to shoot and Not shoot, shoot and move, one hand, on the move, from cars, etc. Techniques on how to shoot threats but miss non-threats(innocents/hostages). Allowances are made for handicapped folks and police. Its about the most advanced pistol shooting you can do. I also shoot 3Gun Competitions – Rifle(AR), Shotgun(Auto), Pistol(Auto). We don’t “look” for or want any trouble but want to be fully ready for it if it finds us. Plus its a fun sport. Meet good people.

          • DEFENDER88

            Things predators look for – the weak, the old, the injured(like you were), the un-aware, etc.

            People they can ambush. They are usually low-down, bastard, cowards but still dangerous.

      • DEFENDER88

        ps You are WRONG about the sequence of events at the Walmart. Look it up.
        Joseph Wilcox(the good guy) drew down on Jared Miller, after Jared had shot 2 cops. If you are wrong about that what else might you be wrong about????
        You are guessing, assuming, grasping and making up your own “facts”. And disparaging an American hero.
        Concealed gun carrier Joseph Wilcox was/is an American hero. He gave his life trying to stop the cop killers and save lives. At least he tried to actually “do something”.
        He died like a brave, good man, not like a cowering, scared defenseless sheep which you seem to want us to be.
        “The two (killers)(Jared and Amanda Miller), after killing 2 cops, then fled to a nearby Walmart, where Jerad fired a shot at the ceiling and ordered shoppers to leave. Joseph Wilcox, who was carrying a concealed weapon, drew his weapon and confronted Jerad,[9] but passed Amanda as he did so, not realizing that she was armed and Jerad’s accomplice; Amanda shot and killed Wilcox

      • leadvillexp

        God made men, (women), Colt made them equal!

    • Wedge Shot

      A woman with a gun can be just as much of a killer as a man with a gun.
      A woman with a gun that is mentally challenged can kill just as easy as anyone else. It does not matter who releases a bullet it can kill an innocent person just as easily as a bad person.

    • Dominick Vila

      I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, but I am perplexed by the fears expressed by so many people, and their admission that they cannot leave home without a lethal weapon to protect themselves against unknown assailants. Perhaps my age is afflicting my ability to identify threats, or I missed the fact that we have become the Syria of the Americas, but what I see in my neck of the woods, are people to talk to their neighbors about the weeds, armadillos digging holes in their yards, sales, and the weather. In spite of the gun violence he see and hear about every single day on TV, the United States is a peaceful, civilized, nation rather than the out of control country that those consumed by hatred or paranoia would like us to believe we live in.
      BTW, the proposals that are on the table on the issue of gun control, have nothing to do with disarmament. The goal was to strengthen Reagan’s Brady Act to make it as difficult as possible for criminals and the mentally ill to have access to lethal weapons. Whether or not such a measure would have achieved its intended goal is another matter.

  • Dominick Vila

    OMG, what are the brave men who can’t leave home without a concealed weapon going to do now if an angry female gives them a piece of her mind? How are our heroes going to demonstrate their machismo without a semi-automatic weapon hanging from their shoulder while walking to college past students taking a last peek at their books to prepare for a test? Think about it. This is cruel and unusual punishment imposed by Liberals intent on helping psychiatrists increase their earnings by treating paranoid schizophrenics. I knew there had to be a conspiracy theory associated with the calls to reduce gun violence…

    • DEFENDER88

      I do love your conspiracy theory:), but it is more like this:
      A liberal view:
      OMG,OMG,OMG – She DEFENDED Herself, with a GUN!!!!, OMG OMG
      Those poor little children(200lb, 6’1″, 17yo “Boys”).
      All they wanted was all her money, and a piece of “her”.
      Starts like this :”Give it up Bitch”

      • Dominick Vila

        The problem with your analogy is that very often the victims of gun violence are women, children, and unarmed citizens minding their own business. Killers don’t send an invitation card ahead of time, they strike and try to run after committing their crime. In any case, what most of us advocate is better screening before a lethal weapon is sold to minimize the probability of criminals and the mentally ill using guns to carry out their crimes. Nobody is proposing to take guns away from responsible citizens.

      • Wedge Shot

        And so she pulls a gun and kills an innocent bystander and he says he had no intention of doing anything but saying hello. Dumb bitch, right?

