Posted on 08/31/2012 10:33:50 AM PDT by marktwain
Make no mistake, Assemblyman William Horne (D-Las Vegas) is almost assuredly the most anti-gun state legislator you’ll find in Nevada.
Indeed, Horne single-handedly killed a bill in the last legislative session that would have allowed individuals who are properly licensed to carry concealed weapons to do so on college campuses. The bill was known as the Amanda Collins Act - named for the 25-year-old young woman who was brutally raped at gunpoint in a UNR parking garage with no means to protect herself because current law bans guns on campus.
The victim in this case abided by the law. The rapist ignored it. Go figure, right?
The bill was overwhelmingly passed in the state Senate with bipartisan support. However, Horne, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Assembly, refused to even hold a hearing on the bill, let alone a vote. So the bill died at the assemblyman’s hands.
Last October Horne was at it again, shamelessly taking advantage of the tragic shooting at the IHOP restaurant in Carson City to voice his opposition to legal ownership of assault weapons; asking at the time, “Why does a typical citizen need to own an assault weapon?”
Um, to start with…because the bad guys have them?
Apparently to Horne the “typical citizen” should only be allowed to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Which brings us to an August 28, 2012 hearing by the Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice which voted 8-5 to not even discuss any proposal to ban assault weapons in Nevada. That decision really got Horne’s knickers in a knot.
At the hearing, Horne, the committee chairman, “blasted” Elko Republican Assemblyman John Ellison for writing a column encouraging Second Amendment supporters to email Horne and voice their opposition to any such ban.
“Here in Nevada many people use these weapons for recreational use for target shooting, hunting and self-protection,” Ellison wrote. “Also, many livestock owners carry them in their vehicle to keep predators from livestock.”
Horne took offense and complained at the hearing that Ellison shouldn’t have written the column, and also claimed Ellison implied that Horne supported such a ban. But Ellison’s op-ed did no such thing. Ellison simply directed folks to email Horne as chairman of the legislative commission; that’s all.
So for Horne to erupt in such a manner brings to mind the phrase, “Methinks thou doth protest too much.”
Horne claims to be a gun owner himself…which may very well be true. Nevertheless, his actions and words clearly reveal the instincts of a guns-for-me-but-not-for-thee gun-grabber of the first degree. Thank goodness for Second Amendment defenders such as Assemblyman Ellison who won’t stand by and let the victim disarmament crowd get away with it.
Politicians who violate their oaths of office and seek to curtail our God-given Constitutional rights should be forcefully removed from office and run out of town.
Not knowing the case, are we to assume,based on the way this article is worded, that Amanda Collins already had a valid carry permit and was forced to leave her gun in the car due to the current law?
Forcefully indeed. The argument is not about how we USE the gun, it is about having the civil right to HAVE a gun, when and wherever we want. Misdirection of the argument usually wins for the misdirector.
Why does this jerk think that "Need" is the criteria for anything in a free society? The most basic human needs of air, water and food are not on anyone's list of freedoms or entitlements. And who is he to decide what someone else's needs may be?
As a point of fact, the "arms" mentioned in our 2nd Amendment were meant to mean exactly the same as those carried by the police and military so that the citizens could protect themselves from invading armies or our own government if necessary. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting.
Obama’s and other socialist’s views on "Needs" and “Sharing the Wealth” are as absurd as “Sharing the Sex”.
Did you know that some people have more than they “need” and they are unwilling to share? Some people believe that those that have lots, somehow received it from those that have little or none. Worst of all, some people seem to have more that they “deserve”. They may have inherited certain assets from their parents and that’s not “fair” to other less fortunate people. I’ll wager that a politician could receive lots of votes if he’d promise more to anyone who voted for him.
We don't need politicians prescribing what we need or want.
Again, the problem is not William Horne, it is the people who elected him.
More than identified, they need to be psychoanalyzed, and put into groups as to why, the real reasons, they so strongly oppose other people being armed.
Some obvious categories include:
1) Extreme personal fear of assassination, in which they want to be armed and protected at all times, but do not want anyone else to be armed or protected. The mayor of New York City is a grand example of this psychology, surrounding himself with a phalanx of armed bodyguards willing to kill anyone who threatens him. He is terrified of meeting his end like Huey Long.
2) Phonophobia, the “fear of loud noises”. About 15% of people have this to some degree, distinguishable because though like everyone else they are shocked by loud, unexpected noises, their phobia is engaged by the *anticipation* of the *possibility* of loud noises. For example, they cannot see an inflated rubber balloon without being afraid that it might pop; or see a gun without being afraid of the *noise* it might produce when fired.
3) Covert aggression. Deliberate, active, but carefully veiled hostile acts, “intended to harm others through deliberate manipulation of their social standing and relationships.” This is an effort by someone in a position of authority to elevate their power, wealth and social status by forcing everyone else down. Typified by trying to create a public sense of fear and apprehension that can only be remedied by the aggressor.
4) Passive-aggression. Denying others their rights for the sake of making them uncomfortable, for encouraging feelings of victimization and dependency, and out of fear of competition and inability to trust others. Typified by obstructionism, inefficiency, creating ambiguity in rules and enforcement, along with frequent reviews and changes to established rules.
“Not knowing the case, are we to assume,based on the way this article is worded, that Amanda Collins already had a valid carry permit and was forced to leave her gun in the car due to the current law?”
“However, Collins couldn’t aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That’s because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a “gun free” zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.”
Yes, unfortunately, tarring and feather someone constitutes assault and battery, now a days.
got it. thanks.
I am sick and tired of anti-gun leftists who refer to themselves as “gun owners”. They may have their Grandpa’s shotgun up in the attic, but so what?
You are welcome. I believe that most cases such as this are never heard of.
Most likely it is just a political prop to them.
However, there are a lot of leftists who love guns...in their hands, or in the government's hands. They just do not want you to have a gun that cannot be easily taken from you when they decide that it is necessary.
That is why they push for registration so much.
Not a problem, just dress like Mexicans and speak Spanish/broken-English during the incident if you have to speak at all.
Politicians who seek to enact infringements and who oppose the 2A should lose ALL armed security.
Thank you TZ. Post photos of girls with guns ANYTIME.
Thank you TZ. Post photos of girls with guns ANYTIME.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.