An NRA-Friendly Addition to Senate's 'Wedge-Issue June'

  • Bob Geiger's picture
    Bob Geiger
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Flying under the radar with all the immigration hubbub in the Senate last week was a charming piece of legislation by Senator George Allen (R-VA) that would allow people licensed to carry a concealed weapon in one state to enjoy the same privilege anywhere else in the country.

S. 3275, which is cosponsored by 12 Senators -- all Republicans, except for GOP-lite Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- would make it a law that "… nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State" if they are permitted to carry their gun elsewhere. Allen's measure is a companion bill to H.R. 4547, introduced in the House of Representatives in December for the same purpose.

"The bill would simply require States to recognize each other's concealed carry permits and licenses, just as they recognize drivers' licenses," said Allen in introducing his bill last week, proclaiming that his legislation would "… increase the safety of the many law-abiding Americans who have chosen to carry a firearm for protection against criminal attack."

Yeah, that's what we want: States that had the bad judgment to overwhelming vote for George W. Bush again in 2004 sending their heavily-armed, backwoods brethren to New York City, Chicago and San Francisco. Sounds like a real smart idea and, of course, federal legislation would then make it all but impossible for the more enlightened states to keep from being turned into 1870s Deadwood.

And analyzing what might be behind this only confirms the other shoe that you know is going to drop.

With Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) pumping up the Senate calendar for "Wedge-Issue June" -- gay marriage is on tap for next week followed by the flag-burning amendment -- it probably seems like a good time to get the gun-toting types to rally behind a nice divisive firearms bill before the midterm elections.

And, of course, you just know that National Rifle Association (NRA) money is lurking somewhere in the shadows on this story.

Taking a look at all donations made by the NRA of America Political Victory Fund shows that -- surprise! -- four of the top ten Senate recipients of NRA largesse in the last six years are sponsoring this legislation.

Indeed, of the $1.6 million in donations made to Senators or Senate candidates from this particular NRA PAC, almost $400,000, or an astounding 26 percent of the money, went to just nine of the Republicans authoring or cosponsoring the Allen bill. And this, just one facet of NRA contributions, is undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg.

In a laughable attempt to protect the states that do not readily allow their citizens to walk the streets packing heat, the House bill's language stipulates that the gun holder may not, in such a state "…carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport."

Isn't it nice to know that, with those restrictions in place, one of these folks will have to wait outside the bar to shoot you?

And one sure-fire way to tell that a U.S. Senator isn't particularly proud of putting their name to a piece of legislation is if there's no mention of it in the press-release section of their official web site. The bill's primary sponsor, Senator Allen, doesn’t mention it. And none of the other 12 sponsors of the legislation say one word about their involvement with the bill in their press releases.

Lest you think the concealed-weapon measure is too insignificant for Senators to include in their announcements, it's important to understand that members of Congress use every opportunity to brag about their legislative feats -- unless they truly want them to pass under cover of darkness. While there's no mention of S. 3275 on John Sununu's (R-NH) web site, he's proud to announce "Sununu backs legislation to eliminate ethanol import tariff."

Michael Crapo and Larry Craig, both Republicans from Idaho, won’t mention the gun bill but grandly announce "Crapo Introduces Forest Service Partnership Bill" and "Craig Introduces Specialty Crop Bill."

Bottom line: This legislation is payback to the NRA and it's so obvious, and such bad public policy, that the Senators don’t even bother to announce it to constituents, many of whom might even be NRA members.

With the NRA making the House's H.R. 4547, sponsored by Representatives Cliff Stearns of Florida and Rick Boucher of Virginia, a legislative and "grassroots activism" priority, look for the bill to pass quickly through the House Judiciary Committee and for the same to happen with the Senate's version.

After all, Bill Frist won't want June to end without throwing another log on the old wedge-issue fire.

Comments

Sauce for the goose?

  • jimbales's picture
    jimbales
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

"The bill would simply require States to recognize each other's concealed carry permits and licenses, just as they recognize drivers' licenses," said Allen

I'll grant them this bill, but only if they will extend the principle to marriage licenses as well. Particularly Massachusetts marriage licenses. ALL Massachusetts marriage licenses.

Somehow I don’t think Big

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Somehow I don’t think Big Government Conservatives will see any connection to your obvious analogy.

(Of course when it comes to reigning in Monopolies -either explicit or implicit- the Republican Party remains the champion of small balls/small Government. Just check the next time you fill up your tank.)

Way to retaliate

  • doog's picture
    doog
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I'm fine with this legislation, in fact, let's add some things to it to 'encourage values':

1. Brandishing a weapon by a licensed owner can be reported by ONE witness and requires immediate police response - all incidents to be logged in a publicly-accessible record. Reports made by two or more witnesses result in loss of license for one year.

2. Accidental shootings (of any kind) will result in immediate loss of license for minimum one year - carrying during this period punishable by one year in prison, no exceptions.

3. Accidental shootings resulting in personal injury result in permanent loss of license and two years in prison.

4. Accidental shootings resulting in death result in automatic murder charge and carry preferred death sentence penalty.

I mean, let's be right up front, gun owners know the dangers and if they're carrying publicly, they know how serious it is to wave a gun around and what the damages could be.