        • DEFENDER88

          Your point is??

          • Wedge Shot

            More guns more deaths. Just hope one of those deaths isn’t you wife or one of your kids. If it is you please contemplate during the millisecond or two it takes for the bullet to penetrate your body that maybe having guns on every person isn’t such a good idea.
            People are irresponsible and people with guns are irresponsible and deadly.

          • DEFENDER88

            My, you really are Hard Headed.
            And “talking” like a kid.
            I repeat:
            Gun sales are at record levels, US gun ownership is at record levels.
            Meanwhile – the crime and gun crime rate continues to drop.
            Sorry – but your “More guns equals more deaths” is – In fact – FACTUALLY WRONG.
            As for having guns on “every person”, I do NOT advocate that. “I” think you should have to show that you are a “responsible” owner. That is what “permits” are for. “Some are” but Not everyone(as you say) is “irresponsible”.

          • Wedge Shot

            More people were killed by guns last year than by automobile accidents.
            And guns are among one of the top causes of death for people between ages 16 and 28.
            Hold on to that gun but I hope you never pull it out and use it because it is very likely that some innocent person will die.

          • DEFENDER88

            The reason it is the leading cause of death for people 16-28 is the gang/drug crime in the big cities. You should intuitively know that.
            I repeat – the reason more people were killed by guns then cars is that 75% of the people killed by guns were suicides.

            Take that figure out and Fewer people are killed by “gun crime”.

            Which is the real issue – “Gun Crime” is the real issue, not suicides.

            That is a personal choice we should all have the right too.

            It is not helpful to present data on the issue that is deceptive like that.

            There are real issues with gun violence which do need to be addressed but suicides is not one of them.

            Except how to keep guns away from the mentally unstable.

            You have no idea of my level of training.

            I often teach police to shoot(on a volunteer basis).

            But some shoot better than others.

            Especially under stress.

            And all shootings involve a level of high stress.

            As for me shooting a by-stander, its highly unlikely.

            I have been shot-at 3 different times(and me with no gun).

            So I learned how to shoot, even so – it is highly unlikely I will ever pull my gun, much less hit a non-threat.

            I also learned how to defend myself in hand-to-hand combat. I will do that 1st, If I have a choice.

            What you may not know is – there are methods, tactics, etc to avoid shooting by-standers.

            I practice that very thing all the time(at least weekly), very seriously.

            Much, much more than most police.

            Most police shoot maybe 50-100 rds a month practice.

            I shoot at least 500-1,000 rds a month practice.

            And that is Active Combat Pistol Tactical practice. Not standing, shooting stationary targets.

          • Wedge Shot

            So you are a super human that can do no wrong. Great, but what about the many people with guns that are not? Just hope one of those folks don’t fire a round in your direction.
            A bullet does not care what your training level is when it kills you.

          • Wedge Shot

            I see, the fact that there is a gun available is one of the reasons people use guns to kill themselves. Every life counts and it is very likely that a suicide may not happen if it took more than a flick of the finger to kill yourself. many people have seconds thoughts after the fact if the survive the suicides attempt but with a gun there is no second thought because they are dead.
            Handguns have but one purpose and that is to kill someone when they are used.
            Just hope that no one uses one on you.

          • leadvillexp

            Not true. In places where gun laws are liberal crime has gone down. If you ask any criminal what he fears most it is an armed citizen. Criminals have guns and don’t care about you or your kids. Could a bystander be killed? Yes. Police also kill bystanders. When your life is on the line you try your best to hit the enemy but bullets don’t stop in the person and you can miss. The alternative is you can allow yourself to be killed or raped. Saying HI won’t get you shot.

          • Wedge Shot

            More BS. Please enjoy the millisecond that it takes for the bullet to transverse your body. And during the next 5 minutes after that consider the fact that you advocated for everyone to have guns because you thought that that would make you safer. It is like saying that the more pollution there is the better the environment would be. As your brain dies and your eyesight becomes dim contemplate just how stupid you have been.
            More guns equals more irresponsible people with the means to end your life and any one of your family members just by flicking their finger.
            Good luck.

