TX State Senator Wendy Davis About Texas Abortion Bill In Washington

You may remember Wendy Davis, the Democrat state senator from Texas whose tennis shoes captured the imagination of the nation. She’s currently running for governor in the great state of Texas, and she’s come to the same realization that every Democrat in the state has already figured out: Texans love their guns, but Democrats don’t. With her campaign disintegrating around her, Davis has decided to abandon her typical anti-gun stance in favor of the cause du jour in Texas: open carry. That decision has ruffled a good number of feathers among her fellow Dems. So now Wendy is putting those running shoes to good use and trying to backpedal just as fast as she possibly can . . .

Fair warning: prepare for another “I support the Second Amendment but…” statement. From mysanantonio.com:

“Obviously in Texas we have a culture that respects the Second Amendment right and privilege of owning and carrying guns — but we also, of course, have respect and understand a the rights and privileges of property owners to make decisions about what’s right for them,” said Davis, who is expected to face Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott in the general-election in the race for governor.

“My position on open carry reflects my respect for both of those principles, and I believe that municipalities, school districts, hospitals, private property owners should be the ones that ultimately have a say as to whether this is right for them and their facilities,” she said.

In other words, Wendy supports the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms — but thinks that cities should have the power to curtail that right within their borders. I wonder if she also thinks those same cities should be able to nullify other constitutionally protected rights like free speech or equal protection of women and minorities.

Davis appears to be among the disturbingly large number of Democrats who believe that they can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights they like and then ignore the rest. Unfortunately the law doesn’t work that way, no matter how hard they hold their breath and stamp their athletically-shod feet on the subject. It’s just another illustrative example of how gun control advocates live in a world that isn’t quite connected with reality. And this latest in a long line of gaffs definitely won’t help her odds in the upcoming election.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

152 COMMENTS

    • Nah, I think it’s the fact her brains are in her running shoes and she’s giving them a hell of a pounding every day……

    • Having known several blondes who are absolutely NOT stupid I don’t believe that we can make this a general statement. In Ms. Davis instance, however, it may be a chicken and the egg conundrum.

      • I don’t think the critique of Davis is that she’s stupid, but rather that she’s avaricious. Her cupidity and ambition are so super-sized that many expect her to leave her current husband the day he makes the last payment on her gubernatorial campaign.

      • Being a blonde who IS smart, (IQ 146), I can say it’s liberalism that is making Ms. Davis stupid, not the hair color.

    • I am in her senate district. NO, she is not stupid. Gold digger, yes. Sly, sneaky. Her con artist ego is what got her in trouble. She believed her handlers that she had a shot at the Governors Palace. This district voted 78% Republican in 2012. I still do not know how she got elected.

    • Must be, otherwise how could she possibly say something so stupid as

      “Obviously in Texas we have a culture that respects the Second Amendment right and privilege of owning and carrying guns”

      Either the Bill of Rights enumerates RIGHTS or it enumerates PRIVILEGES. I’m going to go with rights. Rights and privileges are two drastically different things, and if a politician doesn’t understand the clear concise definition of each of those words, they should be barred from holding office..

  3. Well, looks like Greg Abbots campaign managers got an easy job.Unless his boss dies, he’s got the election.

  6. There’s that F’ing word “privilege”…. Burn her, burn her with fire!

    Never mind that Texas has a preemption law…. So, no, cities/municipalities can’t. So, not only does she not understand the Constitution, but she doesn’t understand the laws of her own state.

  7. Waiting for the “I told you so” comments, because a lot of people did.

    If you’re surprised by this, you’re not paying attention.

    If you’re not angry (not at this, but about gun rights in general) you’re not paying attention.

    • Well, yes, there is that, but let’s hear the Crash Test Dummies’ take on this dummy, shall we? Here’s your 1990’s flashback:

      Mmmmmmmmmmm……………..mmmmmmmmmmmm…………….
      Mmmmmmmmmmm……………..mmmmmmmmmmmm…………….

      Ooooooonce, there was this giiiiiiiirl who,
      couldn’t get elected unless she lied right through her teeth and
      wheeeeeeen they finally caught…..her…….
      she……..hedged……..and backpedalled fast as she could.

      She couldn’t quite believe it.
      She’d always lied sooooooooo good.