Let's see the Republicans own up to some superior values.

It's either that or it is Deadwood. (and I don't mean the dead wood between their legs that the gun is a surrogate for).

Perhaps the cities of New

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Perhaps the cities of New York, Chicago, and San Francisco would be much safer if we "backwoods" CCW holders were wondering around the streets armed. After all, its much safer to walk our streets at night than yours these days, in spite of your greater "enlightenment." This attitude is one of the reasons why a lot of registered Democrats like myself have found ourselves frequently voting Republican in recent years. We're sick and tired of left-wing liberals who think everyone who owns a gun is just wondering around looking for a liquor store to rob. As much as I despise many of the actions and viewpoints of the Republican party, I no longer feel welcome in the Democratic one these days.

Well how about being responsible for your gun?

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

If you “lose” your gun to a kid who kills how about you DIE.

Okay?

I’m sick of skilless

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I’m sick of Conservative nitwits who are too fucking lazy to own a gun in the first place.

If you feel you need the reduced reaction time afforded by a loaded weapon in a nightstand, how about picking up a saw and a welder, and building a tighter bedroom so that you are afforded the needed reaction time WHILE also keeping fellow Americans safe. My gun does me no good with every moron who can walk and chew gum gaining access.

It sounds to me as if you think you know what Liberalism is. You do not.

And NO, just as in the Old

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

And NO, just as in the Old West EVERYONE, except rank and file nitwits, understand that guns often increase dangers. That is why they are not allowed in Congress, in Bars, etc.

I want anyone about to be rapped or murdered to have a bazooka to blow the head off the would be assailant. That is not the end of the argument however.

May I ask, why I should be denied Nuclear Weapons for self defense?

Charles,Non responsiveness

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charles,

Non responsiveness is not allowed on the blog.

I am happy to wrestle with you and remain open minded. However, the Right has taken over because of disinformation and I will not be shy. I am pro killing thugs but will not throw the baby out with the bath water. Scientific American several seasons back did a nice piece on the number of guns per country vs. crime rates. I suggest you check it out.

I hope Americans can move past wedge issues before Republicans fully establish the Aristocracy they are building. The bottom 90% (those making $100,000 a year and less) are due a long overdue raise and they will not get it with Republicans in power. Quite the opposite. $4 a gallon gas, a greater portion of National Debt, etc. is the result of too many Americans thinking the Right presents the Left’s argument. They do not.

Keep your gun. Be responsible or die. That is this Liberal Americans take.

EXAMPLE: There remains a difference between keeping yourself safer and everyone else safer. Driving a piece of shit SUV brick to be safer while out weighing most everyone else and placing the bumper higher to decapitate others may sooth oneself but nobody else. I am not opposed to SUVs for those who need them. Our Republic can stand differences, even excesses, but as a culture we should be sharper than buying old tech crap out of inertia.

Jim

Jim, I certainly do not

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Jim,

I certainly do not claim to be an expert on politics, nor do I wish to be. My opinion as to why the Right has taken over is that the Democratic leadership has moved so far to the left that they have alienated the more moderate of us and driven many to vote Republican. I also believe that the Republicans have begun to abuse this situation to move so far to the Right that the situation will eventually boomerang and the Democratic Party will regain control, if they don't continue to shoot themselves in the foot. I have expected to see an overturning of Roe v. Wade as the catalyst for this whiplash-like event. As I said though, I'm am no expert. Just stating my opinion, and welcome discussion on the topic.

Do you have a reference for that Scientific American article you mentioned? It's one of my favorite mags but I may have missed that issue. As for this country, I feel very safe in making the argument that the CCW states tend to be safer than places where guns are more strictly regulated. While I believe this is largely due to the greater presence of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens who own and carry them responsibly, this is another topic I am willing to debate.

Charles might I

  • dinamic's picture
    dinamic
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charles might I broaden the conversation and ask what you mean by this:
"Democratic leadership has moved so far to the left that they have alienated the more moderate of us and driven many to vote Republican."
Could you offer some examples of democrat leadership moving to the left? I am wondering what you find disturbing on the left.

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

The Democratic Party that

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

The Democratic Party that you "don't feel welcome in" is the same one that has always existed. You, and your NRA brethern, are tilting at windmills.

No one in the Democratic Party has ever advocated repealing the Second Amendment, or taking away your precious gun. If you feel that you need a deadly weapon to make you feel safe, that is your right -- just don't point the goddamned thing at me, or my family. And quit denying the fact that the USA has the highest rate of firearm-related deaths in the world -- if you don't count Iraq.

Just like RvW, the "gun issue" is a non-issue, and it is people like you who keep the fires raging. Continue to vote Republican, and listen to their divisive rhetoric, while waving your little penis-extender at true Americans.

Bottom line? You don't know the meaning of the word "Liberal." There are no left-wing radicals on this blog -- we don't allow them. You and your right-leaning brothers and sisters don't seem to last long on here either.

Now go oil up your ego-builder and stop bothering people who are trying to change this country for the better. On, and btw, how is it that you and your kind want to take away the rights of two Americans to get married, but want to force us to accept your frapping gun permit?