          • leadvillexp

            It would seem to me that the bad guy had a gun and was willing to use it on you. So you have no gun because you obayed the law and you lay there and die. How many people have been taken to a back room and killed? No witness. I at least will go down with a fight and won’t be led like a sheep to slaughter. How many women have just had to take it and then be killed because they didn’t know how, or couldn’t defend themselves? The only way to stop crime is fight back. Criminals don’t like armed people, they are afraid of them. Oh, and don’t depend on the police. It takes them time to get there and it will be over when they do get there. They will take the bad guy, put him on trial and give him a few years to think about it. Even life in prison is not really life, he will get out.

          • Wedge Shot

            I am far more afraid of average people carrying guns than I am with criminals having them. At least with a criminal I know that they possible could kill me but with average citizens I have no idea that they would think they are John Wayne and start shooting. Their intervention could add to the deadly encounter because in intense citations average people act irrationally. Even trained police officers often act irrationally when using a gun. There are many examples of this including another incident in Orlando where police officers fired over a hundred shots, trying to stop a guy in a SUV. Many of these shots went through apartment building living rooms and bedrooms. Another one recently was went a cop fired 11 shots at some guy and one of them went through a door and killed a girl sitting at a bar.
            Lastly, how would law enforcement know who is the bad guy and who is the good guy if everyone is firing shots at each other?
            That exact thing happened in Orlando a few years ago when an undercover cop pulled a gun on some drinking students. Another cop saw this scene and killed the undercover cop since he thought he was that bad guy.
            More guns equals more deaths. Keep your gun at home and let the police take care of the streets.

          • leadvillexp

            While there may be some that would be quick to pull the trigger most citizens are not. Many spend hours on the range training and are better shots than the police. As for the 11 shots fired by the Police Officer, during a firefight with someone shooting at you, many don’t count the shots. In Orlando there has to be more to the story. Could it be that the people in the SUV were trying to kill the police and others? Lastly, by the time the police arrive on a scene the shooting is over. The rule is to put the gun down and obey the arriving officers commands. You may be detained but not shot. The shooting of the undercover officer was a tragic accident. I’ll take my chances with legal gun owners over criminals any day.

          • Wedge Shot

            No one was firing at the officer. The guy had a empty gun and never fired one shot.

          • leadvillexp

            First of all what idiot points a gun at a cop, empty or not. Is the cop supposed to ask is your gun empty? I was taught that when you pull or point a gun at something you mean to kill it. The cop also was most likely taught this.

          • Wedge Shot

            A cop is not going to wait for you to put down your gun. Remember the 12 year old that was shot in two seconds after the cop arrived on scene?

          • leadvillexp

            That is why when the bad guy is out of commission you should reholster or put the gun down and put your hands in plain sight so you don’t pose a danger to the police officer. As for the 12 year old I wasn’t there. A 12 year old can be as dangerous as a 45 year old. One only has to look at the gang shootings in some of our major cities to see this. Not all 12 year olds are innocent as we all would like to believe. I remember a story about a 13 year old car thief that when finally stopped to the police officer “I would have killed you if I could have”. I would suggest you go out and ride with a cop some night and learn what they go through.

          • blcartwright

            100% of criminals are intending to do you or someone else harm. 99.9% of average people are not. You may think people are too stupid to use their guns, but you are also ignoring the intent of the different groups of users.

    • DEFENDER88

      One of the reasons I voted for Obama 2 times was his stated neutral position on gun control.

      But (as reported in “Salon”)(hardly a Right Wing Rag) – There are those in the current Admin who are pushing hard for Registration toward Confiscation. And many will still be there if Hillary wins.

      I hear you, and you and I could probably work something out, but, there are many in here who desire confiscation of all guns.

      The problem with your position is, it is “your” position and many in the lib ranks and even in here DO want severe limitations to total confiscation. They have no thought whatsoever concerning the 60million honest, responsible gun owners who desire or even need a gun for Self Defense.

      That is why I will have serious difficulty ever voting Dem again.

      I also support measures to deny guns to mentally ill, criminals etc.

      And this is an area where some progress “could” be made.

      BUT – BACK GROUND CHECKS – Problem is the criminals don’t do Back Ground checks – so the problems have to be approached at a more fundamental level of what is causing the crime – ie poverty leading to drug trade, a Welfare System that removes Male Role Models from poor homes, etc.

