PDA

View Full Version : Guns 'n Coffee



Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 06:14 AM
This is just so decadent... and it's another reason to hate Starbucks. Don't they deserve a boycott?

Gun fans cheer Starbucks’ stance on the armed
Other businesses refusing to serve customers who show off weapons

Feb. 28, 2010

Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Welch's foray into the coffeehouse was part of an effort by some gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms.

Even in some "open carry" states, businesses are allowed to ban guns in their stores. And some have, creating political confrontations with gun owners. But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

"Starbucks is a special target because it's from the hippie West Coast, and a lot of dedicated consumers who pay $4 for coffee have expectations that Starbucks would ban guns. And here they aren't," said John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of Mississippi who is an expert in gun policy.

Welch, a 71-year-old retired property manager who lives in Richmond, Va., doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't bear arms while he gets caffeinated.

"I don't know of anybody who would provide me with defense other than myself, so I routinely as a way of life carry a weapon — and that extends to my coffee shops," he said.

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned customers with guns.

Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

The advocacy group OpenCarry.org, a leading group encouraging the demonstrations, applauded Starbucks in a statement for "deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers."

"Starbucks is seen as a responsible corporation and they're seen as a very progressive corporation, and this policy is very much in keeping with that," said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. "If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has responded by circulating a petition that soon attracted 26,000 signatures demanding that Starbucks "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones."

Gun control advocates hope the coffeehouse firearms displays end up aggravating more people than they inspire.

"If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35632357/ns/business-retail/

User Name
March 1st, 2010, 06:50 AM
A police officer can openly carry his gun into an establishment whats the difference between him and a properly licensed private citizen?

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 07:14 AM
You honestly don't see the difference?

Ninjahedge
March 1st, 2010, 07:59 AM
UN, because there is MUCH less holding back a private citizen from pulling that gun on you for no reason....


This whole thing is stupid. For an establishment like StarPlucks, the chances of being shot over a frappachino is very small. This whole challange is male ego bubbling up trying to cause trouble.

I wonder how they would feel having a whole group of people coming in with semi automatic rifles and pistols drawn, not just one pen!s-bolstering revolver wearer wandering in trying to get thown out and being FORCED to pay for a $4 expresso.

Jasonik
March 1st, 2010, 10:07 AM
"If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

Bearing arms is as much of a natural protected American right as practicing one's religion.

Banning patrons with guns is just as questionable as banning patrons wearing hijab, a kippah, or a crucifix.

I support business being allowed to ban whatever they want -- free association and all -- but I wonder if the attitude would be the same if a group of militant atheists were demanding that a business discriminate against religious patrons rather than anti-gun fascists demanding it against lawful gun owners...

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2010, 10:19 AM
A police officer can openly carry his gun into an establishment whats the difference between him and a properly licensed private citizen?


Banning patrons with guns is just as questionable as banning patrons wearing hijab, a kippah, or a crucifixCan't decide which of these is more ridiculous.

Jasonik
March 1st, 2010, 10:31 AM
What's ridiculous is all the people walking around with unrestrained fists! :eek:

lofter1
March 1st, 2010, 10:40 AM
Banning patrons with guns is just as questionable as banning patrons wearing hijab, a kippah, or a crucifix.


It might be wise to be wary of those who bear a crucifix (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/07/crimesider/entry5368773.shtml).

BBMW
March 1st, 2010, 10:46 AM
Get used to it. Following up on the Heller decision of a couple of years ago, which affirmed that the 2nd Amendment confirred to individual citizens right to keep and bear arms, a case is going to be heard by the SCOTUS tomorrow that may force the states to respect that right. If the plaintiffs win this case, the door will be openned to challenging most of the state laws restricting, overship and carry of firearms.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2010, 11:03 AM
the 2nd Amendment We're stuck with it.

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 11:08 AM
How pretty.... a populace walking around displaying their guns. I wonder if it signifies something?

Personally, I don't like the idea of people being able to have guns with them in public, but it's none of my business... every country will do things their own way under their own laws: but can't we pleeeeease draw the line with people openly displaying them?