Bill, You are wrong, there

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Bill,

You are wrong, there are those in the Democratic Party who would see me disarmed. Nancy Pelosi, for one, has expressly stated that she would see every gun taken away from every private citizen. I realize that this is not the viewpoint of every, probably not even most, democrats; but it makes me uneasy to see such prominant ones making such statements.

As for the United States and firearm related deaths, I did read an article just the other day that indicated that the rate of civilian deaths in several U.S. cities was even higher than in Iraq. New York, Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. I think. Please note that these are cities where private gun ownership is highly restricted.

As for other countries, Scotland, England and Wales,where private gun ownership is virtually forbidden, were recently named the most dangerous countries in the developed world. By a United Nations panel, no less. The rates of violent crimes (assault, rape, and murder) are higher in these countries, as well as Australia and Canada, who have begun restricting gun ownership over the last couple of decades, than the U.S. There are very few countries that I would be safer in than the U.S. as long as I stay out of our more "enlightened" big cities.

Also, you might want to check out some of the third world countries where governments and government back militias are using firearms to eliminate unarmed populations. Sudan ring a bell? In Rwanda machetes were all that was required. Also please note that in all of the incidents of genocide in the twentieth century, not one was committed against an armed populace.

Maybe I don't really know what a "Liberal" is. Please explain it to me. I would like to know. But don't make the mistake of thinking I am some kind of right wing conservative radical either. I look at the Republican leadership as a bunch of self-righteous, holier than thou bastards who think they have a monopoly on what is right and wrong and would like to impose those values on the rest of us. I don't believe I have a right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion, and, for your information, I voted against the "Protection of Marriage" amendment here in KY a couple of years ago. I am a registered Democrat.

On the other hand I do think that the Second Amendment guarantees my right to own and carry a gun for my own protection. And I can promise you that I will not be pointing it at you or your family as long as you are not a threat to my life and safety or that of my family. I will, however, point it at anyone who I find in my home at three o'clock in the morning who isn't supposed to be there. It is a lot more effective than dialing 911 and asking them to wait anywhere from twenty minutes to two hours for the cops to show up.

To cite some numbers off the

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

To cite some numbers off the top of my head, in 2002 Canada had 149 gun homicides.

The USA has about 9 times the population so you would expect approximately thirteen hundred.

Instead the USA had eleven thousand!

Assault Weapons

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Sept. 25, 1982: 13 people killed in Wilkes-Barre, PA, by man using an AR-15.

July 1988: Man kills police officer in Manassas, VA using AR-15

October 13, 1992: seven-year-old boy on his way to school fatally shot by a sniper with an AR-15 in the Cabrini-Green housing project in Chicago.

Oct 30, 1993: 9-year-old girl died in El Cajon, CA when a man with an AR-15 began firing from his second-story window

Jan. 18, 1989: Patrick West kills five children and wounds 30 others at a school in Stockton, CA

May 10, 1989: Man in Boston hijacks small airplane and fires an AK-47 at people below while flying around the city

Sept. 14, 1989: Former employee kills seven, wounds 13 at printing plant in Louisville, KY

Jan. 30, 1992: Sheriff and deputy shot by man with AK-47 in Clay City, KY.
December 16, 1992: Simon's Rock College student sprays campus with an AK-47, killing two and wounding four in Great Barrington, Mass.

Jan. 25, 1993: Five CIA employees shot with an AK-47 at headquarters in Langley, VA

September 1993: Police in Hartford impose a curfew because of gang violence involving AK-47's and other semiautomatic weapons that has led to dozens of shootings and three deaths

December 1993: Man carrying an AK-47 murdered a police officer in a Washington, D.C. housing project.

June 21, 1994: Gunman kills four and wounds 23 at Air Force hospital in Spokane, WA.

Aug. 31, 1994: Man using AK-47 kills a stagehand at NBC studios in New York City.

May 19, 1995: used to kill three people in Pittsburg, CA.

Aug. 10, 1989: Police arrest man carrying an Uzi after he sprays a lower Manhattan street with gunfire, injuring a 69-year-old man

June 26, 1989: One man killed and three wounded in a shootout in the Bronx involving an Uzi and another submachine gun.

Feb. 11, 1991: 20-year-old man killed at party by man carrying Uzi in New York City

April 29, 1991: Police officer shot in face by Uzi-carrying robbers in Jersey City

October 11, 1992: Uzi-carrying postal clerk seeking revenge for being fired kills four people in Ridgewood, NJ.

Nov. 19, 1992: Ex-police officer shot to death by Uzi fire in a robbery in an electronics store in Manhattan

May 25, 1993: In a gun battle between rival gangs in Teaneck, NJ, three were killed and two were wounded. Police recovered an Uzi from the crime.

Sept 17, 1993: Police arrest a recently paroled killer with a loaded Uzi in Pennsauken, NJ

Nov 14, 1994: used in a shootout that killed a police officer in San Francisco

July 1984: Man kills 21 and wounds 19 using an Uzi at a McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA.