      MASS KILLINGS – Most of the “mass” killings have been done by young white men on psychotropic drugs.

      “All” the recent Mass Killings have been done by young white men on drugs, even at Ft Hood, and mostly in “Gun Free Zones”??

      Mental health “treatment” now is – prescribe an Anti-depressant and call me when you need more.

      EVERY DAY KILLING – Most of the everyday killing is being done in the “hood” – drug trade related mostly. About 80%.

      Rifles account for only 4% of shootings, and Assault rifles as a sub category of rifles account for less than 1%.

      Pistols are where it is at.

      My guns and cars –

      Left alone – none of my guns will ever get up, walk out the door and shoot anyone.

      So – my poistion is – the Gun is not the problem – it is the person using it.

      And that is where we should concentrate our efforts.

      When a drunk kills someone with a car, we don’t scream “ban cars”, we punish the “drunk killer”.

      Efforts to deny access to bad actors – yes. But don’t disarm responsible owners(about 60million). For the actions of the few.

      Magazine Capacities? – Same argument – it is not the gun it is the operator.

      You can take 5 or 10 rd magazines and kill just as many as with a 30rd magazine.

      All you need is pockets to carry magazines – easy enough.

      Magazine changes take less than 3 seconds(for even the less skilled).

      • Dominick Vila

        It is not a good idea to decide who to vote for based on a single issue. I prefer to consider all the issues that are important to me before I form an opinion about a party and/or candidate.
        I am sure there are people who would prefer total disarmament, but they are a minority, and they will never achieve their goal.

        • DEFENDER88

          I agree. Single Issue voters tend to be very passionate but too narrow minded.
          I still think he is perhaps the most intelligent pres we have had and did well to pull the economy out.
          But I have some issues with him, but more with advisors, donors, lobbyists, the “party”, etc
          I am pretty passionate about the right to self defense and access to weapons I may need, but I have other issues with Obama and his admin on Immigration, Keystone Pipeline, some foreign policies, more.
          From what I see, as long as the Dem party is in office, I have to worry about what new approach they will think of next to control my access to weapons, capacities, ammo, etal. Especially when we have the next school massacre which we surely will until the mental health system failure issue is addressed.

          • Dominick Vila

            President Obama never proposed disarming Americans. His proposal involves expanding Reagan’s Brady Act to include stricter background checks to make it as difficult as possible for criminals and the mentally ill to acquire lethal weapons and commit crimes. Admittedly, such measure is unlikely to prevent those intent on killing people from doing so, but it is better than doing nothing to stop or reduce the carnage.
            His stand on immigration, which is limited to a TEMPORARY WORK PERMIT for those who have been in the USA for over 5 years and who have children born in the USA pales in comparison to Reagan’s 1986 AMNESTY (a full, unconditional, pardon that cannot be reversed). The same goes for the legislation signed by Bush II, including the one issued in 2006 encouraging Cuban medical personnel to leave Venezuela and come to the USA.
            The Keystone pipeline does not help the USA in any way. The best that can be hoped for is 4,000 temporary jobs during the construction phase, and a team of 40 inspectors/repairmen to maintain the pipeline after its construction is complete. The Canadian oil transported via that pipeline is not for U.S. consumption, but for export to foreign countries from Louisiana ports. I don’t understand why anyone would support the destruction of our environment to help a Canadian company after the Canadian people banned the construction of such pipeline via their country because their their environment is not for sale.

          • blcartwright

            Reagan had his amnesty passed by Congress. Obama wants to give work permits to those who are barred by law from receiving them, without first changing the law.

            The State Dept report says that most of the Canadian oil would not be exported. We already have many, many pipelines – why would one more destroy the environment? I suspect that once the Canadian crude, which needs similar refining to that from Venezuela, arrives in Texas, there will be no need for Venezuelan oil and that will further crash their economy.

