UTW Summer Brewsurbatulsaclassifiedsbutton
  TULSA METRO'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWSWEEKLY
UTW Reader Comments  |  Has Something Made You Mad? Tell Us!    
Home » Columns » Capitolist
  RSS XML


Six-Shooter Swagger

More phoney-baloney from the majority


BY ARNOLD HAMILTON

Say what you will about the Oklahoma Legislature, but your elected officials are remarkably adept at one thing: offering solutions in search of problems.

At a time when the state faces significant challenges, some lawmakers insist on ignoring the obvious and obsessing over the preposterous.

You might call it the Straw Man approach to leadership.

It's much harder, you see, to tackle real problems -- such as improving inner-city public schools or ensuring health care for 600,000 insurance-less Oklahomans -- than it is to offer faux solutions to ominous-sounding, but wholly contrived crises.

Thankfully, cooler heads squelched the lawmakers' worst excesses this session -- think Sen. Ralph Shortey's fear of fetus-filled foods or Sen. Brian Crain's deity-esque declaration that life begins at fertilization.



But sadly, too few serious issues were fully resolved because too much time and effort was squandered on phony baloney.

Two of my favorite (?) head-slappers:

-- In the 21st Century, do we really need a law authorizing folks to strap six-shooters on their hips and swagger around in public like 19th Century Tombstone?

Evidently Gov. Mary Fallin and the Oklahoma Legislature think so. Fallin signed into law SB 1733 allowing those with concealed carry permits to openly carry their weapons.

We already lead the industrialized world in gun violence, yet we're going to encourage -- via public policy -- more weaponry in the public square?

"As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner myself, I'm happy to sign this bill into law and grant law-abiding citizens the ability to openly carry firearms," the governor said.

The new law "sends a strong message that Oklahoma values the rights of citizens to defend themselves, their family and their property."

You actually could interpret Fallin's rhetoric like this: You should be scared witless to step into public in Oklahoma. You never know when you will cross paths with some marauding evil-doer, just waiting to snuff out your life.

You thought the OK Corral was scary bad? Or Al Capone's Chicago? Child's play, compared to modern-day Oklahoma.

My goodness -- is that really the message we want to send the rest of the country? You think the brightest minds and best companies will be pining to relocate to a state that thinks it's still ensconced in the wild, wild west?

A small bit of common sense in the law that takes effect Nov. 1: Businesses may ban firearms on their premises. Guns also remain verboten on city, state or federally owned or leased properties, in schools and on college campuses. And they are a no-no in sports arenas during events, lest real Bedlam ensue!

I am serving notice to private businesses: The minute someone wearing a sidearm enters a restaurant or store where I am eating or shopping, I am leaving and taking my wallet elsewhere.

It's a real shame that entrepreneurs trying to make a scrumptious Caesar's salad or peddle the latest electronic gizmo are being thrust into the position of enforcing a no-gun-zone. You never know, after all, how a heat-packing dude might respond to a reasonable request he leave his weapon in the car.

Look -- I'm not afraid of my own shadow and I'm not afraid to walk Oklahoma's (mostly) friendly streets. What is disconcerting, though, is the thought of legions of fraidy-cats and law enforcement wannabes (hello, George Zimmerman) displaying loaded firearms around my family.

Some will argue the new law isn't really a big deal -- those who previously were concealing their weapons now may be openly wearing (brandishing?) them.

Sorry, but I'd prefer not to know. It's less stressful than seeing a stranger toting a loaded firearm.

-- Do we really need a new law that affirms in statute what the state Department of Human Services is already doing: drug-screening welfare recipients?

Evidently Gov. Fallin and the Legislature think so. Fallin signed into law just such a mandate, even though there is no evidence that welfare applicants and recipients are any more prone to abusing illicit drugs than the population at large.

You'd think by the amount of hot air blowing about HB 2388 that the taxpayers are being robbed blind by hopped-up welfare queens driving Cadillacs.