It is just so, so ugly.

ablarc
March 1st, 2010, 11:37 AM
^ I think it's OK as long as they also display their schlongs.



(Don't know what you'd do about women.)

lofter1
March 1st, 2010, 11:37 AM
Maybe the firearm will become the latest fashion accessory.

Keep your eye on the next Fashion Week.

I'm trying to figure out what to wear with this:

http://www.fmft.net/Sub%20Machine%20Gun%20Sterling%20Sub%20Machine%20G un%209mm.jpg

dtolman
March 1st, 2010, 11:39 AM
Think walking around with filled holsters are weird?

Not trying to make this political... but try walking around Israel. I still remember when I visited 20 years ago, and went into a supermarket full of uzi toting patrons.

I have never seen so many guns in my life. Or grenade launchers.

On the plus side, I didn't worry about being robbed at gun point.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2010, 11:47 AM
(Don't know what you'd do about women.)B-52s.

I'm a product of the Cold War.

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 11:50 AM
But Israel is a country under attack: so I guess a case can be made.

And the US has a tradition of personal gun ownership. It is part of it's history and culture, take it or leave it: but damn it... people walking around with guns strapped to themselves in coffeee shops or wherever, just to make a statement. It's gross.

ablarc
March 1st, 2010, 12:22 PM
The gun nuts would say the United States is a country under attack.

It's being attacked, they will tell you, by The President, by the Democrats in Congress and elsewhere, by the Liberal media, and by people like yourself.

Ninjahedge
March 1st, 2010, 12:30 PM
It doesn't make sense, but few emotional topics do.

They feel threatened and insecure, even though they say they aren't. They say they can handle themselves in a fight, yet they still sport a gun to "discourage" anyone from trying.

All you have to do is look back to the "wild west" to see how effective simple bearing of arms kept everyone "safe". It was tenuous at best, with the ones bearing the most arms being the ones everyone listened to.

The thing that removed the need for that was our own civil investment into a (supposedly) independent third party for protection and enforcement.

And it comes right back to the reason that the amendment was put in inthe first place. To protect us against the government and try and prevent the US from becoming as controlled as Brittain (what a totalitarian regime that turned out to be!). While the sentiment at the time was warranted, carrying it and directly applying it to todays situations makes no sense.

There is no direct, or indirect way to adapt the INTENSION of the 2nd amendment to todays society and conditions.

As for carrying firearms into a coffe shop. I really do not care. But as many bar owners have said, as soon as they are forced to do the same they are taking their money and investing in Funeral Parlors. (I am not joking...)

195Broadway
March 1st, 2010, 12:53 PM
It's Starbucks for me. Adds new meaning to a coffee with a shot. :)
Lots of folks carry down here. Personally, I think it's kind of silly, but I fully support their right to do so.

Ninjahedge
March 1st, 2010, 01:04 PM
195, the key question would be "why?".

So many people, when put to this, simply say "because it is my right" or "to protect myself" when both are not really applicable in todays society.

There were many things that were "rights" that were later amended. Simply pointing at the Constitution and saying "hey, it says so" is not 100% enough, especially without the reason it was originally written for.

I am not saying that guns should be banned. At least not in this argument, but I have never accepted "because" as a suitable answer for anything.

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 01:33 PM
Personally, I think it's kind of silly...

Silly? Walking around with a gun on your waist is silly?

(I remember back when t-shirts with stupid sayings was about as silly as it got.)

ablarc
March 1st, 2010, 01:53 PM
Those silly ol' guys in the SA !!

(Couldn't stay out of their brown shirts.)

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 02:32 PM
Can any one answer this: if you are wearing a gun (where it is legal) and walk into a bar, can they serve you liquor or is there a law against wearing a gun and drinking?

(oh God let's hope so)

--

BTW: once in NYC, I invited someone back to my place (you know how it goes) and under his jacket he removed a gun and placed it on the dresser. Turns out he was an undercover cop. Ah NY's finest...

Once in Italy (this story is cleaner) my doorbell got stuck and would not stop ringing. I was on the street with a friend of mine trying to get the doorbell button unstuck. 2 nicely dressed gentlemen were walking by...one of them said, "I think I can fix that". He pulled out a gun, tapped the button with it and fixed the problem.