          • Dominick Vila

            Amnesty is subjected to Congressional approval, a temporary work permit that instruct Federal government agencies not to arrest and deport those who have been in the USA over 5 years, and who had children born in the USA, does not. The rationale for the work permits is to encourage Congress to act on immigration law reform to, hopefully, find long and short term solutions to this problem. Not necessarily amnesty.The State Department does not have authority over private enterprise and cannot decide what Trans-Canada wants to do with its oil. The company has announced that they plan to refine the tar sand oil in refineries in the Gulf of Mexico for export to China and other countries, and there is no reason to doubt their intentions. Our oil imports, and record high domestic oil production, are enough to satisfy our needs. You are right about having plenty of pipelines. However, many oil companies prefer to transport their crude by rail because it is cheaper and because it gives them more flexibility to deliver it to whomever is willing to pay the highest prices. That, by the way, leads to another issue: rail safety. Our rail system is antiquated, uses 1930 technology and rules, and it is prone to derailments and fires. The oil companies that own the tankers could upgrade them to the newest models, which are well protected against cracking, are most stable, and have technology that limits the possibility of explosions, but they are expensive and since the applicable regulation is voluntary, they are unwilling to invest in new tankers.

          • blcartwright

            discretion is prosecution is not the same as an affirmative granting of status and rights, such as issuing even temporary work permits. see pages 90-100 of temporary injunction. Congress has already passed a law, which is still in effect, which says those in the country illegally may not be given employment, and that means the executive branch can not give permission for them to work unless the law is changed. The admin cannot legally “encourage” Congress by violating existing law.

            Yes, the Canadian oil can go anywhere, but I was referring to an analysis by Obama’s own Sate Dept. It would be a much shorter ocean route to send the oil to Vancouver.

          • Dominick Vila

            Presidents have the authority to issue temporary directives to Federal government departments and agencies when they determine that something is not in our best interests. It is up to Congress to pass legislation changing the law, which does not necessarily mean amnesty.
            On the issue of jurisdiction. I believe it refers to people born outside the USA, in places where the U.S. has jurisdiction. For example, Sen. McCain was born in Panama at a time when we had jurisdiction over the PCZ. He is, therefore, considered an American by birth. The same goes people born in U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico. The people born in that island are U.S. citizens at birth.
            Yes, there are shorter routes to Vancouver to expedite oil exports to China. Unfortunately for Trans-Canada, the Canadian people objected to the construction of a pipeline to carry highly corrosive tar sand oil via their beautiful country, which left the oil company no choice but to propose building it across the USA.

          • blcartwright

            The presidents directives must fit within existing law, not be contradictory of them. Otherwise, why bother writing the law to begin with, just let the president dictate.

            You are wrong on jurisdiction. It says born in the US AND subject to US jurisdiction. Both must be true. Born in the US and born outside the US cannot both be true at the same time. Your interpretation would be “Born in the US OR under US jurisdiction”.

          • Dominick Vila

            If your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, neither John McCain, who was born in Panama, nor Rafael “Ted” Cruz, who was born in Canada, are natural born citizens and, therefore, were/are not eligible to be President of the United States. Anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen by birth since the USA, and only the USA, has jurisdiction over its territory.

          • blcartwright

            that part of the 14th amendment does not preclude additional methods of natural born citizenship. That it was in an amendment passed in the late 1860’s, seventy some years after the initial adoption of the constitution, means that there was already a stated definition of citizenship. The reason that the constitution needed to be amended was that the original text was in debate, and that debate was used to deprive slaves of citizenship. After the end of the Civil War, three amendments were passed to unambiguously state that the freed slaves, along with everyone else born in the U.S. and subject to it’s jurisdiction, where indeed citizens of the U.S. and enjoyed federal civil rights based on that citizenship.

            Again, the amendment was necessary because there were a class of people existing in the country at that time who were born in the U.S., and subject to it’s jurisdiction, but who were being denied their citizenship under the existing interpretation of the constitution and of law.

          • Dominick Vila

            I am not a lawyer, but I believe the rationale for issuing Amendments to the original text in the Constitution, on the issue of citizenship, was prompted by the fact that the term “natural born citizen” was not clearly defined in the original document. If I am not mistaken, the legal interpretation of the term is as follows:
            “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term
            “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S.
            citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the
            United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien
            parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born
            in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at
            birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a
            U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien”
            required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a
            U.S. citizen.”
            Another possibility for the changes may involve the fact that when some of the Amendments were written people were already moving West and South from the original 13 colonies, to areas over which the USA did not yet have legal jurisdiction.

          • blcartwright

            and this gets back around to our original point. I agree with much of what you post above.

