An NRA-Friendly Addition to Senate's 'Wedge-Issue June'
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.
Printer-friendly version
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
I don't understand the question
Assuming you're the moderator, why would you yank my posting privileges?
What implication am I supposed to answer?
I want to know what kind of
I want to know what kind of man you are because we can argue about numbers. but in the end, if we disagree about something far more fundamental then there is NO point to numbers arguments.
Assume: Your participation in gun use leads to misery as its NET effect.
How do you deal with that?
I don't think so
My gun use hasn't ever harmed anyone. I deal with it just fine. I deal with it because I know I'm making no net negative impact on anyone, and conceivably my skills could save an innocent life down the road--possibly my own. My net positive outweighs whatever net negative there might be.
You do not seem to
You do not seem to understand what an Implication is.
ASSUME NET NEGATIVE.
THEN
How does it make you feel?
-----------------------------
You can only remove your bias by assuming the opposite of what you normally believe and checking to see if any emotional bias remains towards a now falsified belief (even if it is only a provisional belief).
The fact that you do not do this as a matter of course shows a lack of reflection on your part and that is a part of a disciplined life. The fact that I have asked you many times and you still couldn’t even see a theoretical possibility for how your life impacts others is telling.
I ain’t picking on ya in any way I don’t pick on myself.
Your gun has already contributed to misery. Your words have as well.
OR NOT.
And that is my point. I am not debating the numbers right now as that gets tireing. I am attempting to see what kind of man you are. And if you can't imagine how your gun has already contributed to misery (under the scenario of NET misery due to the entire topic of Guns in America then please think a little longer. I have alluded to it throughout this thread.)
If I assumed...
...that my gun ownership was causing net misery...I'd feel bad. Very bad. I might at that point rethink it. I'm in the process of making my own biodiesel because I feel bad about the effect my gasoline use has on the environment. I don't eat meat because I feel bad about the effect meat eating has on animal populations. There are cases where I have to assume that a course of action has a negative effect on society at large.
Fortunately, I don't have to assume that since I know it's not the case WRT: my gun ownership.
Frankly I find your analysis of my self reflection a little insulting. You made a bunch of inferences about me that you couldn't possibly know to be true right off the bat simply because I'm a gun ownership. That sort of mentality is patently UN-progressive. I could see the "theoretical possiblity", I just knew enough to recognize that it wasn't plausible. My guns and my words haven't contributed any misery to anyone with the possible exception of people made miserable by being confronted with beliefs that cause them to question their own biases and prejudices.
First off thank you for
First off thank you for getting around to this. It means that if we discuss numbers and finally agree, something will have been accomplished. Time is precious.
Secondly, some people who carry are jerks so the group as a whole will never be given good carte blanche PR.
Thirdly, this thread was attacked by those who feel it is their business as to how I defend my family.
Fourthly, guns kill innocent people and you have helped the gun industry produce them. You share a small part of that BUT the NET effect in your mind is positive and if that is true then you have done well. If the net effect is negative, as others believe, then they are going to call you on it.
As far as my analysis of your self reflection being a little insulting:
If you truly understood but simply did not want to offer a “theoretical” because sometimes in a debate the jerk on the other side will use it against you, then of course an observation on self reflection does not apply to you. If not, then it does.
As to your Progressive credentials I think if you track my posts you will find me interesting.
As to biases please don’t sling that crap. I know reality.
There are jerks in every crowd
The problem is people who assume they represent the majority. A great, great majority of guns are never used at all in any crime, and a greater majority of gun owners are just every day law abiding citizens. Punishing or castigating the many for the misdeeds of the few is patently anti-Democratic and anti-democratic.
"Thirdly, this thread was attacked by those who feel it is their business as to how I defend my family."
Most people who think the way I do feel it's not good public policy for politicians and policemen to tell them how best to defend their families. If not using a gun works best for you, more power to you. But you should respect the choices of those who chose otherwise.
"Fourthly, guns kill innocent people and you have helped the gun industry produce them. You share a small part of that BUT the NET effect in your mind is positive and if that is true then you have done well. If the net effect is negative, as others believe, then they are going to call you on it."
It's no different than any other utilitarian measure, really. My F350 weighs 6000lbs, it's a deadly object at speed motoring down the highway. It could kill a LOT of people if I were careless with it. But it also provides transportation and will be carbon neutral when I get it running on biodiesel. An ethical agent has to weigh those sorts of things when making any sort of moral decision.
