This is Why the Good Guys Need to Carry Guns

hillaryguncontrol

After seeing the headlines the past few days about Hillary’s stance on increased gun control and her refusal to acknowledge that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, it got me to thinking about how to better argue on keeping our guns, rather than using the same old statements we fall back on all the time.

This story below from The Blaze in 2013, is the best example I could think of that might possibly shut her and the other gun grabbers up once and for all.

Dr. Suzanna Hupp became a case study in gun control after testifying in front of Congress as a survivor of the 1991 “Luby” massacre in Killeen, Texas where both of her parents were killed.  On Monday, more than a decade later, she spoke once more on the issue, examining it through the lens of the debate currently gripping the nation.

During her first appearance, Hupp explained how a friend had given her a gun when she was 21 and, though she doesn’t like guns or hunting, she agreed to get some training and carry it in her purse.

Not long after, a man crashed his car into a restaurant where she was eating with her family and started shooting people.

“It took me a good 45 seconds to realize that this man wasn’t there to commit a robbery,” she said. “He was there to simply shoot as many people as he possibly could.”

“When I finally realized what was occurring, I thought, ‘I got him,” she said, snapping her hand.  “And I reached for my purse.  He was maybe 12 feet away…But then I realized that a couple of months earlier, I had made the stupidest decision of my life.  I took my gun out of my purse and left it in my car, because as you well know in the state of Texas, it’s sometimes a felony offense to carry a gun in your purse.”

She proceeded to describe how her father was shot trying to rush the man, and how she tried to escape with her mother.  When she turned around, she saw that her mother had run back to be with her father in his final moments, and was soon shot as well.

In the intervening years, Hupp has become a staunch advocate for concealed-carry, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996.  After six terms, in 2006, she chose not to seek re-election.

She appeared on Monday, she said, not in any professional capacity, but simply as a citizen.

Hupp began by noting how uncomfortable she felt when victims of gun violence were asked to stand at the beginning of the hearing.

“Honestly, I don’t view myself as a victim of gun violence,” she said simply.  “I view myself as a victim of a maniac who happened to use a gun as a tool, and I view myself as a victim of the legislators at the time who left me defenseless.”

She re-told the gripping story with new details, before explaining one of the reasons why help was so slow in coming:

“The police officers, several of them, were patients of mine.  Several days later, they filled in the gaps.  They said they were actually one building away at a conference, and in an odd twist of gun control fate, the hotel where they were having their conference, the manager there didn’t want them to be wearing their guns and potentially offending any of her clients or customers…So precious minutes were lost as they retrieved their guns from their locked cars.

“They said that when they got over there…they didn’t know who the gunman was.  There were bodies everywhere.  But they saw a woman out in the aisle on her knees, cradling a mortally wounded man.  They said they watched as some thirty-something-year-old man walked up to her.  They said she looked up at him, he put a gun to her head, she looked down at her husband, and he pulled the trigger.  That’s how they knew who the gunman was.

“They said all they had to do was fire a shot into the ceiling, and the man immediately rabbited into a back bathroom alcove area…

“23 people were killed that day, including my parents.”

Hupp once again compared the killer to a “rabid dog,” which she said you take behind a barn and kill, but certainly don’t hold wholly accountable for its condition.