So there.

--

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2010, 02:44 PM
It's being attacked, they will tell you, by The President, by the Democrats in Congress and elsewhere, by the Liberal media, and by people like yourself.You forgot immigrants. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Ducks) Much of Western gun lore is tied up in Vigilantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Vigilance_Movement).

BBMW
March 1st, 2010, 03:50 PM
Depends on the state.

Gun type people done seem to have too much problem with laws against carrying in bars. They don't like being banned from restaurants the serve liquor.



Can any one answer this: if you are wearing a gun (where it is legal) and walk into a bar, can they serve you liquor or is there a law against wearing a gun and drinking?

(oh God let's hope so)

--

BTW: once in NYC, I invited someone back to my place (you know how it goes) and under his jacket he removed a gun and placed it on the dresser. Turns out he was an undercover cop. Ah NY's finest...

Once in Italy (this story is cleaner) my doorbell got stuck and would not stop ringing. I was on the street with a friend of mine trying to get the doorbell button unstuck. 2 nicely dressed gentlemen were walking by...one of them said, "I think I can fix that". He pulled out a gun, tapped the button with it and fixed the problem.

So there.

--

BBMW
March 1st, 2010, 03:53 PM
People don't trust the cops to be where they need them, when they need them.

Criminal generally do try to avoid committing crimes when police are present. NYC has 30,000+ cops (maybe 35K-ish at the moment). People still get vicimized. The rest of the country has a lot lower density of policing.


195, the key question would be "why?".

So many people, when put to this, simply say "because it is my right" or "to protect myself" when both are not really applicable in todays society.

There were many things that were "rights" that were later amended. Simply pointing at the Constitution and saying "hey, it says so" is not 100% enough, especially without the reason it was originally written for.

I am not saying that guns should be banned. At least not in this argument, but I have never accepted "because" as a suitable answer for anything.

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 04:12 PM
BBMW: As far as I can tell, no one here is saying that people should not be allowed to have guns.

ZippyTheChimp
March 1st, 2010, 05:14 PM
Criminal generally do try to avoid committing crimes when police are present.Criminals tend to commit crimes in high density areas. More opportunities, and easier to disappear into the landscape.


NYC has 30,000+ cops (maybe 35K-ish at the moment).The ratio of police to population is comparable to that of cities where carrying handguns is permitted.


People still get vicimized.People get victimized everywhere. If anything, you could make a case for less guns=less crime.


The rest of the country has a lot lower density of policing.Owning a handgun in areas where police response is delayed or nonexistent isn't the same as carrying a handgun into a retail establishment in a city. I have a place in the Adirondacks. By NYC standards, it's isolated. When the kids were little, I kept a rifle and handgun.

Ninjahedge
March 1st, 2010, 06:16 PM
And now that they are older you carry an assault rifle? :D

To add to your point, the crime rate is actually pretty low in NYC, and not from the proliferation of arms. For the density, I would bet cash you could find similar cop to citizen ratios that still have higher crime despite a higher private ownership ratio.

Also, who says all criminally minded people have records? How can a cop tell a law abiding gun holder from a criminal if the criminal refuses to dress like one? If a cop stops you in a dark alley because he does not know what you are doing, and there is a high probabbility that you would have a gun because of local laws and propensity for carrying one, how cautious do you think he will be with you and EVERYTHING you do?

Is this a reason to stop ownership or carrying? Not really, but the thing to realize is that gun ownership should not be viewd as something untouchable and somehow holy in the eyes of the Constitution.


BTW, criminals may avoid cops when comitting crimes, but they generally do not avoid guns. Most of what they do involves them. They just make sure they are pointing theirs first.

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 06:32 PM
Next question: if you wear a gun in public, must you also wear some sort of badge on your chest showing that you are authorized to carry one?

If a cop sees you wearing a gun, is he required to ask for your ID?

Can a non-gun-tote'n member of the public ask to see the gun-wearin'-joe's ID?

I mean, how do I know if the guy sitting next to me is authorized to carry a gun or if it's a criminal feeling a little brazen?