April 28, 1983: A paid hit man kills two witnesses in a federal narcotics case using a MAC-11

June 1984: Radio talk-show host killed by right-wing extremists using a MAC-10 in Denver, Colorado.

August 26, 1985: Hired hit men murder a man in suburban Atlanta using a MAC-11.

1988: Jewel thieves fire 31 rounds into a police car while being pursued after a robbery in Boca Raton, Fla.

Jan. 2, 1990: MAC-10 used in an attempted drive-by assassination of the Camden, N.J. county prosecutor

June 13, 1990: MAC-10 used by bank robbers in New York City. Bank guard wounded.

October 1992: MAC-10 used by bank robbers in Sykesville, MD to kill two bank tellers.

Oct. 21, 1993: MAC-10 used in a drive-by shooting to kill a 47-year-old man in Queens, NY.

March 30, 1994: Houston police officer seriously wounded by a criminal armed with a Mac-11

April 26, 1995: Maryland police officer shot to death with a MAC-11 assault pistol in a liquor store parking lot.

July 2, 1993: TEC-DC9 used by Gian Luigi Ferri to kill 8 and wound six in a workplace shooting in San Francisco

April 25, 1994: TEC-9 used to fire at police officers in Brooklyn when an undercover drug deal went awry.

June 15, 1994: TEC-9 used by man to shoot his ex-girlfriend in Buffalo, NY

Nov. 22, 1994: a man with a TEC-9 killed 3 law enforcement officers at Washington, D.C. police headquarters.

Bad people do bad things,

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Bad people do bad things, sometimes with "assault weapons". How many of these people were criminals who weren't able to legally possess a gun in the first place? How many were supposed to be in jail but were on parole or out on bail? Also, note how many of these incidents occurred in states or cities where no one was allowed to be armed to shoot back? CCW laws have been shown to reduce the incidence of multiple victim shootings by 85%.

When the intifada began in Israel three Palestinians walked into a fast food restaurant with assault weapons (real ones, fully automatic) with the intent to kill everyone there. They did kill one before one of them was killed and the others shot. Israelis carry guns. Immediately the Palestinians switched tactics to suicide bombs instead. Apparently even machine guns are less effective if someone is prepared to shoot back.

Okay Charlie, you've made

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Okay Charlie, you've made your point. Now move on to another topic, or your stay with us will be very short.

It's obvious that you have doubts about your position, or you wouldn't keep trying to convince us how "right" you are. The topic of this node is not about your right to carry -- it is about an asinine piece of legislation aimed at taking away State's Rights.

It would seem that Charlie

  • dinamic's picture
    dinamic
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

It would seem that Charlie was just another one issue voter or a troll, but either way he has left us without discussing any other topic than this one. It is hard for me to believe that there are people in this country who vote on a single issue, but some just don't show the maturity to examine several issues and make decisions based on a larger picture of the world.

I am betting that this carry legislation is just another ruse anyway. It will never pass congress, but some representatives will vote for it just to placate those like Charles. What he doesn't get is that the PNAC crowd will take his gun so fast it will make his head spin, if they manage to cut the Constitution to shreds, as they are trying to do.

Americans, be afraid of each other and keep an eye out at all times. Between rapists, murderers and robbers and terrorists no one is safe.

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

Charles, The list is nearly

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charles,

The list is nearly endless however I think you are missing my broader point: I am arguing for space.

Goons get guns from civilization because goons do not generally possess the discipline to build their weapons from scratch. At least not the weapons that fit the culture of violence we have seen in America. Without a civilized Nation over producing and over prescribing, the number of gun deaths would decrease overwhelmingly.

Now here is the rub: I understand you are not there and I am not where you are. I do not presently desire to debate this ad nauseam nor do I think it is important. As Bill notes, we have already and continually said YES. We remain however citizens who must defend our loved ones using everything we can muster. My life has led to where I am and there is room in this Republic for that. People carry, and people own, who should not.

The topic of this thread is not about killing a jerk who invades one’s house it is about giving me the space needed to defend against assholes. Some carry legally and some do not. Some more examples from my life:

-My brother tried to open his car door years ago. Someone came out with a gun drawn. Soon it was realized that my brother’s car was one car down and EXACTLY the same as the one he was trying to get into. The legal carrier told my brother: “if you were a Nigger I would have shot you.”

-My sister in law sent me a “funny” story that was supposed to be a laugh riot. A woman in Florida saw three guys trying to break into her car. She drew her weapon and told them to back away. They did. After they left she tried to get into her car but could not get her key to work. It turns out SHE was the one in error and it was the guy’s car.

Now, anecdotal evidence ain’t everything. If you track my posts you will see that I adore numbers. The combined effect however of anecdotal evidence in my neck of the woods and the numbers I have seen lead me to give a nod towards the Republic on this matter.

Jim

Charlie, Americans are being

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charlie,

Americans are being manipulated.

I do not present the smattering of what I am in order to bypass any axiom you hold dear. I do not think any other Democrat on this blog is as well. What we are doing is trying to present what the Right does not. They hold up straw men to be easily defeated.

We are grownups here and we have legitimate concerns. I would hope you will at least pause to see that other Americans have strategic concerns that are not addressed by the NRA or other Right leaning groups.