      Mmmmmmmmmmm……………..mmmmmmmmmmmm…………….
      Mmmmmmmmmmm……………..mmmmmmmmmmmm…………….

  8. I believe that municipalities…should be the ones that ultimately have a say as to whether this is right for them

    So I’m guessing it’s ok for municipalities to ban voting by certain groups?

  9. By the way Wendy, scratch privilege out. It’s the right to keep and bear arms. In other words it’s means I have a right to own firearms even in the cities.

  10. Private property owners? Sure, if there is a clear, concise, and legal way of doing it (yay Texas 30.06 signs)

    Any entity that gets tax money (“municipalities, school distrricts, hospitals, etc”)? Nope.

    • Actually no private businesses can’t ban “Armed Americans” any more than they can ban “black” “gay” or based on the sex of the person entering.

      • But private businesses should be able to. I’m not saying its a good idea, but that is where the civil rights act is wrong.

      • No offense. but that is a truely shitty analogy that just doesn’t hold up to even simple thought. One case is banning someone for something they choose to do(while our right, it is still a choice), while the others ban someone for who they are and have no control over. Please stop using that shit analogy, it makes us all look bad.

    • Any business or govt. facility that allows the public to enter their facility should not have the ability to curtail anyone’s constitutional rights. If you are open to the public then all rights should be available. They don’t preemptively ban the right of free speech at any retail store that I’m aware of, so why is it ok to ban the right to keep and bear arms?

      • I by no means say I like it, and I also agree with the above poster that it should not be viewed any differently than banning gays, Asians, whites, etc etc… but I too believe in private property rights and making the Constitution applicable to governmental entities and not private entities.

      • There is no free speech right against non-governmental entities. I can in fact pre-emptively ban speech I dislike in my home or business, and suffer the social/market reaction.

        Constitutional rights are rights against government, not individuals or private companies/organizations.

        As such, I fully support the right of businesses to ban firearms from their premises. I do think, however, that I will not patronize those businesses if at all possible, and that if I do become a victim on their premises, they are liable to me or to my heirs for failing to protect me.

        THAT is alaw I’d like to see: liability for failure to protect, if the business disarms it’s patrons.

        • So long as you have a free will choice about entering premises that ban firearms, I doubt you will see such a legal provision.

          The analogy I use is with medical malpractice. At some point, one chooses to accept medical care and to accept the advice of medical professionals. It does not mean they are always correct in their assessments, but you CHOOSE to act on what they tell you.

          Malpractice lawsuits, a lot of them anyway, have never made much sense to me. Now negligence stuff…like operating intoxicated or whatever; that sort of thing is different. But suits based on “my scar is bigger than I thought it would be” or “this medicine gave me gas” seem premised on a “prefect world scenario” that simply does not exist here in the real world.

          Choosing to go into Mary’s Tea Shop to get some doilies for your wife while Mary has her place posted “No Guns” does not place liability on her to protect you from anything. You knew you could not (legally) carry in there, and entered anyway…it’s on you.

          My two cents anyway.

  11. She’s absolutely right that private property owners have the right to say yay or nay to open carry on their property. She is absolutely wrong in her assertion that municipalities (local government) have that same right. She is also mistaken that the 2nd Amendment is a right and privilege. I’ll break it down for her; right-100% privilege-0%. Driving is a privilege, you twit.

    • Actually, it’s not… But, we as citizens have accepted it as such. There’s quite a bit of legal groundwork on driving being a right, not a privilege.

      • Driving is a PRIVILEGE, NOT a right! You have the “right of free travel,” yes, but the means, operating a motor vehicle on public roadways, is definitely a privilege! Privileges can be REVOKED, “Rights” CANNOT! You have too many alternate means for travel : bicycles, horses, horse drawn vehicles, skates, skateboards, and shanks mare!

        • IMO, saying that “we have the right to travel, although driving is a privilege; but don’t worry, you can use a skateboard, go on foot, or by horse …” is logically equivalent to “you have the right to keep and bear arms; although handguns and centerfire rifles are a privilege; but don’t worry, you’ve got rimfire rifles, shotguns and muskets …”

          If we have the “right to travel” but the most common method of travel is considered a privilege and not a right, then the right to travel is seriously infringed, IMO.