BTW: in places like Texas (as an example) can you carry guns everywhere? Even in banks? In Church? At the nursery school when you go to pick up your kids?

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 06:38 PM
While I'm waiting for answer, a little entertainment: watch this, it's so bad-ass cool. It's only 20 seconds of your time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtbdfypVy38

ablarc
March 1st, 2010, 07:22 PM
^ While doing that, don't you think he should be required to show his schlong?



(Oh ... he's already doing that !)

Fabrizio
March 1st, 2010, 07:44 PM
Well anyway, it looks like I got my answer. This will only take 15 seconds of your time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

Ninjahedge
March 1st, 2010, 09:31 PM
Or Badgers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx6TBrfCW54&feature=related

And the classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwprS_L6tg

195Broadway
March 2nd, 2010, 05:19 AM
195, the key question would be "why?".

So many people, when put to this, simply say "because it is my right" or "to protect myself" when both are not really applicable in todays society.

There were many things that were "rights" that were later amended. Simply pointing at the Constitution and saying "hey, it says so" is not 100% enough, especially without the reason it was originally written for.

I am not saying that guns should be banned. At least not in this argument, but I have never accepted "because" as a suitable answer for anything.

Ninja,
Let me start by disclosing that I don't currently have any desire to carry a gun or even own one.
Here in Texas, the gun must be concealed. In the event I chose to carry, I would rather conceal it. I have always thought it a bit odd that the law doesn't require you to wear it out in the open. You would think that the cops would want to be able to see it. Also, I think fewer people would carry if they had to display it.
More on Tx law: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm)

Why support the right? I want to preserve the option to be able to carry a gun in the event a situation arises where I feel my life is in peril.
I disagree with the premise that it's not really applicable in today's society.
I'll give you an example: A friend of mine was recently going through a very ugly divorce. Her (now) ex husband threatened her life multiple times. He was a suicidal alcoholic. Fearing for her life, she exercised her right to carry.

As far as the constitution goes, Those who want to do away with the 2nd amendment should persue repealing it if they don't like it.

195Broadway
March 2nd, 2010, 05:26 AM
Silly? Walking around with a gun on your waist is silly?

(I remember back when t-shirts with stupid sayings was about as silly as it got.)

"silly" is in reference to carrying a gun just because you can, you silly.

195Broadway
March 2nd, 2010, 05:51 AM
Can any one answer this: if you are wearing a gun (where it is legal) and walk into a bar, can they serve you liquor or is there a law against wearing a gun and drinking?

(oh God let's hope so)

--

--

Here in TX that would not be allowed.
See pg 46: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/LS-16.pdf

195Broadway
March 2nd, 2010, 05:58 AM
Next question: if you wear a gun in public, must you also wear some sort of badge on your chest showing that you are authorized to carry one?

If a cop sees you wearing a gun, is he required to ask for your ID?

Can a non-gun-tote'n member of the public ask to see the gun-wearin'-joe's ID?

I mean, how do I know if the guy sitting next to me is authorized to carry a gun or if it's a criminal feeling a little brazen?

BTW: in places like Texas (as an example) can you carry guns everywhere? Even in banks? In Church? At the nursery school when you go to pick up your kids?

Answers: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/LS-16.pdf

Ninjahedge
March 2nd, 2010, 07:54 AM
Ninja,
Let me start by disclosing that I don't currently have any desire to carry a gun or even own one.

I didn't think you did. Your posts did not seem to reflect that...um....dedication to the issue? ;)


Here in Texas, the gun must be concealed. In the event I chose to carry, I would rather conceal it. I have always thought it a bit odd that the law doesn't require you to wear it out in the open. You would think that the cops would want to be able to see it. Also, I think fewer people would carry if they had to display it.
More on Tx law: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm)

I never really understood that either.



Why support the right? I want to preserve the option to be able to carry a gun in the event a situation arises where I feel my life is in peril.
I disagree with the premise that it's not really applicable in today's society.
I'll give you an example: A friend of mine was recently going through a very ugly divorce. Her (now) ex husband threatened her life multiple times. He was a suicidal alcoholic. Fearing for her life, she exercised her right to carry.