            You quote ” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction” That they used the word “and” between “being born in” and “under it’s jurisdiction” means 1. they are two different things, that being born in the US does not guarantee that one is under it’s jurisdiction and 2. that both are necessary.

            I started talking about this because many, many people, when attempting to quote this amendment, forget or ignore the jurisdiction clause, and simply state that only birth in the US is necessary, when that is not true.

            It depends on the meaning of “jurisdiction” and this will likely need to be resolved by the courts. Congress may pass a law defining jurisdiction as not including those who entered the country legally. That would then be challenged in court. If struck down, there would still remain the option of amending the constitution to include this definition.

          • Dominick Vila

            I interpret the “and” as reinforcement of the first phrase. Every state and U.S. territory is under the jurisdiction of the United States. So were the original 13 colonies. I suspect the intent was to address the fact that large numbers of Americans were already heading West and South, to areas controlled by Spain and France, or by Native Americans, when the Constitution was written. Obviously, those areas were not yet under the jurisdiction of the United States. In any case, if this ever becomes an issue, the correct interpretation will be, hopefully, made by Law scholars. Maybe the Supreme Court. BTW, this is not the only part of the Constitution that could be interpreted differently by a layman.

          • blcartwright

            No, I disagree. “and” means two different conditions that both must be met. The land is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, but not all the people are, for example, foreign military and diplomats. The court will likely have to rule whether those who entered the country illegally have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the government or not.

          • blcartwright

            Searching through the text of the Constitution, it appears that citizens are referenced, but never defined. It had been left to the states and/or to federal legislation. When that proved insufficient constitutional protection was added.

            According to this, citizen passed on by blood is determined by legislation in effect at the time. McCain was born while his father was deployed in the military, and that is not held against them, the same as diplomats posted abroad. In 2008 McCain submitted his documentation to Congress and they declared him eligible. Obama said “trust me.”

            If I recall correctly, Cruz’s mother was a natural born U.S. citizen while his father was an immigrant, and he was born in Canada while his father worked there. I realize there may still be questions about his eligibility to run for President.

            Mitt Romney’s father George was born in Mexico while his parents where on a missions trip, but he was eligible to run for president in I believe 1968.

            In some cases you have U.S. citizens posted abroad or temporarily out of the country, in another with that country’s permission. In other cases you have people who have illegally entered the U.S. with the intent to avoid government jurisdiction, even while being present. That will be a question for the courts to decide, and possibly for an amendment to clarify.

          • Dominick Vila

            I am well aware of laws pertaining to children of U.S. born citizens born overseas. I was born in Brooklyn, NYC and spent 30 years overseas. My wife was born in Spain, where our children were born. They are considered U.S. citizens by virtue of the fact that I am an American born citizen. I have no problem with John McCain’s or Mitt Romney’s citizenship. I have a huge problem with the allegations that children born in the USA are not American citizens if their parents are illegal immigrants, and I have a problem when people claim that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen, even though his mother was born in Kansas, but have no problem supporting Rafael (Ted” Cruz’s candidacy, even though hi Cuban father was once a member of Castro’s regime.

          • Dominick Vila

            If Presidential directives are supposed to be consistent with existing laws, why was former President George W. Bush able to issue a directive encouraging Cuban medical personnel working in Venezuela to come to the USA, and why are asylum seekers from Cuba allowed to stay the moment they set foot in the USA, and children from Central America seeking asylum to escape the violence that prevail in countries like Honduras are shipped back to their homeland? Should we assume the presidential Directives, and the law itself, is applied differently dependent on who writes them, how people interpret it, and how they fit our philosophical and financial priorities?

          • blcartwright

            according to this article, the Canadian pipeline ban was not for environmental reasons.

            If pipelines built for LNG were converted to carry oil, that would harm the fledgling LNG production in British Columbia. It was BC saying they wanted the pipes reserved for their LNG rather than be used for Alberta’s oil.

        • DEFENDER88

          Gun Control

          True, Obama “himself” did not propose disarming Americans. But as reported by Salon – there are others in the Admin who “have” and “do” argue for that very thing. And they will likely still be there if Hillary wins. It is not Obama I worry about, it is the Gun Control Progressives in the Admin who will remain when he is gone.