        • Oh Lonnie; Major fail; the roads are paid by our tax dollars. Just as the government shouldn’t have the ability to infringe our right to keep and bear arms on public and government property; because we have paid for those facilities and grounds; the PUBLIC roads are ours by right of having paid for them.

          So, no; driving is not a privilege; it’s a right. Remember Lonnie; the government employees are our servants, as in public servant.

      • I’m glad that others here are posting about the licensed privilege to “drive” and the right to travel. Of course, the origins of the privilege stem from commercial travel requiring a license. Interestingly, the licensing of concealed carry in Ohio began with the concealed carrying of a firearm while engaged in commerce (i.e. peace officers, private investigators, etc) requiring state licenses. For a very long time in Ohio, the right of a private individual was left alone and wasn’t an issue unless the person also committed a crime while carrying concealed. Now, we have concealed carry licensing law and many people are foolishly equating the government privilege with the exercise of a right here. It’s a dangerous trend in that future generations might become convinced that the keeping and bearing of arms in Ohio is a privilege that requires a government issued license. Other states have already fallen for the lie; FOID cards, etc.

        IMHO, one of the biggest reasons that the rank and file citizen clamor for the licensing of private use by government, be it for firearms or vehicles, is because they are afraid of the ramifications of people being free and they are too lazy to be responsible for their own safety.

        (BTW: I am not part of the ‘Sovereign Citizen” movement or anything of the like. I’ve been so labeled before over my expressed views and it’s patently not true. I’m not nor have I ever been.)

      • Charlie, you start with a false strawman and then knock it down. the overwhelming legal precedent is driving is a privilege

    • I have the right to travel. on My property. I’m the public…..Also no person can remove from me my right to self defense If they kill me it is a civil rights violation.

      A business can’t say whom can enter their establishment. Even if I’m armed. Armed is my right and does not interfere with their rights.

      • I am not a lawyer, but it would only seem logical to me that if a business is open to the public they would have to be open to the entire public. I can’t see where they have any more right to arbitrarily exclude armed patrons than ethnic or religious groups. Even the common “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” can’t be used to prevent you from entering the establishment, only to guarantee that they will treat you lick shit if you do.

        Discrimination is a civil rights violation , regardless of your supposed justifications.

        • Discrimination is perfectly legal, except when by law it isn’t legal. Discrimination against gun owners is legal because no law prohibits it. Discrimination against Democrats is legal because there’s no law that prohibits it. Discrimination against people of color is illegal because there’s a law that says it’s illegal.

          If it’s your business, you can do what you want, except when prohibited by law. Got it?

      • “A business can’t say whom can enter their establishment.”

        “Who” not “whom.”

        An easy way to remember it is to reorder the sentence and see if “he” or “him” fits. If it’s “him,” it’s whom.

        A business can’t say him can enter their establishment.

        A business can’t say he can enter their establishment.

        “He” works, “him” doesn’t, ergo “who.”

  12. At first glance and read of the headline all those old Blonde jokes got realized! If she becomes governor you know for damned sure your guns are gone and your gun safes will be for putting the high end shoes in.

  13. This woman is a complete idiot. How did she ever rise so high with that dim bulb intellect at work? She just sucks so hard.

  14. I hate to admit it, but, she is correct. The second amendment does not apply to any city, town, county, or state. It applies to the people of our great nation.

    • She is not pro-gun. She is trying to appear to be due to the heavily pro-gun sentiment in Texas now that she is running for governor.

      “Davis has decided to abandon her typical anti-gun stance in favor of the cause du jour in Texas: open carry.”

      • She made a pro-gun statement and got immediately slapped down by her party, despite her having to compete in Texas. It didn’t always used to be this way.

    • if that’s pro-gun, this whole state is in a lot of trouble, New mexico has or had, not sure where they stand on concealed carry now, but it was policed by cities, I don’t remember seeing that any where in the constitution,about cities could control your constitutional rights, I see where she stands, and we definitely don’t need her as governor,

  16. Abbot’s got to be doing the moon walk in the street. She couldn’t sell a “I hate guns sticker” to bloomberg, Randy

  17. “Obviously in Texas we have a culture that respects the Second Amendment right AND privilege of owning and carrying guns —

    This use of AND reminds of the filique and Eastern Christianity’s rejection of it’s use in describing the Holly Trinity.