I would ask again that you also contribute to other topics. I realize that many topics may not be one’s cup of tea but we are trying to get 50 million or more Americans on the same page before November and it is unlikely we will all agree to work together if only one issue is pursued.

Thanks,

Jim

Other Defense Topics

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

The Federal Deficit

.

Etc.

Double the annual income to

  • zorastrarion's picture
    zorastrarion
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Double the annual income to be in poverty, another 45 million, more or less.

I have neither seen, nor

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I have neither seen, nor heard, Nancy Pelosi call for the repeal of the Second Amendment, nor has she introduced any legislation to take away legal fireams from private citizens. If Pelosi made such a statement, she is entitled to her opinion just like you and me.

As for your continued defense of your right to carry a gun, why is it that you NRA-types will not take "yes" for an answer? The issue is not whether you can have and carry a gun -- the issue is do I have the right to know who is armed, and have a say in whether or not they can carry in MY State, City, or neighborhood. Your "promise" not to point your gun at me or my family means little to me, because I promise to break your arm if you do.

If Kentuckians want to arm ALL of their citizens, and promote a Hatfield/McCoy mentality, then that is their right. They do NOT have the "right" to impose those conditions on MY State, or me, when I have not had the opportunity to vote on the issue. I also have the right to stay as far away as possible from Kentucky, and Kentuckians.

Just so you understand, I am a veteran who has seen more than I need or want of bloodshed and killing -- from both ends of the weapon. I have learned that citizens will find a way to kill each other with any implement that suits the purpose, and that guns are just a more expedient way of getting the job done.

So please, carry your gun in your own little comfort zone, but spare me the excuses and justification for doing so. You are in the minority among Americans who feel threatened enough to risk killing someone by mistake because it is your "right."

P.S. "Liberalism" is the priciple that ALL Americans are equal, and is the Constitutional set of values that this country was founded upon. The neocon Right-wingers have perverted the meaning of the word, and because we Liberals value freedom-of-speech, we allowed them to trash a noble and very American set of principles: Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, Patriotism, and Compassion.

I don't ask to impose my

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I don't ask to impose my right to carry in your state, city, or neighborhood. I've said in one of my other posts that I don't approve of the legislation that began this blog. I don't believe in one state's laws being imposed upon another. However, most of the "right to carry" states have all worked out reciprocity agreements amongst themselves, without Congressional intervention.

I assume you live in one of the more restrictive states as far as gun control goes. Go to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ and compare the crime statistics of your state with those of KY. We seem to be doing something better than states like NY, MD, and IL. Check out the much less restrictive state of VT while you're there as well.

Once again, I have no desire to point my gun at you or any of your family. To do so without the threat of death or serious injury to myself would be illegal, immoral, and unconscionable. I wouldn't even point it at your cat. Why do some people think that anyone who has a gun wants to run around pointing it at everyone else.

Yes, people will find ways to kill each other when they want to and guns do make that easier. They also provide for a more effective means of defense, and are used far more often for defense than to commit crimes. But you don't read in the national news when someone pulls a gun on a mugger or a rapist and he runs away.

Apparently "Liberalism" has a different meaning than what comes to mind when one hears the word "Liberal" these days. When I hear Liberal I think of "self annointed intellectuals who think they know what's best for everyone else and are determined to cram it down our throats". This is how I view the Democratic leadership these days. Check out my other posts today for an equally unflattering opinion of Republicans before you call me a neo-con right winger. I don't believe either party truly respects the Constitution, just the parts they want to use.

If you had taken the time to

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

If you had taken the time to get to know us a little better, and read even a few of the numerous posts on this blog, you would know that we are attempting to change the self-appointed "leadership" of the DLC. These DINOs do NOT represent traditional, Liberal, Democratic values or principles. They most certainly do not represent the members of Democrats.com.

But no, you barge into a private blog, and immediately start accusing us of being "left-wing" radicals. If you are truly a Democrat, then you would be fighting with us for change, and not voting for Republicans because you are worried that someone may not approve of your silly-ass arguments to carry a gun. Frankly, no one on this blog gives a rat's ass if you have a gun or not. We are more concerned with protecting the Constitution from the radical neoconservative elements which have invaded our government -- not with guns, but with the Law.

I believe that you are indeed a right-leaner, and somehow believe that guns are the answer to crime. YOUR holier-than-thou stance is just as repugnant as the religious-right's assertion to moral supremacy. This is America, and individual freedoms are the fabric that makes us a nation of free people.

You can own, carry, and carress your gun where your fellow citizens have given you permission to do so. You may NOT own, carry, or carress your gun where MY constituents have made it illegal. See how that works? It's called the Democratic Rule of Majority.

This had better be your last entry on your precious right to defend yourself from boogie men. Democrats.com has Rules, and our moderators enforce them. Take the hint, and find another subject.

Charles, why?

Why should I give two hoots in a holler about whether or not you're worried about your 'right' to carry when you don't care about my loss of privacy?

 

Do you think your Constitutional protections trump mine?  Are you aware that once the document is trivialized, the entire thing is trivialized? 