Hardly. This was Grandstanding 101 -- yet another triumph of style over substance, giving Fallin and Co. a platform to hoodwink rabid rednecks into believing the state's Powers-That-Be are pokin' a stick in the eyes of those who dare get sumthin' for nuthin'.

"House Bill 2388 will help ensure welfare checks are not being used to pay for drugs," said Fallin, guilty of fanning the stereotypical flames that most forced to rely temporarily on the social safety net are lazy, scheming louts.

Surely the average Oklahoman knows the unmistakable scent of B.S. Let me repeat s-l-o-w-l-y: This law does not do anything of significance that DHS wasn't already doing.

It isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Nor what it cost the taxpayers to underwrite that portion of legislators' salaries (total annual compensation about $50K each) wasted on it.

It's especially priceless in an election year when retaining political power often hinges on your ability to create and knock down Straw Men.

With great fanfare, the governor and GOP legislative leaders lift shells that spotlight hot-button, but insignificant issues -- creating the impression they are keeping Oklahoma safe for the God-fearin', law abidin' folk.

What's hidden beneath the other shells is key -- the back-room, closed-door deal-making that results in more tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich.

Let me frame it this way: What's most important? Your ability to wear a loaded firearm on your hip in public? Or adequately funding public education -- the key to Oklahoma's economic future?

Have the governor and Legislature no shame? Isn't it just a little embarrassing that they busy themselves with faux issues while parents in Jenks are forced to raise $1.1 million to keep class sizes from exploding?

And what about the vast majority of school districts in Oklahoma where parents and supporters do not have the community-wide fiscal power of Jenks? Will we be leaving behind the vast majority of Oklahoma students?

Those are the types of serious public policy matters that real leaders confront and solve. Sadly, real leadership is in short supply at the state Capitol these days.

Shame on us for not demanding better.



Share this article:
 
Google Bookmarks  digg  Del.icio.us  reddit  Yahoo My Web  Newsvine  MySpace 

COMMENTS
7 comments posted for this article
crookian
 5/29/2012 - 8:25pm
   One of the necessary attributes of a civilized society is the high level of trust that its citizens invest in each other, such has been the case in these United States since their foundation as colonies. Mr. Hamilton's lack of trust in his fellow citizens, armed or not, indicates that he is not civilized. Rather, he is apparently a barbarian. Since he cannot muster the self control to carry a weapon himself, he imagines that all around him similarly lack that same self control. There is historically exactly one hallmark of a free man; he bears arms, as slaves and serfs were not permitted to do. Mr. Hamilton does not trust himself to be free, does not trust others to be free. He relinquishes the responsibility of a free man to protect himself and his family to the state, and thus relinquishes his liberty. Freedom and liberty are risky propositions, not for the faint of heart or those who lack virtue and honor.
   
   Denny Crook
   Broken Arrow, OK
Report this comment
Wildfire
 5/29/2012 - 7:39pm
   I wonder if the cowardly and reason-challenged Hamilton would change his views, if he was made aware that the police have no duty to protect him:
   “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
   
   Hamilton, this means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it.
   
   But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
   
   Hamilton, would your belief in being unarmed change, if you *KNEW* that calls, for *help* to 911, would be answered like this:
   
   911 Operator: "911 Operator, what is the nature of your emergency?"
   
   Caller: "OH GOD! A GROUP OF MEN JUST KICKED IN OUR FRONT DOOR! SEND THE POLICE! PLEASE HURRY!"
   
   911 Operator: "Caller, this is very important: What type of firearm are you holding at this moment?"
   
   Caller: "SOMEONE IS IN MY DAUGHTER'S ROOM! I HEAR HER SCREAMING! PLEASE SEND THE POLICE!! HURRY!!"
   
   911 Operator: "Caller, please calm down. This is critical, what type of firearm are you holding at this moment?"
   
   Caller: "Operator I'm NOT "holding a firearm"! There are NO GUNS in our home! Guns only escalate an already dangerous situation! Now PLEASE send the police!!!!"
   