    I reject it here as well. It’s a right, no privilege about it.

    • My take from the LifeNews article: Wendy Davis is basically trailer trash, and jogging can be extremely hazardous to your health. That sour bitch next to Davis curdled my milk. The consistent ability to shoot yourself in the foot seems a prerequisite for a successful politician in the USA. Wendy Davis may end up President, if polling by fellatio becomes the default voting method.

    • Obviously she’s read it. She passed Con Law I at Harvard. However, a passing grade there also requires a complete understanding not only of what the constitution actually says, but what the professor avers it should have said. Learning the latter, students often forget the former.

  19. The mayor of Kansas City, MO made comments alluding to this in his State of the City address. He’s a lot better than scumball, corrupt, former mayor and current Congresscritter for life Emanuel Cleaver, but his stance on the 2A s@cks.
    He’s a MAIG member who thinks that citizens need to be disarmed in the name of stopping violent crime. Ugh.

  20. I’ve got no problem with private business owners deciding what’s OK and what isn’t on their own property.

    Cities and municipalities? Nope. Try again.

    • If they are open to the public(like shopping center) I have a problem with discrimination. If someone is posting his farm, no problem there, Randy

      • Sorry chief, but a mall / restaurant / store is still private property. You have no right to be there and they have every right to decide what they do and do not allow.

        • would you have a supreme court case to prove that?

          See a Mall is quasi private or a collective property. They have already lost dozens of cases where they have tried to infringe on civil liberties.

          Here is how it really works:

          Private= like my home office or car. These are owned by a single person
          business (membership)= Not just anyone can come in. This is how you only allow unarmed folks or maybe male or black only groups. You can’t bar them you just make their membership burdensome.
          business= asks for strangers off of the street to enter and see if they want their services. Their permit is owned by government with permission to operate. Following State enforced rules. These are what all the stores are in the mall.
          Collective property= This is like a mall,traders village or strip center. I can stand in the parking lot or commons and use just about everyone of my rights as long as I don’t cause harm to anyone Else’s rights.

        • @chris hall, you couldn’t be more wrong if you stated that the sun rises in the west.

          You are confusing “public accommodation” with public property. Look up the law yourself. Discrimination is perfectly legal except when prohibited.

        • Private businesses should also be able to enforce whatever policy suits them best. If you’ve got a barber shop and you don’t want your customers carrying there, that’s your call. I might not go there to have my hair cut, but I’d respect your right to do what you wish with your business.

        • Well, Randy, you seem to be very heavily in favor of discrimination against business owners and their private property rights. Randy

        • A business may not discriminate. The baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, on religious beliefs, lost in court and were told they HAD to bake the wedding cake. Businesses cannot chose who they want to do business with, if they are open to the public they must serve all.

        • Totenglock, My right to try to live another day without being killed superceeds any “property owners rights” in my book. I understand what the law is now thanks to Ralph & it still isn’t palatable, Randy

        • Randy, you have the right to do what you want on your property and the right to not go to a business if you disagree with the owners policies. You do not have the right to demand that a person’s private property conform to your desires. Randy

        • By posting a simple notice like this: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
          Then your bases are covered.
          Just ask ? to leave. You don’t have to give a reason.

        • Totenglock, Every healthfood store here is posted “no weapons” by the hippy’s. I can’t go anywhere else if I value my health. You will never convince me that this is right, yes it is legal. We are bantering about with what is legal & what is right. You are right, I have no respect for a property owners right to put my life at risk when they have “the only game in town”. If we were talking gas stations, yes, I could go anywhere. Susanne Hupp lost both her parents to “property owners rights”. Tell her how she “could have gone elsewhere” , that the guy who put up the sign had every right to kill her parents do to depraved indiference. Sometimes you can’t go someplace else Totenglock, do you need to lose your life for this? Property owners in Selma Alabama had rights too, hows that going for you now? Randy

        • ” You will never convince me that this is right”