 

I get so sick and tired of this 'right' to carry argument.  No one wants your damned pop gun.  Someone already took my privacy.  What are you gonna do about it, you little Constitution lover, you? 

 

Sick and tired of War and Fleece, yet?  Vote democrat!

OK Charles...you finally got me ticked enough to do a bit...

of research. For background, I grew up in Hollywood CA...a major city which falls into the greater LA area. This area, today, is still 120 square miles and contains about 13,000,000 people.

You presently live in Hindman KY, the population of which is 798 people. I know some good people in KY...so this is aimed directly at you: are all the residents of Hindman cousins? That would explain your penchant for going around armed like the Marlboro Man.

Lets compare the two states...your safe state with a population of approx. 4,000,000 people with California with approx 33,000,000 people. Gun deaths by state:

Calif: Homicide: 1573 Per 100K:5.39%
Suicides: 1702: per 100K=4.73%
Fatal gun accidents: 52: per 100K=.18%
other gun deaths: 75: per 100K= .22
total deaths: 3402: per 100K=10.54%

KY: Homicide: 174: per 100K=4.54%
Suicide: 379: per 100K=8.28%
fatal gun accidents: 30: per 100K=.80%
other deaths: 4: per 100K=.10%
total: 537: per 100K=13.73%

These numbers were for 1998. NOTE that total gun deaths for CA and KY respectively are: CA=3402: per 100K=10.54%. KY=587: per 100K=13.73%.

National numbers are:

total gun deaths= 30,708: per 100K=11.32

If Kentucky is so safe and sane with their weapons, why is the number/per cent per 100K so much higher than CA or nation?

Matter of fact, the total number of gun deaths in KY approximately equal the population of your town.

http://www.campaignadvantage.com/services/websites/archive/agsfoundation...

If the link doesnt work, try google:
gun deaths by state.

Another comment: you could put the entire population of your state in city center LA and not notice them.

Frankly, I feel much safer walking the streets of LA than I would in your state.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Louis Pasteur

Grinch, I believe that we

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Grinch, I believe that we have seen "Charles" before during another hissyfit about us "Liberals" wanting to take away his little pop gun.

Wonder if he has a cowboy outfit to go with it, like Dubya and his beloved Saddam gun?

A further bit of research turns up the following stats...

Go to the same source listed in my post above and click on Arizona...check them out...you can carry openly there. Then compare with Massachusetts...this is a shocker. The stats in Mass show that they have little or no gun problem.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Louis Pasteur

I might add that it sucks

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I might add that it sucks that we have eliminated the “bloody nose fight” of yesteryear. Now every damned skirmish can end in death.

This leaves only three cultural options:

1) Holding it all in.

2) Killing someone.

3) Getting a lawyer.

Charles, I see you are back online but I have to run out for a while. I sent you an email. Please consider researching the blog a bit more before assuming anything. There is lots we Americans have to come together on before we are all broke. Be respectful and last long enough for us to continue the conversation.

Thanks,

Jim

Jim, Yeah, it sucks that the

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Jim,

Yeah, it sucks that the "bloody nose fights" have been replaced by killings at times these days. But the blog that I initially responded to seemed to imply that the CCW carriers were the kind who would be willing to shoot people just for pissing them off. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I felt I had to respond. Most of those I've talked to say they are more likely to avoid arguements when they are carrying because they don't want to escalate the situation. Those who are likely to pull a gun just because someone has "dissed" them tend to prove that early in life and don't pass the required background checks for a license.

Charlie,In this last year I

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charlie,

In this last year I helped a friend fend off a gorilla that was after him. He carried to dissuade the jerk and I, as a neighbor was always on alert. We got him locked up. A carrying story that ended well.

Recently as well, another friend noted how he now RUNS up to people who look at him funny. Now that he is carrying he feels he can do that.

This sword slices both ways. It really does. I think once people have denied weapons that I can build (like Nuclear, Chemical, Lasers, etc.) we have been planted firmly on a slippery slope.

I will try and find the reference to the sciam article.

Jim

Most carry stories do end

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Most carry stories do end well. Estimates are that there are over two million defensive uses of firearms each year (yes, this and the following numbers are subject to debate) and the vast majority of them do not involve firing a shot. Only in 95 to 98% is a shot fired, and only one in a thousand results in the death of the assailant. Most of these, of course, don't make the paper and many are not even reported, especially if a shot is not fired. If these numbers are anywhere near correct then carrying a gun for protection is far more effective than the media would have you believe.

As for your friend who suddenly feels empowered to run up and confront people who simply look at him funny because he is carrying (legally?), I feel sorry for him, as he may some day find out that he is not quite as empowered as he thinks he is. I feel even sorrier for the person who may eventually pay a steeper price for his new attitude. Hopefully he has friends who will counsel him on this behavior. But your right, the sword does cut both ways. But as long as it is cutting the wrong way, it must be allowed to cut the right way too. (That last statement may sound really corny, but I think it conveys my meaning.)

Here's the deal Charles:

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Here's the deal Charles: carry your gun! Love your gun! Feel safe, and protect yourself 24/7. No one on this blog, or to the best of my knowledge, the entire Democratic Party, wants to take away your Charlton Heston-given right to carry!