Counter that. My uncle was doing the same. The to-be ex was stalking him, came to his house and parked in front. When he came out, she said she had a gun. Through some course of events, he got her key, went inside and called the cops. She did not have one, but she could have very easily registered and gotten one, so that possibility was there and his life was threatened because of it.

Would he have been safer with one himself? Not really.

I am not discounting the right in and of itself, but people seem to have this idea that a gun is a magic shield. It isn't. It does not protect as much as it threatens and attacks. One gun will not stop anothers bullet, and in some cases it will encourage it.

Does that mean they all should be banned? I don't think so. Most of the most infuriating "debates" occur over the more assault-like weapons that have no real purpose other than killing and being very efficient at it. While I do not LIKE revolvers or shotguns, I can't see where banning them will do much.


As far as the constitution goes, Those who want to do away with the 2nd amendment should persue repealing it if they don't like it.


That's the problem. It is not the amendment in and of itself, but its original intent and its application to todays environment. It does not quite fit and people keep trying to make it fit.

Literally it means that any man, woman or, in some weird cases, child should be able to have howitzers, 50 cal's, AT guns and missiles and ANY type of military hardware they can afford.

Why? Because it puts a balance on the government from coming in with the National Guard and putting an area under martial Law and effectively quashing their freedoms.


What does that have to do with a revolver in Starbucks? ;)

lofter1
March 2nd, 2010, 08:54 AM
In case they give you low fat instead of half and half.

Ninjahedge
March 2nd, 2010, 09:24 AM
Bastards.

ablarc
March 2nd, 2010, 09:24 AM
low fat instead of half and half.
They wouldn't dare make that mistake; the gun would guarantee that in advance. Did you ever see a barkeep hand a gunslinger the wrong drink?

Come to think of it, might get you better service at the Duane-Reade, too.

And those long Friday afternoon waits in the bank line ... do they let you carry in a bank?



They ought to give you more, just for having to stand in line.

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2010, 09:57 AM
Did you ever see a barkeep hand a gunslinger the wrong drink?Always wanted to say (darkly), "Leave the bottle." Somehow, doesn't seem right without a Stetson and a Colt.

BBMW
March 2nd, 2010, 12:09 PM
In NY? Yeah they do. It's very hard to get a permit, especially in NYC.

In many other places in the US, it's pretty easy.


BBMW: As far as I can tell, no one here is saying that people should not be allowed to have guns.

Ninjahedge
March 2nd, 2010, 12:22 PM
Hard to get one does not mean they can't.

And by "here", I think he is talking about the forum, not the US.

Fabrizio
March 2nd, 2010, 12:24 PM
IMHO "ease" is not desirable. Yes, people should be able to have guns but with plenty of controls and restrictions on who can have them and for what reason.

ablarc
March 2nd, 2010, 12:30 PM
Socialist.

By the time you're through with us, we'll have no precious bodily fluids.

That is, unless we stand up to you now.



Make that latte a grande.

BBMW
March 2nd, 2010, 12:33 PM
Criminals tend to commit crimes in high density areas. More opportunities, and easier to disappear into the landscape.

The ratio of police to population is comparable to that of cities where carrying handguns is permitted.



No, NYC, even with it's large population has a higher density of police than any other large city. A while ago I found a website who's author did a per capita analysis of gov't employment. NYC had about twice the police per 100,000 residents than anywhere else on his list (which included all the major cities in the US).




People get victimized everywhere. If anything, you could make a case for less guns=less crime.



Maybe, theoretically, on a national basis. But on a national basis guns aren't going away. We have full democratic control of Washington, and gun control isn't even on their agenda (at least for the moment).

This means that NYC has to deal with the guns situation as it currently exists. This means that criminals have essentially unfettered access to guns, while people who wish to respect the law are essentially defenseless.

Also, on any kind of statistical basis, it's not the legal gunowners that ar the problem it's the criminals. States that had strict laws on legal carry, than then loosened those laws to allow easier permitting, have not seen an increase in gun related crime.




Owning a handgun in areas where police response is delayed or nonexistent isn't the same as carrying a handgun into a retail establishment in a city. I have a place in the Adirondacks. By NYC standards, it's isolated. When the kids were little, I kept a rifle and handgun.