As for biases, anyone who knows reality knows that we all have them. Mine happen to be toward a positive net take on private gun ownership and liberalized shall issue laws.
The NRAs Culture of Casual Gun Ownership:
Even when the net effect is good or bad, any individual’s contribution to a game of dominos might be the opposite of its NET effect. Your life with a gun may have harmed or helped or remained neutral already. That you have to face as you have with respect to Oil and Meat.
To do otherwise is Casual Gun Ownership.
You have brought into the world, a Lion. If you wish to walk it, something may go wrong. Think again about taking the responsibility oath: If you lose your gun and it kills, you die.
I leave it up to you to think about scenarios for which the above would not apply. I would caution however against cliché rules for the Culture of Casual Gun Ownership championed by the NRA. For example: As I’ve noted before, if you need a loaded gun in a night stand because you fear you need the lowered reaction time then work a second job and buy a welder, saw, etc. and reinforce your bedroom so you can keep your Lion in a real cage.
You noted somewhere that stolen guns don’t kill much. How does that remove you morally from having contributed to that portion of the statistical distribution? Remember it is not just that you own a Lion that may have never killed an innocent, but that you have supported Lion makers whose Lions have.
People need to truly OWN their guns.
You noted somewhere that Democrats had to essentially be careful not to lose somebody like you. Isn’t that the opposite way of thinking about what is going on in our Nation? Democrats are not “out there”.
(Nobody should assume they know what the defense posture is of anyone on this blog. Non standard arguments are developed on Democrats.com. You will feel off balance for a reason.)
I don't support the death penalty...
...so I think taking your oath would be a bit hypocritical. And I don't think having your fate decided by a criminal's misuse of stolen property jives with the 8th Amendment. So the odds of me taking such an oath are pretty slim.
.As I’ve noted before, if you need a loaded gun in a night stand because you fear you need the lowered reaction time then work a second job and buy a welder, saw, etc. and reinforce your bedroom so you can keep your Lion in a real cage.
There are a variety of tactical reasons why I keep the gun loaded. If you're really interested, I can get into them. But I don't gather the peanut gallery really cares--it's a tactical decision about mental and physical readiness that each gun owner makes.
You noted somewhere that stolen guns don’t kill much. How does that remove you morally from having contributed to that portion of the statistical distribution?
None of my guns have ever been stolen, so I'm fortunate enough to not have contributed to that subset of gun crimes. I'd still lean toward blaming the perp and not the guy who had his rightfully owned property taken away. There's no time my gun is less likely to be stolen then when I'm carrying it concealed, one more reason I support carry laws.
As for Democrats WRT: to our part maintaining the big tent, I simply find that we're not in a tactical position to really be alienating lawful gun owners in key states around the country where we could really use some Team Donkey wins.
You are being coy.
Please stop.
You may of course change the oath to anything substantially stronger than the NRAs Culture of Casual Gun Ownership.
You moved on however to answer my question. You are a non serious gun owner in my view.
I can only hope that America moves towards responsible gun ownership. You can be damned sure that if I owned a Nuke I would take full responsibility if it went off, EVEN if there were extenuating circumstances: like someone stole it.
You have claimed greater responsibility than many in other aspects of life so I am surprised at the inertia you are showing with respect to this.
Further you really need to study the sciences and the numbers further. Your casual dismissal of concerns, as being outside the scope of possible, is not comforting.
This is not about me carrying or not. Not in the least.
We are missing each other if that is what you think I am saying.
This is about my general observation that those who carry are often too unskilled to do so, and put me and my family at risk, even if I carry.
Correct or incorrect the broader point of this thread was that a nod should be given to the Republic on this matter of personal defense.
More broadly the point of the starter post was that this is a wedge issue designed to take our attention off of far more serous matters. I think we can agree that Bob was correct.
What do you base that observation on?
Too unskilled? Based on what standard?
Nod to the Republic? Not sure what you mean by that.
As for this issue being designed to take our mind off more serious matters, I think Bob's point was just the opposite--he noted repeatedly that the Senators supporting this bill were doing so on the sly and not advertising it.
Based on my standard and who I know that carries.
Sorry, the thread is big enough now that stuff is getting lost. I was referring to allowing different locals to decide how best to defend against crime and that includes one’s strategic assessment of “ordinary” citizens carrying.