The topic of this particular node is the validity of your permit in other States where they have different and more strict regulations on who can carry. Keep your argument to this topic, and convince us why you should be allowed carte blanche to carry a concealed weapon in my state if you are not a law-enforcement officer. Why should I not be allowed to know that you are carrying a weapon, and therefore a potential danger to my family?

Oops. Check down a couple

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Oops. Check down a couple of posts for part of my response please. As for you being allowed to know whether I am carrying a weapon, that is an argument that is going on in many of the RTC states at this time. There are ongoing debates as to whether the list of CCW permitees should be a matter of public record. Personally, I don't believe it should be. Owning a gun does not make me a danger.

Well Charles, you have just

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Well Charles, you have just snapped my last nerve. When you can contribute something besides NRA propaganda, and form a broader view of really important issues facing our nation, you can try again.

Until then however, bub bye...

Charles, I asked you if

  • dinamic's picture
    dinamic
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charles, I asked you if there are any reasons, other than this gun BS that you vote?! Are you at all up to date on the really big issues that are currently bringing democrats and many many republicans out to vote this time? Can it be that you are here just as a one note Charlie to see what you can stir up, knowing that this issue will get voted down in congress? Republicans from most states don't want this to become law and I suspect that you damn well know that.

In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell

I could debate some points

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I could debate some points but I think it is more important to take a broader view:

-If I can’t have my Nuke other people have placed us on a slippery slope.

-Those same others generally agree that guns in some places create greater misery: Congress, Bars, etc.

- The Gun industry loses far too many guns. Gun owners lose far too many guns to burglars. Some people who carry should not.

- The above is enough, in my view, for a Republic like the USA to remain a Republic with respect to gun laws.

I live half the year in the woods and half in a city. In the woods I have less than 1 human interaction per day. In the city, an order of magnitude or so more. Further, instead of another human being tens of thousands of feet away from me, I have an effective infinite supply of them every tens of feet. Big difference.

I will defend my family as best I can. I do not feel better about every Tom, Dick, and Harry carrying in every circumstance, and I demand the space to defend myself and family. Our Republic allows for that.

As for the validity of my

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

As for the validity of my CCW in other states, last year or the year before there were bills before Congress which required all of the "right to carry" states (there are now 41) to recognize the CCWs of all the other states. It did not pass. As a matter of fact it would be virtually unnecessary because almost all of the states have worked out reciprocity amongst themselves. As I read this new legislation it seems to be more extensive and would allow me to carry not only in the more restrictive states (e.g. NY, CA) but also in the states with absolutely no concealed carry. (Only IL and WI left.) While that appeals to me I have to admit this is a bad law. This imposes one state's laws upon another and if this is not a violation of the Constitution, it damn well should be.

In other points:

-A nuke is an offensive weapon of mass destruction, not a defensive firearm.

-I am not allowed to take my gun into bars, schools, police stations, courtrooms, or any legislative session. A few other places are off limits as well.

-Too many guns are lost to burglars. Criminals will always manage to get guns somehow.

-Some people who carry should not. Most notably criminals who do so illegally. But also those who don't know how to operate the gun they carry (apparently many leos fall into this category), those who don't know when they are allowed to use them legally in self defense, and probably those who are not ready to use them in self defense when necessary.

Opps, sorry. Much of this

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Opps, sorry. Much of this reply belongs to the post from Bill above.

Charles, The statistics you

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Charles,

The statistics you site compare apples to oranges.

-Canada has a few hundred gun homicides.
-We would expect a thousand for the USA.
-Instead we get ten thousand or tens of thousands.

Babies do not begin as felons. They often require a gun. They get it either legally or because the fraction of a billion guns created legally makes it trivial for them to do so.

It is true that Intellectuals are Liberal but not by self appointment. Gaining knowledge over the decades means one’s “beliefs” will not, at first glance, jive with the quick judgment of others. What else is even possible? It seems almost a tautology.

Jim

If a Nuke is an offensive

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

If a Nuke is an offensive weapon then I would hope that you grant the sanity label (if not agreement) to “fellow” Democrats for pegging certain other weapons as offensive ones.

So too with weapons capable of burning down your house as you step out of it miles from mine with the intent to rape me. Okay okay you get the point. Some high powered kinetic weapons seem offensive.

(As a geek aside: I actually think that a –please don’t laugh- Star Trek like stun setting on “guns” of the future will further muddy the waters in a very good way. This takes us far askew and okay, you may laugh..)

I disagree that Criminals will always manage to get guns. They are too undisciplined to do so in a Nation that truly held guns as sacred. We do not however. Gun ownership is casual in America not sacred.

Now Charles: I have asked several times for contributions on other topics. I have explained why. Please do me the courtesy of doing so. Believe me, I know about bees in one’s bonnet, but as I’ve noted we have tens of millions of voters to get on the same page and it will not occur via a single issue.

I might add that a year ago

  • Jim's picture
    Jim
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I might add that a year ago I was cut off in traffic AND the offending driver then rolled down his window to tell me how he was going to put a few through me. The guy looked like a business man. He may have been a thug or a proud carrier. I do not appreciate men like him carrying. Anyway check out: http://www.democrats.com/node/7018 as we generally want posters to contribute to many topics and that one switches gears quite a bit.