          Because you have the typical big government view of “anything I want should be considered a right and anything I don’t like should be banned”. If you want to buy food from hippies (your word), then you have the abide by the rules of their stores. If you don’t like it, grow up and realize that the world doesn’t revolve around you – either you abide by the rules of the property owner or you don’t shop there. You do not have any right to shop there as it is THEIR business, NOT YOURS. Randy

        • Totenglock, You seem to think that when you purchase a piece of property you are lord & master over it.That no one can tell you what to do. This might be a nice alternate reality for you , thats not the way things work. As the bakers were told, they had to bake the gay wedding cake. I know you are all choked up about property owners rights but the court found that they could not discriminate(this time because of the law). You are for discrimination & I am not./// In the 60’s Blacks walked to the restaurant only to find a “no Blacks” allowed sign. This was not illegal & they certainly had no right to question the magnificent “property rights of the owners”? TG, they didn’t f,n feel like going anywhere else & they weren’t being unreasonable to want to eat there. It is obvious we will need goverment help through elected people to realize the right to not be discriminated against because we feel like living, you make this sound so dirty. Our founders understood that we need some government, pity that you can’t. I’m sure we’ll have this sorted in another couple of posts, Randy

  22. Considering her “autobiography”, if she interpreted the 2nd
    Amendment as loosely as the 1st she’d be campaigning for
    RPGs and micro-nuke rockets for kindergarteners.

  23. Lord, I hate to sound so SEXIST, and I try so hard to be nice, but it’s DUMB WOMEN like Mrs. Davis that make my job utterly impossible.

    Never, ever vote for a woman Democrat, and be damned careful if they’re supposedly Republicans. Even then the Democrat candidate might be the lesser evil.

    Now excuse me while I go beat my head against the wall a few hundred more times….

    Tom

    • I really don’t know what being a woman has to do with it. There are just as many men among the gun-control leading lights as there are women, if not more. This is a flip-flop (or showing true colors) just like Joe Manchin. So why is her capriciousness because she’s a woman, and his isn’t?

      You might hate to sound sexist, but I got news for ya.

      • I’m inclined to agree with Matt. Dumb is dumb, evil is evil, no matter what gender/race/class/religion/affiliation/creed/etc.

        It’s equal-opportunity. Come one, come all.

    • Tom, I disagree. She’s not dumb, not at all. She’s dishonest, conniving, and power-hungry. The problem comes in – and this is the “sexist” part – with the fact that many women will see past all of her questionable history, if not outright forgive it all, simply because she’s a woman. So few male politicians can have such a fake public persona, and a personal history built on lies, and yet still appear genuine and innocent to so many voters. Female politicians are experts at this, and for some reason, female voters tend to fall for it almost every time.

    • This just in from my work:

      We have (well had) a men’s room with 2 urinals and 2 stalls. We had 2 separate women’s rooms with one toilet each. There are more women than men in the building. The women went on a rampage and demanded that we swap restrooms, so they could have the men’s room with 2 stalls because there were more females than males in the area and they were tired of waiting in line. I explained that having a restroom with 2 stalls doesn’t provide any more capacity than the current arrangement (2 = 2). They went on an emotional rant about fairness and having to wait in line, and I relented because 1) I really don’t care and 2) they’ll be waiting in line tomorrow when we make the swap but in a new location. And the urinals won’t be used at all, unless the girls are more creative than I’m giving them credit for. Seriously, these are female managers, and they can’t understand why they aren’t going to derive any benefit from the proposed change…

      There’s a point to be made about women thinking and making decisions emotionally (and there’s some psychology behind that, it’s not misogyny to point it out).

      Men and women are psychologically and physically different. That’s the reality, and pointing it out doesn’t make one sexist.

      • True dat. In a collective task group, men will concentrate on the problem at hand, and disregard any hurt feelings over whose plan finally gets chosen. By contrast, a women’s collective group will focus first on establishing a pecking order, then address the problem in line with that pecking order until the problem is declared solved. The variation between the methods show how all progress in modern socciety relies on male effort. This is science.

        • And this also explains the frequency of screwed up military plans as the brass always insists on the privilege of rank, thereby following the FEMALE model of group behavior. A male group must examine all options as to their merits or otherwise.

  24. Abbot must be thinking how lucky he is. The dems have fielded a left-wing kook and are running her in a deep red state like Texas. The media have chapped their lips kissing her ass but even they will not be able to help her now. This is pathetic.