Why? Are the cops likely to walk into your store as it's being held up? It's right at the point/time of attack that you need the gun (witness the incident at the restaurant supply house in Harlem).

BBMW
March 2nd, 2010, 12:37 PM
You're talking a year and half, and several hundred dollars, and that for a target permit. Carry permits are unobtainable unless you fit into a specific class of busniess (carry cash, jewelery, etc).

This issue isn't a legitmate background check. The issue is that the city/state make the system intentionally and unnecessarily long, difficult, and expensive to discourage people from applying.

I have no problem with a criminal conviction, mental health ruling background check. But what should that take? Let's say 20 business days and $50. This is not theoretical. Years ago, when I live in Jersey, I went throught this. It was about that. No big deal. But, more than that, and they're playing games.

As far as people on the board saying people can't have guns, that depends on the person.


Hard to get one does not mean they can't.

And by "here", I think he is talking about the forum, not the US.

lofter1
March 2nd, 2010, 02:18 PM
... We have full democratic control of Washington ...


There's the root of the problem -- damned democracy!

What do the people know, anyway?

ablarc
March 2nd, 2010, 04:27 PM
As far as people on the board saying people can't have guns, that depends on the person.
We shouldn't let Mussolini have a gun. Or anyone who shows signs of turning into a guy like him.

Fabrizio
March 2nd, 2010, 04:38 PM
We shouldn't let trolls have a gun either.

Jasonik
March 2nd, 2010, 04:45 PM
We shouldn't let Mussolini have a gun. Or anyone who shows signs of turning into a guy like him.

Disarming a bona fide government employee?! :eek:

That'd be hard without an armed citizenry...

ablarc
March 2nd, 2010, 04:51 PM
Disarming a bona fide government employee?! :eek:

That'd be hard without an armed citizenry...
He wasn't always a government employee. And neither were the guys who put him in power.

Come on, Jasonik; you're smarter than that. Tell us about the "government-employee" S.A.

Those guys were the "armed citizenry" ('case you didn't know).

Fabrizio
March 2nd, 2010, 05:05 PM
What would Lew Rockwell say?

ZippyTheChimp
March 2nd, 2010, 06:33 PM
No, NYC, even with it's large population has a higher density of police than any other large city.I said comparable, not equal or less. Anyway, the website you cited is way off. NYC isn't even #1, let alone twice the number.

Residents per police officer:

Chgo - 212
NYC - 237
Cleve - 298
Miami - 329
LA - 380
Dallas - 380
Phoenix - 457
Las Vegas - 214
Atlanta - 343


This means that NYC has to deal with the guns situation as it currently exists. This means that criminals have essentially unfettered access to guns, while people who wish to respect the law are essentially defenseless.I don't see your point here. NYC has had less crime than any other large American city for all of the past decade. Maybe the open-carry cities need to deal with the gun problem.


Also, on any kind of statistical basis, it's not the legal gunowners that ar the problem it's the criminals.All criminals start out as "law abiding citizens."


States that had strict laws on legal carry, than then loosened those laws to allow easier permitting, have not seen an increase in gun related crime.A statistic that attempts to measure legal-carry against "easier permitting" is flawed. Show me one that measures no-carry against open-carry.


Why? Are the cops likely to walk into your store as it's being held up?It wasn't a store. If I had a place of business that was held up, I might apply for a premises permit. I was talking about my home in the woods.


It's right at the point/time of attack that you need the gun (witness the incident at the restaurant supply house in Harlem).Individual testimonials are of little value. Statistics show that you are less likely to get shot in NYC, with the strictest gun control in the country, than in all of the large open carry cities.

Your remark that criminals go to commit crimes where there is less police presence is also faulty. If that were true, rural and suburban areas everywhere would have very high crime rates compared to neighboring cities. For the reasons I stated earlier, criminals migrate to high density.

And maybe we shouldn't be concentrating solely on (professional) criminals. The guy that walks into a Wal Mart and starts blowing people away isn't a criminal until he pulls the trigger. He's that hackneyed law-abiding citizen.

Ninjahedge
March 3rd, 2010, 08:44 AM
Criminals, for the most part, are lazy. They usually stick to areas closer to home. (Which really does not make much sense when you REALLY think about it, but not many petty criminals are known for their incredible cognizance.)

The more density you have, the more likely you are to have a wider variance of people, some of them being less morally....restricted than others. Combine that with having dozens of opportunities within a football field's distance from home and your crime rate will go up.

What does that have to do with guns?

Also, most crime, with or without guns, occurs between people that know each other, not a stranger walking in and pointing a gun at you. It is your spous taking the gun you bought for "protection" that is pointing it at you as much as any other.

So trying to tie gun ownership directly to ease of permit is rather difficult and easily massaged to whatever you want to try and prove.

The only numbers that really matter are simple. How many people are shot in areas that allow easy gun ownership, and how many are shot in areas that are either HIGHLY restricted or just plain outlaw them?



The main problem we have is that most of the arguments for gun ownership are just not valid. There are too many instances that contradict the positions presented in defense of this. Those arguments get even weaker when applied to larger ordinances such as assault weapons.

Does this mean they should all be outlawed? Not really, but we need to get the reasons strait for their need and use before we come up with a permit issuance system that works for the uses that are relevant.

Most people are really not in a rush to get a gun the next day, so things like a 30 day waiting period and record check are not THAT outrageous (although you would think you are killing babies by some of its opponents). Applying for multiple gun permits should also not be something that people should feel a rush for. Why do you need 6 rifle permits right away?

I guess, in that respect, gun ownership should be looked at like marriage. Anything you rush into without the proper checks usually does not end up with something nice! ;)

195Broadway
March 9th, 2010, 03:27 PM
Down here, they teach you that if you have a carry permit and end up shooting someone justifiably, it will cost you nearly $60K to work your way through the resultant leagal process.

Jasonik
March 10th, 2010, 01:03 AM
[Mussolini] wasn't always a government employee. And neither were the guys who put him in power.The state power mechanism -- the means for multiplying wickedness and caprice -- was coveted, as it always is, by villains intoxicated with the thought of "legitimate" popular will (the major reason why I detest democracy and other Rousseauian mandate-based collectivist thieveries of autonomy).

All claims of consolidated popular political power are illegitimate. Popular claims of individual liberty are are not claims of consolidated political power they are claims against consolidated power. Failure recognize this can lead one to foolishly contend that libertarian anti-government freedom fanatics are "right-wing" and akin to state-loving fascists.

lofter1
March 10th, 2010, 01:43 AM
Who is gonna build the roads and supply the water when the "libertarian anti-government freedom fanatics" get their way?

Ninjahedge
March 10th, 2010, 07:57 AM
Well, you won't NEED roads, because everyone will have what they need where they are, and water comes from the SKY silly!!!! :cool:

ablarc
March 10th, 2010, 09:28 AM
I detest democracy and other Rousseauian mandate-based collectivist thieveries of autonomy).
Jefferson got many of his concepts from Rousseau.


All claims of consolidated popular political power are illegitimate.
Government derives whatever legitimacy it has from the consent of the governed. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson.

ZippyTheChimp
March 10th, 2010, 09:31 AM
Who is gonna build the roads and supply the water when the "libertarian anti-government freedom fanatics" get their way?I'm old, but shovel-ready.

BBMW
March 29th, 2010, 04:42 PM
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/)

Record numbers now licensed to pack heat

Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns

By Mike Stuckey
Senior news editor
msnbc.com
updated 8:43 a.m. ET, Wed., March. 24, 2010