Thanks,

Jim

On the Other Hand

  • zorastrarion's picture
    zorastrarion
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

What did the Founders intend with the Second Amendment? Is there anything in the Federalist Papers? I always thought it meant being able to be armed with what the current standards were for a contemporary soldier. Washington was an accomplished Indian killer (I seem to remember reading something Franklin wrote to the effect that the Indians needed to be eliminated), the British Army was just across the border in Canada and Thomas Jefferson anticipated that tyranny was likely to raise it's head somewhere down the line.

Federalist Papers

  • Charles1229's picture
    Charles1229
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Can't say I've read the Federalist Papers. But many of the quotes I've seen pulled out of them and other writings of the Founding Fathers imply that they saw it as a protective measure not only against external threats but the threat of tyranny within the ranks of our own government. They also seem to imply that it is a right accorded to the "individual", not limited to a state militia as some have suggested.

Charles

  • RDillon's picture
    RDillon
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Being also from Kentucky, I can tell you that I don't care much for the concealed weapon permits given out here a few years back. I have known a couple of drunks and meth-heads that had a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public. Even as a responsible gun owner, doesn't that make you nervous? What this post originally said, I believe, was questioning whether your gun permit to carry a concealed gun in Kentucky should be good in say, New York. Now, I as a Democrat have never wanted the Second Amendment repealed. Our forefathers put it there for a valid reason. However, we as Kentuckians do not see the massive numbers of gun related deaths and crimes as our fellow Americans that live in the big cities. Cities being more violent than rural areas is not an American phenomenon, it has been like that since there was cities. Therefore it is my belief on gun control that state and local governments that are faced with deaths and other gun-related crimes on a daily basis have every right to pass laws to keep guns away from criminals. If that means your Kentucky concealed weapon license is not valid in Chicago, leave your gun at home or don't go. Its kind of like in the movie Tombstone, when the Earps went to disarm the Cowboys because the town didn't allow guns in the city limits. Where was Charlie Heston then?

I bet our friend Charlie

  • googa1's picture
    googa1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I bet our friend Charlie doesn't think the Iraqis have the right to carry a weapon for protection. I hate to tell you that you carry a weapon to get respect - you need it in case someone picks on you. Funny Republicans LOVE guns but just about every damn one in the BA ran from having a gun put in their hand when they were college aged. Where was their loyality to "protecting America" then? But they damn sure wrap themselves in "protecting America" now by pre-emptive invasions.

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

like it's some kind of federal program."

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

It is no lie

  • RDillon's picture
    RDillon
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

A fellow I went to school with, who everyone knows is geeked out on meth now was showing a few of us his concealed gun permit. I don't like that law, because you have some irresponsible people who don't have criminal records who are allowed to carry concealed weapons. When I came up we were roughnecks and would just beat the crapola out of each other, now if you mix a fifth of whiskey or some meth or both, with a permit to carry a concealed firearm, call it liberal if you want but that makes me nervous even in Kentucky. I honestly believe that waiting periods for serious background checks is a reasonable measure that any gunowner who is really responsible shouldn't mind. I think a gunowner should share some responsibility if they are neglegent caring for, or protecting their gun and it is used in a crime, especially a murder. Gun ownership should always be legal in our country, but with it should come responsibility by law. Thats just my own personal belief. I don't believe anyone should be able to hide a deadly weapon. If they want to carry it they should have to keep it in the open so everyone is aware of it. Except in cases of law enforcement and so on.

Bill...Ya suppose? Maybe he has that ...

infamous rocking horse like Shrub's as he works it from the gate to the ranch house...all the whilst screaming "Unka Dick...Unka Dick?

I havent seen him explain why his state has a higher than national average of gun deaths per 100K population...unlike murderous CA which is under the national average.

You could be right...that he has 'visited' us before. You s'pose[sic]we ought to warn Rich that this guy is armed and in his state?

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Louis Pasteur

I'm licensed to carry a firearm...

  • benEzra's picture
    benEzra
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

and a supporter of statuatory CHL licensure laws like those most states have adopted, and I don't think this bill is necessarily a good idea.

The vast majority of the United States already has CCW licensure and reciprocity (only two states DON'T have CCW licensure provisions).

I am licensed by the state of North Carolina to carry a firearm, and at least 32 other states currently recognize that permit. Most states with licensure provisions are very good about ensuring their licenses are recognized by other states with CHL licensing provisions.

Sure, it'd be convenient to be able to carry on the way through NJ and Massachusetts to visit Maine, but I'm afraid any bill to nationalize carry permits would eventually result in the nationalization of carry permit licensing standards...meaning that eventually an elites-only system like you currently see in a handful of "may-issue" states would be foisted on all of us.

Most carry permit holders I know feel pretty much as I do. This bill is going nowhere.

Why do you feel the need to

  • Bill Harding's picture
    Bill Harding
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Why do you feel the need to hide your gun? I don't care if you have a gun, I would just like to know who is carrying so that I can avoid the risk of being around them.