“But I’ve got to tell you, I was mad as heck at my legislators, because I honestly believe they legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family,” she concluded.  “And I would much rather be sitting in jail right now with a felony offense on my head, and have my parents alive to know their grandchildren.”

~~~~~~~~~

“I’m not mad at the guns that did this. They didn’t walk in there by themselves and pull the trigger.”

Later in the video she makes a statement regarding ‘assault weapons’ –

“You say they have no sporting purpose. You tell that to the guy during the L.A. riots standing on his rooftop defending his property. I’m sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose. People, that is not the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not about duck hunting. I know I’m not going to make many friends by saying this, but it’s about all of our rights (motioning toward the people seated behind her), because we have to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there (pointing to the panel of senators, etc.)”

Of course this woman’s experience wouldn’t influence Hillary’s opinion on guns because she’s spent the last 4 decades hiding behind secret service protection, and most likely will for the rest of her miserable life. She will never be able to see our right to bear arms from any other perspective because of that very protection afforded her for a lifetime of treason, secret deals, gun running operations and a long list of other offenses.

While this story may not change Hillary’s mind, it should certainly reinforce our convictions on the importance of keeping our right to bear arms. As everyone is well aware of, the maniacs hell bent on mass shootings has only increased over the years and we have every right to protect ourselves.

~Molon labe~

~Kathy



Categories: Political

6 replies

  1. Garnet92, when natural law and the constitution are on your side, you have to practice a little Rosa Parks and just refuse to submit. The Maxim of law is as follows: an unjust and unconstitutional law, is no law at all. We are in charge of our liberty not corrupted courts and legislators. That’s what I meant in another post when I said the only unalienable rights you have are those which you’re personally willing to exercise, enforce and suffer the consequences for. That’s what Rosa Parks did. That’s what we must do, or else we can all kiss unalienable rights goodbye. It takes courage.

    Like

  2. Garnet92, when natural law and the constitution are on your side, you have to practice a little Rosa Parks and just refuse to submit. The Maxim of law is an unjust and unconstitutional law, is no law at all. We are in charge our liberty not corrupted courts and legislators. That’s what I meant in another post when I said the only rights you have are the rights you’re personally willing to exercise, enforce and suffer the consequences for. That’s what Rosa Parks did. That’s what we must do, or kiss unalienable rights goodbye. It takes courage.

    Like

  3. No matter how many times I’ve heard Dr. Hupp’s story, it still runs shivers down my spine. Imagine watching your parents being gunned down in a restaurant by a deranged murderer and being helpless to do anything about it. Especially knowing that the gun she had been carrying was back in her car.

    I’d like to think that it couldn’t happen in a sizable restaurant in most Texas cities today because of the number of people who would likely be armed, but that may still be too optimistic. I know that if somehow, magically, the number of Texans (legally) carrying a handgun tripled overnight, I’d feel safer. But, our leftist friends would go apoplectic with the firm conviction that all of those additional evil guns would result in a tripling of the homicide rate – cowboy-style shootouts, blood in the streets, etc. They are so blinded with animosity towards those “evil killing devices” that they can’t reasonably and logically see that they would be relieved to see a civilian shooting back if they were unfortunate enough to be in a venue when a deranged shooter began randomly killing innocents.

    Like

    • I personally have a problem with saying anyone can “legally” carry a gun, whether concealed or open. Here’s why: If we must seek to legally carry, then it’s not an unalienable right protected by the 2nd amendment. It’s a mere government granted privilege. We need to take back the nomenclature of liberty. The proper term is to lawfully carry. Legality is a human construct, it is derived from the terms of civil contracts, statutes and regulations or by activist courts. Lawfully doing a thing under the terms of natural law, is to do something purely as a matter of right, so long as you are not infringing the rights or property of another in so doing. If I have a natural right to self defense by whatever weaponry I choose, especially a gun, then I do. Period. I have the right to have that protection with me wherever I travel as well as at home. I do not have the right to commit murder with that weapon, I do not have the right to use that weapon to take, by the threat of death, the property or security of a fellow human being. I do not have the right to terrorize anyone with a weapon. For those crimes against society, permit or no, you can and should be prosecuted. Conceal and carry laws are the attempt of government to make your “rights” subservient to government approval and whatever agenda is being pushed. It isn’t the function of our governments to educate us on the proper use of a firearm, unless we enter the military or civilian law-enforcement training. I was taught how to use a firearm in Boy Scouts and by family as we went hunting. I was taught that at home and via public service announcements, just as I was taught how to cross a street, when I was 5 years old walking three blocks to school. I was taught you never cross against a red light. You always stop, look and listen before entering a cross walk, you never j-walk and so on and so forth, I was taught even with toy guns at a very young age that you never point a gun at another human being or animal unless you intend to kill and you never attempt to kill a human being unless it is self defense and the situation is kill or be killed. My point is, converting the unalienable right to keep and bear arms from right to legally bestowed privilege, has done nothing to prevent gun crime and lots to enable it because the process for obtaining purchase permits and conceal/carry permits (licensing) has a chilling effect on people exercising a right they already possess. Criminals don’t need no stinking permits, and requiring them of us does nothing to stem the tide of gun crime… Just sayin’

      Liked by 1 person

      • I understand your point and don’t disagree with it however, from a purely practical standpoint, that’s the way it is and it will be difficult (almost impossible) to see firearm laws changed to honor natural “law” and eschew all of the laws already in place. The time to stop the infringing on our rights has long since passed and I doubt that occasion will ever again present itself again. I don’t know, you may refuse to accept the state’s licensing of concealed handguns as a matter of conscience and if that’s so, I congratulate you for your commitment, however I DO carry a concealed handgun every single day and I wouldn’t be doing that without being licensed. I have occasionally carried before getting my CCL and carried in my car all the time before getting my license.

        I suppose each of us has to take an approach that works for us. While I’d prefer that there be no restraints on our 2nd Amendment rights, we as a population, have allowed them to be enacted and now either we live with them or carry illegally – and accept the consequences resulting therefrom.

        Like

    • I’ve heard her story several times too and it still brings tears to my eyes to imagine what she saw and went through that day. What a difference she could have made in the number of deaths that day had she been armed. We’ve seen it play out in other stories over the years, and in most every case, it’s been a godsend, but apparently the gun grabbing libs don’t read those.

      When you think back on all the mass shootings over the last few years, in nearly every situation, an armed person could have made a huge and positive difference. I don’t know why that’s so hard for the libs to comprehend.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: