Quote of the day—Juanita Jean

There’s very little talk among political junkies in Texas this morning about anything else except Wendy Davis’ stunning and unexpected announcement that she favors open carry in Texas. That means strapping a gun on your hip and parading around town like something out of a damn John Wayne movie. Oh yeah, Texas needs more guys with tiny winkies strapping on holsters.

Juanita Jean
February 8, 2014
Juanita Jean Is Mad As Hell At Wendy Davis
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Weer’d Beard for the email.—Joe]


56 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Juanita Jean

  1. Ya twit. Except for the…urban areas, Texas is quite safe, largely due to the fact that so many responsible people *are* carrying. Not just Whitey McWhiterson either. I peronslly know plenty of women, Hispanics, blacks, Aisians, clergy, etc who carry. Peiple who just might save your bacon someday, Ms. Jean! Someone did a study a while back, it showed that somewhere on the order of .005 (ish) percent of violent crime in Texas was commited by lawful gun owners. IIRC it showed that more violent crime was commited by LEO than CHL holders.

    • +1 to that! A few years ago at the NRA convention a friend of mine’s wife joked that she was the only girl, and it was all white men.

      I scoffed, but looked around and indeed just about every face I saw was white and male.

      That was in Pittsburgh.

      In Houston, last year it was a totally different story! Tons of women, tons of children. Lots of blacks and hispanics….and to my surprise…especially as a new father (then expecting) the most babies at any of the conventions I’d been to ever.

      • The manager at the nursing home my grandmother is in took her CHL class last spring. Everyone in the class was from her church, including the preacher, and over half were women. The same day I was told this, I stopped for lunch, and the high school girl noticed my shirt (picture of an AR with “I plead the Second”) and said she had the same shirt. And wears it to school. And not only do the kids and teachers not freak out, she gets thumbs up. That day made me smile.

      • Here in AL, some of the most ardent supporters of the 2nd Amendment are black folks. Especially among the older generation who remember the 60s with all the violence and intimidation, they fall in the same category of JFPO of taking the stance of “never again.” They recognize that the only way to deal with evil is to put it down…

    • In fact, it has been shown quite clearly that carry permit holders anywhere in the country are *way* more law abiding than the average resident.

  2. Read some of the comments over there. I thought lefties were OPPOSED to profiling and stereotypes. It appears I was mistaken.

  3. I’ve got to agree with Wendy. If everyone is going to carry, then it ought to be Open Carry, not concealed carry.

      • Almost a reasonable comment there Ubu (of course I disagree, I think ALL forms of carry should be legal. Open carry protects people carrying concealed from “Accidental exposure” charges, as well as allow people in warm climates and hot days to still exercise their rights easily….concealed carry protects from “Accidental Concealment” charges, as well as allow people in cold climates and on cold days to exercise their rights….and of course my protection, my choice)

        Still you had to dive right in a say “Hey but at my core I’m just a hate-filled troll”….thanks for making sure we give you no faith and credit!

      • I don’t really think you’ve thought that one through. There would be a surfeit of dead libtards.

        • No, there would be no surfeit of dead libtards if dueling was reinstated as lawful.

          In a duel, the challenger starts with a claim of insult or injury against the challenged. Their representatives, or seconds, then meet to discuss the terms of the duel. The person challenged generally gets to choose the weapons used.

          And if the challenge is rejected, the opprobrium of society falls upon the person rejecting the challenge, which meant loss of social acceptability and essential exile from polite society.

          If dueling returned, the challenged liberals would likely choose Nerf guns or wiffle balls or Hulk Hands as their weapons of choice, and refuse to fight otherwise. It would then be up to society to ostracise them, and we’ve seen with the Clintons, the Kennedys, etc., how likely that is.

          I, for one, know a few people that I would love to punch in the face with Hulk Hands, despite the low likelihood of injury to them.

    • Plusses and minuses to it. Openly visible, a retention device would be prudent. Also, the bad guys would know who to take out first. Surprisingly, Texas is one of the few places open carry isn’t legal. I’d like the option though. Local detectives regularly walk around in business casual, weapon visible, and nothing identifying them as LEO beside the badge on their belt. Strangely, people don’t flip out.

      • “Also, the bad guys would know who to take out first.”

        Generally true, but I just had a thought. (a rare and treasured occasion lately!)

        That holds true if the number of people carrying openly is small, e.g. one or two. However, when more than that are carrying, the problem for a would-be miscreant becomes harder, since he must take out multiple targets and keep track of those he hasn’t taken out.

          • I remember a scene in a movie where a couple of low-lifes pull into a stop-and-rob to grab some beer & take the cash. They were not to bright, but at least they were smart enough to quickly case the joint before the pulled out their guns to stick up the place. They came around a corner, looked down an aisle, saw a good ol’ boy with a revolver on his hip, and they stop and nudge each other like WTH? They they see someone else, then a third, all with sidearms of some sort (vague recollection of one woman, and one had a shoulder holster). They did a quick “ah, shit,” paid for a couple of things, and with slightly awkward mumbled pleasantries with the counter clerk they got out fast without robbing the place. The upshot of the hurried conversation back in the car was “let’s pick someplace to rob in a different town!”

      • Also, the bad guys would know who to take out first

        You see this conjecture made all the time, and on the face it seems plausible. But where’s the statistical evidence? No one has ever provide me with any, no matter how many times I ask, not at all.

        • That’s a good point as well. Perhaps the regular folk who open carry tend to be in places not many BGs go. Not much threat if that scenario happening if you’re in rural or suburban areas.

        • See my comment above. It’s a reasonable conjecture, but the unspoken assumption is that very few, more than likely one, is carrying in the vicinity.

          When that assumption is invalid, it won’t work.

          That said, would you expect there to be any statistical evidence available on that particular situation?

          • Defining the particular situation as one side with minimal weapons targeting armed folk first, I’d say the existence of the Liberator pistol is evidence of military approval of that idea, at least at one time.

        • Maybe the idea that the OC gets it first comes from the experience of the uniformed and armed guards in the banks, as it was explained to me way back when I worked in banking that the guard is generally the first one taken down (this was after the branch was robbed, so HQ sent us an armed guard for two weeks).

          • Food for thought from all. I support OC, but generally have thought it was simply an option I’d like to have, if not exercise. Enough people doing it however… Time to spend this year pushing state reps, laying groundwork for the legislative session next spring. Texas meets in the spring, every other year.

    • If everyone is going to carry…

      Except no one, least of all Wendy, is advocating for that.

      Put down the straw man, Ubu. He is well and truly dead.

      • Huh? I don’t see any pro-2A people saying that people shouldn’t carry. They seem to believe that everyone SHOULD carry.

        • No, they say everyone who is not otherwise prohibited should be ALLOWED to carry. It would be an individual choice. Start paying attention.

          • Obviously, as more and more people are armed, more and more people are going to need to be armed.

          • “We do not distrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we distrust each other. “

          • Ubu — that would only be true if an increase in peaceable, law-abiding citizens carrying arms meant an overall INCREASED risk of assault and murder.

            The history and documented statistics of armed citizens shows that to be false.

            So, your fear is simply a neurosis, and you should really consider professional help for your apparant paranoia and anxiety disorders.

          • Recent history, Geodkyt. There is a reason our ancestors started passing gun control laws. I guess we need to go back and relearn the lessons of the past before we can move forward.

          • Ubu — the reason we started passing gun control laws (both here and in teh UK) was racism, to keep teh oppressed victims from being able to defend themselves.

            Documented, historical fact. Hell, and early 20th Century Florida case effectively GUTTED their 19th Century prohibition against concealed carry by pointing out it (based on a model law) was “never intended to be applied to the white population”.

            I prefer not to support bigots, especially not violent bigots who like to disarm their victims. Having been on the receiving end of biotry based on race, religion, _and_ ethnic background (not at the same time), I tend to mistrust anyone who proposes more of the same.

    • You’re only going to make it easier for bigots like you to discriminate against gun owners by forcing open carry.

      Much like those who opposed homosexuality or even being born of a different skin tone, or loving someone not of your own race.

  4. “Local detectives regularly walk around in business casual, weapon visible…”

    You mean they “parade around”…weapon visible.

    People used to complain about black people “parading around” just like regular citizens too… Same mindset.

    • Didn’t intend to come across that way. In my small town, LEOs tend to be decent, I suspect it’s that way in a lot of small towns. Being neighbors tends to give social pressure to not be…what they seem to be becoming all over. When the SHTF, we’ll see.

      • I know you didn’t intent to come across that way. Iwas sarcastically using the language of the posted quote– We don’t open carry, we “parade around” with guns. I’m addressing the bigoted mindset that comes up with something like that.

