Amarillo, if not the Texas Panhandle, is described as the reddest of the red political areas — a strong conservative area.
For example, there have been numerous rankings and lists through the years that have tagged the 13th Congressional District in Texas (which comprises Amarillo and a good chunk of the Texas Panhandle) as the reddest area in the nation.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that residents of the Golden Spread support conservative values, including the right to firearms, which is clearly contained in the Second Amendment.
Despite the fact we see few people in Amarillo openly carrying their firearms (which is permitted in the Lone Star State), the majority of people in these parts do support the Second Amendment.
Speaking of logical conclusions, why should the constitutional rights of Amarillo-area residents (or Americans no matter where they reside) be curtailed or restricted because of the reprehensible actions of a person with mental health issues?
This question is relevant following a tragic and violent act of insanity in Alexandria, Va.
Inevitably, those who want to gut the Second Amendment — so-called supporters of strict gun control — wasted little time in blaming the National Rifle Association and inanimate objects such as guns for the carnage committed by a person with obvious behavioral issues.
For example, a recent Los Angeles Times editorial stated, “The incident brought some of the most powerful members of Congress into intimate contact with what has become a common part of American life … But we also hope that the next time the NRA lobbyists visit congressional offices with their guns-for-everyone agenda, they are greeted by members of Congress who are far more skeptical and probing than they have been in the past.”
The state of Texas has had a concealed carry law for firearms since 1995, and adopted an open carry law in 2016. As of 2015, there were 45 states that allowed the open carry of firearms. As many as 31 states allow the open carry of a firearm without a license or permit.
Are these laws supposed to be tightened for the countless number of law-abiding citizens with firearms because of a person who — at the very least — could not control his anger and may have been delusional?
Speaking of the Los Angeles Times, it recently posted information about the shooter, who, according to the shooter’s former lawyer, was “a very irascible, angry little man … He was a pushy little bastard, an in-your-face kind of guy. He believed what he believed and he wasn’t going to take any (expletive) from anybody.”
The L.A. Times post revealed the shooter was charged with drunk driving in 1993 and arrested on a charge of battery in 2006.
According to www.cbsnews .com, the shooter legally purchased the firearms he used in his rampage.
Without ripping the Second Amendment to shreds and preventing Americans from exercising their constitutional right to protect themselves, exactly what laws could be enacted that would have prevented this person (quite possibly with mental health issues) from this act of insanity?
The point is this: The U.S. Constitution specifically provides Americans the right to firearms — in Amarillo and everywhere else in the nation. This valuable right should not be jeopardized because of acts of deadly violence committed by individuals whose mental health is in question.