  25. Just got done listening to my governor whine about how despite the fact that three years later CT is still in a deep hole with severe long-term structural problems that he hasn’t addressed, it’s still all the previous Republican governors fault. So yeah, not really feeling particularly sympathetic.

  27. But would you vote for her? What you and her and difi do in the privacy of a motel 6 is nobodies business but yours.

    Crap, I got caught answering a comment being deleted. Again.

  28. I’d tell her I’d vote for her….and then NOT. Geez, I think a lot more crude and insinuative comments are all over the place here. Mine was pretty tame. Oh well, to the dickens with such Philistine verbiage.

  29. Let’s start and end it with this: Carrying Arms is a RIGHT not a privilege like she says. It’s even an ENUMERATED RIGHT specifically protected from government infringement in the 2nd Amendment.

    Wendy, whenever you want a lesson on what is a right vs a privilege we can talk…that’s if I can refrain from laughing at your feeble attempts at appearing like you do support the 2nd when you don’t.

    Di Ramirez

    http://www.moms-with-guns-demand-action.org/

  30. While we’re being selective with what Constitutional rights apply where, how about the 16th Amendment not applying to where I live???

  31. So the 2nd Amendment would only apply for me if I moved to the country…which in my neck of the woods would mean I’m going to have to scrounge up six or seven figures because of all the high-fenced Dallasite interlopers screwing up the market.

    Guess that makes voting for Abbot all the easier.

  32. If she was the Republican Gov of Alaska, the press would be having a field day with her. Being a Democrat in Texas she get’s a hell of a break.

    But that being said, two words sum her up…she lies! She would sell her soul to Satan to be elected.

  33. “Davis appears to be among the disturbingly large number of Democrats who believe that they can pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights they like and then ignore the rest. Unfortunately the law doesn’t work that way…”
    What has happened to convince any Democrat it DOESN’T work that way??? Has the President’s repeated practice of picking and choosing which law will and won’t be enforced been thwarted in ANY WAY? The party is lawless from the top down. This is what a Democrat is. This is why they should never be compromised with, only DEFEATED.

  34. I agree that business should have that choice, but not anything that receives public money. My Father lost his business and almost everything else he had when someone else decided for him what he could and could not allow on his property. He owned a bar that after CO banned indoor smoking the business dropped so far he almost list everything. I think a property owner should be able to do just about anything they want with their property that doesn’t directly hurt someone who has no choice in the issue, but other than that it’s none of the governments damn business. If you don’t like it, take your ass somewhere else.

    • A business should have the right to refuse you service if they don’t like you carrying a weapon on their presence. Any place open to the public should not have the ability to have you prosecuted and incarcerated for exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

      As far as smoking goes, I just never could understand why OSHA never went after that. Although I don’t think OSHA should exist as it should be the responsibility of the states, but that’s not how it actually works. Anyway, you can’t force someone to be exposed to harmful carcinogens as a condition of their employment. It doesn’t work that way for coal miners and it shouldn’t for waitresses either. Now on the other hand, the punitive taxation of tobacco is just obscene.

      • First, second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer. There was just a big, real, long term study that showed this. It just makes sense. The “second hand smoke” studies that I looked at were a lot like the anthropogenic global warming nonsense.

        Second, If the waitress knew that it was a smoking establishment, then she made a choice to work there.

        • Yes, there are a few studies out there that claim there is no risk of cancer from second hand smoke. And for every one there’s a dozen that say there is. All that I can say is that as a non smoker who used to occasionally frequent smokey bars it seems obvious that it is NOT healthy. That said, OSHA has passed rules (laws) on much flimsier evidence. Anyway, it’s not that AGW doesn’t have a grain of truth to it, the issue is that AGW is overwhelmingly GOOD. Good for man, good for plants, good for animals. It will make the earth capable of supporting more life. The lie isn’t that it doesn’t exist at all, but that it is a bad thing.

          As far as it being the waitresses ‘choice’, why is it her ‘choice’, but not the coal miner’s ‘choice’? These choices are called ‘economic choices’. A young lady of reasonable charm may earn a salary with tips that is 3 or 4 times what her limited job skills could garner in another profession. Like it or not, we have a very long history in this country of not recognizing such choices as being a choice.