   911 Operator: "I understand Caller. It is now 02:32, the 'Unarmed Officer Unit' doesn't come on duty until 08:00. When they clock-in, I will immediately dispatch them to your location.
   Until then: Stay safe!"
   *CLICK*
Report this comment
doctoralstudent
 5/29/2012 - 11:33am
   Tombstone is known in history for having strict gun control, the exact opposite of Mr. Hamilton's attempted false description.
   
   The OK Corral incident in history was a police action in which local law enforcement was responding to reports of a citizen being armed in the gun-control zone of Tombstone...again the exact opposite of Mr. Hamilton's attempted false description.
   
   Mr. Hamilton stated that his preference is that he'd rather not know if somebody has a sidearm or not.
   
   Mr. Hamilton repeatedly uses the phrase "you never know" and then attempts to paint a scenario that is contrary to scholarly open-peer-reveiwed research of what actually occurs.
   
   Mr. Hamilton claims to not be afraid of his own shadow and claims that armed citizens are frightened. However, Mr. Hamilton is the one claiming that people should be scared witless to even go out in public and see an armed citizen. In addition, Mr. Hamilton states that seeing an armed citizen is something that is stressful experience.
   
   Mr. Hamilton's writing is rife with logical fallacies, he states outright falsehoolds, and his statements are unsupported, even by his own words when he contradicts himself. The first half of his column would have had the same amount of support for his position had he quacked like a duck for 14 paragraphs.
   
   Mr. Hamilton is not a voice of common sense on this topic and is exhibiting statements of the exact opposite.
Report this comment
BHirsh
 5/29/2012 - 10:56am
   And, of course, you are so intellectually superior to us "neanderthals" that despite your self-absorbed egoism, you are powerless but to recognize that a) we can be armed and you can't stop us, and b) eventually our view will prevail and yours will get exactly the measure of respect it deserves.
   
   No wonder you whine, however glibly.
   
   Heh-heh.
Report this comment
Gun Fanatic
 5/29/2012 - 10:22am
   
    You mean to tell me you have "useful idiots" in the
    Sooner State as described by Comrade V.I. Lenin? I
    only thought the left coast and inner cities had them.
    Guess not. Oh yes, there is an answer to this anti-gun
    insanity. "The Psychological Problems of Gun Haters"
    can now be read online via www.jpfo.org. Posted under
    "Read these classic rebuttals to "Gun Control."
    ----- Jim Farmer
    Ashland, Oregon
Report this comment
WakeUp11
 5/29/2012 - 9:36am
   What an insulting piece of illogical and fallacious arguments.
   Look at D.C., New York and Chicago, all of them have strict "gun control"-and yet, they have some of the highest gun violence and murders anywhere in the country...
   Your unfounded fear and "stress" at seeing a stranger with a firearm...it only goes to high light the ridiculousness of your position. Your afraid of a law abiding citizen with a permit for having the ability to protect himself and his love ones...it makes you uncomfortable.
   You know, this piece of trash article you've written makes me uncomfortable. The bias, spin and slander against law abiding gun owners, if only we could keep stupidity like this from being exposed to the public....
Report this comment

Post a comment




What Happened?
Wondering when the Right went wrong [June 5, 2013]
Legislative Hypocrisy
Turning a blind eye until they need something [May 29, 2013]
Take the Good, Take the Bad
Mercifully, session comes to an end [May 22, 2013]

My Profile | My Settings

Subscriptions Available at $124/yr.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing. No refunds are issued. Back issues are available for $10/copy.

We accept Visa, M/C, checks and money orders. Call to charge by phone 918-592-5550. Enter your contact information in the form below and we will contact you.

If ordering by mail, make checks and money orders payable to Urban Tulsa Weekly. Send your payment along with your complete postal delivery address to Urban Tulsa Weekly, Attn: Samantha, PO Box 50499, Tulsa, OK 74150

Name:
Address:
Address2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email:
Phone:
Comments:

 

Urban Tulsa Weekly
1924 E. 6th St.
Tulsa OK 74104
Phone: (918) 592-5550
Fax: (918) 592-5970
e-mail: Subscriptions

Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2013, Urban Tulsa Weekly   RSS