          Data on the Assault Rifle ban has shown that it had no effect what so ever on crime and killing.

          Especially since “Assault” Rifles account for well less than 1% of crime. More like .01%.

          If Hillary is elected I fully expect to see a ban on Magazine Capacities. Which is just ignorant.

          And Joe Biden (bless his little heart:) advocates “Just get a shotgun”. Shotguns are more dangerous to most women and those around them than pistols or even an Assault Rifle(much less recoil).

          Keystone Pipeline

          There are just as many good arguments that the pipeline will virtually eliminate the need to import heavy crude from Venezuela(A country that is progressively becoming more of a threat to our security). They offered Naval Bases to Russian Fleets for Christ sake.

          One of the reasons for the pipeline is to get the Canadian heavy crude to existing Gulf Coast refineries that can process it.

          Since we are no longer allowed to build any refineries in the USA. And have not built a new one in what – the last 30yrs?

          Another argument against it (by the “Tree Huggers”), that I don’t buy is it will lead to an increase in pollution since people will be driving more since the pipeline will allow for an increased supply and a decrease in gasoline prices in the US. The decrease in gas prices I do believe. I see a decrease in gas prices as essentially a progressive win for the less fortunate/poor in the US. If we cannot get a minimum wage increase, a decrease in gas prices will be almost as good. You, as a progressive, should support this.


          The administration did not deport the surge we had in illegals about 6mo ago. They were dispersed to various centers in small towns across the US and now live among us. So now my tax dollars go to providing them with housing, health care, etal. I don’t have a problem with “Immigration” – I do have a problem with “Illegal Immigration”.

          I also have a problem with the “Anchor Baby” problem but have to admit that was not started by Obama. But he has not done much to try to correct that problem. A whole industry has developed around this issue to exploit the problem.

          • Dominick Vila

            I lived in Venezuela from 1946 to 1958, at a time when they were one of our largest customers and when we imported most of their oil. Imports of Venezuelan oil is negligible. Most of our oil imports in recent years were from Canada and Mexico. with some oil coming from Saudi Arabia, and a few other places. The reason for that involve the political problems we are having with Venezuela, and the fact that their oil is rich in sulfur and expensive to process. In any case, we are now an oil exporter!
            I have no idea what Hillary will do about guns or high capacity magazines. She has not elaborated on that subject.
            President Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President, and twice as many as Reagan and George W. Bush combined. The influx of children and some women about a year ago involved people seeking asylum to escape violence in Central American countries such as Honduras, Guatemala and to a lesser extent El Salvador. Granting asylum was never controversial before. We did it after the end of the Vietnam war, we have been granting it to Cubans for decades, and nobody raised an eyebrow…until President Obama proposed solutions to what was, ostensibly, a humanitarian crisis. As for the “anchor babies”, children born in the USA whose parents are illegal immigrants, we would have to change the Constitution to deport them. The Constitution is clear on the issue of citizenship. Anyone born in the USA is an American citizen. Period. Admittedly, there was no such a thing as “illegal” immigrants when the Constitution was written and signed. Anybody that wanted to come was allowed to do so and welcomed, an even some who had no interest in coming were brought here by force…legally!

          • blcartwright

            What you said about the sulfur content of Venezuelan oil is true, it is expensive to refine. However, they continue to be the #4 exporter to the US
            122.6 Canada
            25.4 Mexico
            25.2 Saudi Arabia
            23.0 Venezuela
            11.0 Russia

            One other thing – the constitution says people born in the U.S. AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof – it can be argued that people who have illegally entered the country had not subjected themselves to U.S. jurisdiction, rather they had sought to evade it by failing to get a visa. The “AND” means both parts have to be true. I doubt they could revoke citizenships already recognized, but I believe they could stop giving them to anchor babies without changing the constitution.

          • Dominick Vila

            I believe the sentence you cited from the Constitution applies to the so called “Dreamers” (children who were brought into the USA illegally). I believe the term “anchor babies” refers to children born in the USA, whose parents entered the USA illegally. I am unaware of anything in the Constitution that denies children born in the USA the right to citizenship because of crimes committed by their parents. Probably, because there was no such a thing as an illegal immigrant when the Constitution was written and signed.