Sometimes that's used as the rationale for national carry laws..
...to have one universal standard.
Interestingly, most gunnies don't support that.
It is trivial to carry so
It is trivial to carry so assholes carry.
It is trivial to obtain an illegal gun for cheap because you allow casual gun production.
Trivial?
Responsible gun owners don't find carrying trivial at all. It's actually pretty serious business. It's an incredible responsibility.
More than forty states (about 7/10 of the population of the country) allow people to carry. Only a couple outright prohibit it. You think all these folks find carrying to be trivial? I doubt it.
I don’t want a wimp who
I don’t want a wimp who touts guns instead of strategy to place one damned gun in many of the arenas of life I find myself in. For other scenarios it would be welcomed.
In other words...
You want to allow for simple physical force to rule? In other words, anyone who is older, disabled, out of shape, or outnumbered should be at the mercy of those who are physically fit and choose to use their physical strength or numbers to intimidate/threaten/harm? Yeah, that's a good way to promote the safety and welfare of society. And anyone who isn't ready to physically confront someone who wishes to do them harm is in your definition a wimp? Doesn't sound to me like a very good progressive attitude.
How about this, instead: allow people of good intent, who are responsible for their own actions, trained and licensed by the state, to use the tool of a firearm for self-defense? Makes it a whole lot easier for us who are 24 year old Kung Fu Masters to be able to defend ourselves.
7
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
-- William G. McAdoo
(-5.88/-5.23)
NO
You did not read my post. Read it again.
When you characterize someone as a wimp...
...the implication is that you are denigrating their physical prowess. Or is there some other meaning I'm not aware of?
7
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
-- William G. McAdoo
(-5.88/-5.23)
John
John,
I want thugs who are about to kill or rape to have their head blown off before they can do it so it is unlikely we disagree in a fundamental way.
HOWEVER:
The topic of this thread had to do with forcing me to agree to someone else’s strategy for defense. That is what I am railing against.
Further I know people who carry who should not. That makes me pissed. I am not giving good PR to “those who carry” because BOTH scum bags and descent citizens can presently carry and the debate here proves this is getting too casual. If anything the NRA is far Left on this one. They are neither Conservative nor part of American Liberalism. Nobody should be blocking off a segment of society as being monolithic including those who carry. I despise this most greatly when we are speaking about my strategy for defense.
Jim
That's fair.
Well, I wouldn't say that you should be forced to agree with someone else's strategy for defense. That's fair, and I apologize for reacting to the "wimp" comments in the manner I did. If you don't want to carry a weapon (legally, with the appropriate restrictions and requirements), then by all means do not do so.
But too often I have seen my progressive brethern fail to consider that in many ways, this is a matter of supreme importance for the weak and vulnerable. It's not just women fearing to be raped, or a middle-aged guy like me who has some minor disabilities that mean I would be hard-pressed to defend myself from someone who wanted to do me harm. It is for the GLBT folks who don't wanna end up like Mathew Sheppard (check out the Pinkpistols site). It's for minorities subject to the hatred from the right wingers. You get the picture.
This is a progressive issue, and one which would do a hell of a lot to make dems more viable throughout the country. Here in fly-over country, any dem candidate has to work extra hard to convince gun owners that they support *the entire Bill of Rights*. It just makes sense to remove the obstacle and get the people who have economic interests congruent with the Dem party to actually vote that way.
7
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
-- William G. McAdoo
(-5.88/-5.23)
Pro Gun
Let me ask you, to have a carry permit does one need to prove that they know anything about gun safety? What about their mental stability, can just anyone who appears normal get a CCW permit? What about proving that they can shoot straight?
I have had friends who carried guns for several different reasons and they all had their own "special thoughts" about why they carried and when they would use the gun. Are there any actual hard and fast guidelines stating flatly when a citizen has a right to pull his/her gun and shoot it? I guess my question is, when does your right to feel safe from bad guys take precedent over my right not to get caught in the crossfire? Who protects those of us who do not want to take the chance of killing someone from the person who strongly believes that he/she has the right to carry a concealed weapon? I can imagine many scenarios where one bad guy with a gun would be preferable to a room or street full of frightened citizens all shooting at that bad guy. Even trained police have been known to shoot the wrong guy or to shoot someone who committed a very minor crime that did not deserve the death penalty.