  35. Wendy Davis lost Texas the moment she strapped on those tennis shoes. Maybe she should move to Massachusetts if she wants a career in politics.

  36. This is one of those leftist elites that if she becomes governor will try to tear apart Texas like Boobama is trying to tear apart our nation . She is really another communist trying to disarm the public for easier takeover by her communist buddies . If Texas voters put her in office ,they will get what they voted for , just like the folks in the Northeastern states , Kolorado , Kalifornia , and other left leaning jurisdictions got when they voted for the leftist s . Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  37. Honestly I feel as though almost all politicians regardless of party feel as though they can pick and choose which rights to degrade or ignore.

  39. As I peruse the comments, I can’t help but wonder how so many conservatives can be so oblivious to their own sides’ anti2A measures.

    • It’s an eye-opener at first but becomes taxing after a while. In my experience outside of the interwebz, it takes an individual and very personal ‘conversion on the road to Damascus’ to get most to see. Some have better eyesight right out of the gate and some require rinse & repeat conversions. The latter are particularly frustrating because they seem to get it and then, out of nowhere, they are blind to something else. Painstaking forbearance of liberty minded friends is required at each hurdle.

      Perhaps, the problem lies in the fundamental understanding of Liberty, what the Constitution is, and the proper role of government in a free nation. In a properly operating America, the government is an afterthought in most citizens’ lives. If one finds themselves thinking “There ought to be a law!” then it’s a good bet that they lack basic understanding of liberty and the proper role of government.

  41. Oh this is great, first she alienates her party for support across the line then alienates anyone that may have fallen for that. She turned an issue into a veritable non-issue by showing both candidates want it then turned it kind of back into an issue by including “municipalities” in there.

    Honestly, if she ONLY said “private property owners”, and not hospitals, schools AND municipalities, I could respect that. If you own an establishment it should be up to you what goes on there and who is or is not welcome (of course that doesn’t apply to smokers however). I wouldn’t bring my business there, but an owner should have the right to determine what goes on in there place.

    I don’t like to call anything before it happens, but not only does it looking like she is going to lose, but it’s looking like she is going to fall flat on her face when it happens.

  42. I wonder how Abortion Barbie would feel about “municipalities, school districts, hospitals, private property owners should be the ones that ultimately have a say as to whether this is right for them and their facilities” in regards to woman having access to abortions…I would say hypocrisy at its finest, but it’s really just hypocrisy as usual.

  43. I seem to recall the SCOTUS disagreeing with her. The states once claimed that the Constitutional ban on poll taxes only applied to the US government and not the states. The SCOTUS ruled that it did apply to the states. So it set a legal precedent that said that the Constitution applies to the state and city levels

  44. I am tired of the comments about liberals and guns. I am a liberal and I own guns. And lots of my friends are gun owners. But, guess what? I am a hunter. I’ve hunted ducks, geese, deer, doves, quail, and pheasant for 50 years. I can probably shoot rings around most if you. But, I have no desire to have a hamburger state Jack in the Box with a gun śtrapped to my back. I don’t need “show off” my weapons. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. The casual display of firearms sets a very bad example for kids. Letting your kid open carry an assault rifle is just damn stupid. Y’all will end up setting gun rights back 50 years. And the first time there is an “accident” at a mall or restaurant it will rain down upon your heads and ruin it for all of us. Guns are not for “show and tell,” they have a function – one which should be respected. For the many ranchers and farmers and hunters in Texas, a gun is a tool, not a toy. Please treat them as such.

    • and ruin it for all of us

      And there it is! ROTFL I almost spit out my coffee.

      Please, we’re talking about the unalienable rights of fully grown, adult individuals and not privileges that we beg from Mommy & Daddy government. When government interferes with a right, especially one specifically made off limits to it in the federal constitution and many state constitutions, that’s tyranny. Tyranny isn’t stopped with begging and grovelling. Tyranny is fought; soap box, ballot box, ammo box.

      I guess one of my biggest problems with modern day liberals, especially “2A but” liberals, is their perception of the origin and locus of power. Rights do not come from government. Government only possesses privilege and, therefore, can only confer such.

Comments are closed.