          • blcartwright


            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

            are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

            AND means BOTH parts have to be true in order for the whole to be true.

            It was specifically stated that if someone was born in the US but they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they are not US citizens. They included that for a reason.

            It would likely be up to the courts to determine what was meant by jurisdiction. One meaning would be a foreign diplomat or military person posted to the US. I would argue another would be those that deliberately evaded the immigration and naturalization process.

  • 2ThinkN_Do2

    In response to the party (drug/alcohol usage) atmosphere as part of the cause; permanent expulsion from school if caught doing any of the above a third time; if you are under legal age to partake of the substance pleasures. The behaviors allowed to take place with nary a slap on the wrist have gone on for far too long. Sadly, many of these mutant humans go on to be leaders of communities, states and nations. Maybe we need to teach more about Respect, Personal Responsibility, Common Sense and how to Love Yourself and Others before worshipping, money and other false idols.

  • Godzilla

    Once the Liberal liars decided to LIE about rape in the Rolling Stone article, they opened the door to common sense thinking. Allow law abiding, legally aged adults to exercise their natural right of self defense in a place they have been denied their Rights. The war on women isn’t a Right Wing war, it’s clearly a Left Wing war. It’s hypocrisy at best to claim that a woman should have a choice what to do with her body when it come’s to abortion, but then claim they shouldn’t have the choice to protect their bodies as they see fit. Hypocrits and Liars. That’s why Progressivism will eventually be destroyed in this country.

    • leadvillexp

      Remember Tawana Brawley? Liars. All people have a right to self defense. Liberals like to think they are for the people but in reality they are for those that can afford it and like to make you believe they are for the underclass. They create the underclass. How many of the liberals have body guards at our expense or carry firearms themselves? When found out they say they need it because they are public figures and need protection.

  • Whatmeworry

    When did a constitutional protection end at some arbitory boundary

  • Whatmeworry

    Constitutional protection should end at some arbitory boundary

  • Wedge Shot

    When your right to carry a gun and makes my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vulnerable then my right supersedes yours.
    More guns equal more gun deaths. More than 30 thousand last year and more than all auto accidents combined.

    • DEFENDER88

      NOTICE – ‘Your” – “Right to LIfe” – does not supersede mine or anyone else’s. How f*k*n* arrogant. And that includes my right to defend myself from harm.

      When your right to be a “gun grabber” makes my right to self defense “vulnerable”, than my right supersedes “yours”.
      I can act like an arrogant a*s too.

      As for the data and facts:

      Your statements of fact are either “wrong” or deceptive.

      You are either Ignorant of the facts or being deceptive to suit some agenda or just Lying.

      Your 30 thousand gun death figure includes 25 thousand suicides.

      Talk about deceptive data.

      As for “More guns equal more gun deaths” –
      That is “Factually Wrong”.
      While we DO, in fact have by far, the most guns per capita,
      The US per-capita murder rate is 4.7/100,000 residents.
      That puts the US at 111th in the world of 212 countries.

    • leadvillexp

      I find criminals don’t care about your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness any more than they do mine. If you choose to let them have what ever you have so be it, but don’t tell me I have to give them mine. I have no problem giving them lead. In areas where the public has access to guns crime goes down. Ask any criminal and he will tell you the thing he most fears is a armed citizen. State back this up. Fight back!

  • Gank

    With regards to Texas Licensed concealed carry holders:

    Stats from the Texas DPS website. Conviction rate for Peace Officers, CHL holders and the general public.

    2011 Stats:

    General public = 362.47 per 100,000

    Peace Officer = 103 per 100,000

    CHL holder = 23.14 per 100,000

    Yup! Peace officers in TX have a 5x higher conviction rate than CHL holders! And that’s with CHL holders having additional laws they must follow above and beyond the others!

    Licensed Law abiding citizens ARE NOT the problem. Its the General public that are!

    It is not mathematically possible for CHL holders carrying in an area to increase crime.

  • Pie Thon

    In 2005, the number of homicides in the democrat city of Philadelphia was more than four times the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan.

  • blcartwright

    so as soon as someone else decides to be an aggressor, it’s “game over, you lose!” because no one is allowed to defend themselves. The quoted lawmaker wishes to se a few dead rapists, I don’t think you can accuse him of being soft on the issue.