Well I could go on, but I think that you get my drift and I really do want to hear reasonable answers to my concerns.
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. ~ George Orwell
Depends
"Let me ask you, to have a carry permit does one need to prove that they know anything about gun safety? What about their mental stability, can just anyone who appears normal get a CCW permit? What about proving that they can shoot straight?"
Depends on what state you're in. My permits are MD and VA. I had to submit fingerprints, get a background check, get training classes. If I was a drunk or mentally unstable, I'd be denied the permit. By contrast, in VT there are no such restrictions.
"Are there any actual hard and fast guidelines stating flatly when a citizen has a right to pull his/her gun and shoot it?"
Pretty much the same as the police, but even more restrictive--you can only shoot to save yourself or the life of another from a potentially deadly attack. That is IT.
"I guess my question is, when does your right to feel safe from bad guys take precedent over my right not to get caught in the crossfire?"
The bad guys are already carrying; they're already disrespecting your right to not be in their crossfire. No permit required.
CCW permit holders are responsible for every bullet they fire, and they damn well know it. That's why you don't read very often about permit holders wildly spraying bullets. You can only shoot when you're sure you'll hit the threat against your life, and that's it. With that in mind, I see no reason why I should stop being allowed to protect myself from thugs, murderers, robbers, carjackers, meth-addicts-who-mistake-me-for-the-guy-who-cut-them-off-in-traffic, etc. just because I crossed over my front door threshold.
There are 40+ states where CCW is allowed; in none of them have we found that your nightmare scenario of permit holders wildly spraying bullets at bad guys happens.
"Who protects those of us who do not want to take the chance of killing someone from the person who strongly believes that he/she has the right to carry a concealed weapon?"
I would suggest you're protected by A) the laws making it clear CCW holders are responsible for where their bullets go, and B) yourself. The guy with the CCW permit isn't the person you need to worry about. FL and TX have both studied their permitted population closely, and found them to be much more law abiding than the general population. Here in the state of MD where 40,000+ people have been given permits, NOT ONE has ever been convicted of a gun crime (including indiscriminately shooting an innocent bystander). What your worried about just doesn't ever happen because CCW permit holders are a cut above--they're generally trained better, more apt to follow the law, have something to lose by screwing up, and if they did intend to harm you they wouldn't bother getting the permit first.
"I can imagine many scenarios where one bad guy with a gun would be preferable to a room or street full of frightened citizens all shooting at that bad guy"
I can recall (don't have to imagine) scenarios where CCW holders have saved the day. Recently a cop was being beaten to death by a crazed maniac, and a CCW holder went to his car and got his pistol and stopped the bad guy before he killed the cop. If there is a maniac on the prowl, unless by some miracle a cop happens to be right there...your best bet is an armed citizen.
In the 40+ states that allow CCW, your nightmare scenario of people wildly spraying bullets at one bad guy hasn't happened to my knowledge. Why? Because CCW permit holders know better. A CCW permit is not a permit to wildly spray bullets. You can only use it to stop an immediate threat to life. That is all.
"The bill's primary sponsor, Senator Allen, doesn’t mention it
Actually, on Allen's Senate website, clicking on "Legislative Office" and then on "Sponsored Legislation" brings up the Thomas/Library of Congress listing for S. 3275.
Fine. Now go back and read the column again.
I normally don't jump into these things -- and I most certainly wish this endless thread would die a fast death -- but, as the author, I'm going to comment if someone misrepresents what I wrote.
I did not write that Senator Allen doesn't mention his bill *anywhere* on his web site. What I said was that neither he, nor any of the bill's cosponsors touts it in the "press-release section" of their sites.
Thomas.gov hosts the Congressional Record and no Senator can escape that -- and all list their current legislation on their sites. There's a vast difference between listing a piece of legislation like that and being confident enough in it to boast about it in your formal announcements.
Bob
Sorry Bob, but this node has
Sorry Bob, but this node has degenerated into a "mine is bigger than yours," circular argument and has become a disruption.
Now all of you NRA puppets go find another place to play with your phallic symbols -- this node is closed. Btw, Charlton Heston was not a real prophet -- he just played one on the big screen.
P.S. All of you "patriots" from The High Road should really get a life and stop fantasizing about boogie men, and a chance to shoot a real "bad guy." Playing with your "gun" like that will make you go blind...;-)