    • “Local detectives walk around, weapon visible in plain casual”

      HUH?!?!?! where are THESE detectives? I’ve never seen a police detective wear their weapon openly!

      • They do in my area. Polo shirt, khakis, and gun. I live in a rural area in downstate IL.

      • Small town West Texas, same outfit alcade describes. Same in Lubbock, pop ~225k.

        • Really? The LAPD allows their detectives to carry SHOULDER HOLSTERS? In violation of pretty much all recommended police procedures?!?

          Or are you thinking of the “detectives” you see on TV?

          (Hint — there’s a very good reason why shoulder rigs are not recommended for police officers for quite some time, unless they have VERY odd duty requirements that rule out a belt holster of any sort. For police officers, shoulder holsters, ESPECIALLY concealment type ones, are very, very, susceptible to a snatch attempt compared to a typical Level II or III security holster on a sturdy belt.)

          • I don’t know if they were LAPD. They were just upper echelon law enforcement. Can’t tell you the agency. I’ve also seen Alhambra LEO with a shoulder holster.

  5. “According to Cramer and Kopel (1995), there were laws in place in the years
    before the Civil War that addressed the issue of concealed handguns. Some states banned the carrying of concealed handguns, even including on-duty law enforcement agents. In the 1897 Supreme Court case Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, the Court decided that laws regulating concealed firearms did not infringe upon the right “to keep and bear arms”, and therefore was not a violation of the Second Amendment.” http://www.wku.edu/mae/documents/econ596-wegenka.pdf

    So, the issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court.


    • If you read the actual court cases, Ubu, you’d see that the consensus view of the 19th Century courts was that because open carry was so common AND AN ACCEPTED PART OF CIVIL SOCIETY OF THE TIME, banning concealed carry was justifieable, since AT THE TIME the courts saw no reason why any law abiding person would feel the need to conceal his weapon. A person walking about peaceably with a sidearm openly worn did not put the public in fear of their life in the 1850s. and no one really thought anything much of it — whereas carrying a CONCEALED gun was assumed (by the public and courts) to indicate you planned to carry out a criminal attack — in fact, those courts cases often reference concealed carry as being something only “assassins” and “highwaymen” would do.

      As was recently ruled in Wisconsin, social conventions HAVE CHANGED, especially in urban areas.

      Remember — the CONCEALED gun intimidates no peaceful citizen (but the risk of encountering it demonstrably intimidates potential robbers). Not even those who suffer from a mental disorder that causes them to have an irrational fear of inanimate objects not being used to threaten them.

        • True. But until the early 20th Century, pretty much ONLY criminals used concealed carry. But rarely would anyone even raise an eyebrow at teh sight of someone OPENLY and peacefully wearing a sidearm, outside of places where it was more of a “dress code” than an “arms” issue (for example, attending a white tie and tails event in New York City with a revolver strapped to your leg WOULD be seen as “eccentric” (or at the very least mark you as a provincial from out west, much as wearing beat up cowboy boots to a whiet tie and tals event today), even in 1859.

          THAT is the societal change change.

      • Yes, but that’s not the point. The point is that people have been brainwashed to freak out when they see a gun carried openly. Because of that brainwashing, it is now necessary for law abiding citizens to carry their weapons concealed rather than openly.
        A better solution would be to abolish the brainwashing organizations (that would have many other social benefits too). But until then, we require the right to carry concealed.

  6. Back to the Original Post;
    OK; so what exactly did John Wayne, or any of the characters he played, ever do to anyone that was so evil?

    The left seems to fixate on John Wayne, or other good guys in Old West movies, and yet those people always worked for good, risking their own lives for others. They often had their personal faults and failings (Rooster Cogburn) but they ended up doing the right thing in the end and making a better, safer, less corrupt society, even if meant they would probably die or at least never be able to enjoy the benefits of their labors. THAT has the left all up in a bind? Do you see what I see here?

    • Hmmm, that those characters were self-reliant and strong, decent, unrepentent individualists? Traits abhorred by the left?

      • “…self-reliant and strong, decent, unrepentent individualists?”

        Precisely, and that they are self-reliant, strong, decent, unrepentant individualist MEN only rubs salt into the wounds. It adds insult to the left’s already mortal injuries, and so they have no choice but to respond with bitterness and hatred. It’s automatic.

Comments are closed.