Waving a chromed semiautomatic pistol, the robber pushed into the building in the bustling Five Points neighborhood of Columbia, S.C., just before 11 p.m. on April 11, 2009. “Gimme what you got!” he yelled, his gun hand trembling.
Attorney Jim Corley was one of four people in the room, the lounge area of a 12-step recovery group’s meeting hall. “He said, ‘Give me your wallet,’” Corley recalled. “So I reached around to my back pocket and gave him what was there.”
Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.
Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.
Jim Corley became an unintentional spokesman for a burgeoning movement of millions of Americans who secretly and legally pack pistols in waistbands, under jackets, strapped to ankles, stashed in purses or — like Corley — tucked in hip pockets.
From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research. And while hotly debated, the effect of this dramatic increase is largely unknown.
Gun enthusiasts claim a link between more private citizens carrying concealed weapons and the nation’s dramatic decrease in violent crime. Gun-control activists argue that concealed-carry permits are being handed out to people who should never get them, sometimes resulting in tragic, needless shootings.
Effect on crime is hotly debated
But even with the push to expand concealed-carry rights now in its third decade, no scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movement’s effect on crime or personal safety.
Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.
Both sides do agree on one thing: More Americans than ever are carrying hidden guns.
Firearms laws have been growing more relaxed across the United States for years. Gun-control activists have failed in efforts to re-enact the nationwide ban on certain semiautomatic rifles they call “assault weapons.” They were unable to block a change in federal law, signed by President Obama this year, which allows guns to be carried in national parks. And they watched in dismay as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment grants residents of Washington, D.C., the right to own and keep loaded handguns in their homes.

“We’ve had a very good run,” said Andrew Arulanandam, chief spokesman for the 4 million-member National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest and most powerful voice for gun rights.
It’s a run that has often been paced by the work of the NRA and its allies on concealed-weapons laws.
In a little more than 20 years, the concealed-carry movement has won changes in scores of laws across the nation to boost from nine to 37 the number of “shall issue” states in which civilians must be given concealed-carry permits, known as CCWs, generally if they are 21 or older, do not have a criminal record and are willing to submit to fingerprinting and a background check. In two more states, Alaska and Vermont, most adults may carry concealed handguns without obtaining permits.
The movement's successes have energized some gun-rights activists to push for laws that further increase their ability to carry weapons, even when those laws trump private property and states’ rights.
The reasons for the push to loosen concealed carry laws are themselves open to debate.

Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group, said the movement “has to do with selling more guns.” While it was pushed by groups like the NRA, it also “dovetailed with the gun industry’s desperate need to find a new market.”
“Their efforts at reaching out to minorities and women have failed,” said Rand, whose group advocates banning all handguns and some rifles but believes sporting rifles and shotguns should remain legal. “The industry constantly has to look for a way to make a guy who already owns 15 guns buy a new one.”

But Alan Gottlieb, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which promotes and defends gun rights, said the movement has been a grass-roots drive.
As he built his Bellevue, Wash.-based organization from its start in 1974 to its membership of 600,000 today, he constantly polled members for direction. Each time, he said, they responded with a clear message: “‘I want the right to carry.’ That was the single biggest thing everyone wanted.”
When Gottlieb’s foundation got its start, just four states allowed regular citizens to carry concealed weapons simply because they wanted to.
Some other states were known as “may issue,” meaning concealed weapons permits were dispensed at the discretion of state or local law enforcement officials. That system often was dogged by charges of political favoritism, and it continues to be in states such as California and New York, where it is still in place.
And many states did not allow civilians to carry concealed weapons under any circumstances, as is still the case in Illinois and Wisconsin.
While four states joined the “shall issue” ranks through the early and mid-1980s, the movement’s turning point came in 1987, when a successful “shall-issue” campaign in Florida received heavy national media coverage.

The publicity had a snowball effect, according to Gottlieb. By 1990, there were 15 “shall-issue” states and by 2000, there were 30.
The NRA’s Arulanandam said the movement gained even more momentum in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
“People saw it live, they saw people taking trash cans and throwing them through store windows right in front of TV cameras,” he said. “People processed these images, and they processed these events, and they realized that when the unthinkable happens, they want to have an effective means of defending themselves and their loved ones.”
While gun-rights and gun-control activists argue about what led to the loosening of concealed-weapons laws, they agree that the lobbying prowess of groups like Gottlieb’s and Arulanandam’s helped make it happen.
“We are tenacious and we work hard to pass whatever our legislative agenda is,” Arulanandam said.
“Tactically, they’ve been brilliant on a lot of issues,” agreed Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, perhaps the nation’s best-known gun-control advocacy group, which opposes "shall-issue" concealed-weapons laws but does not advocate a ban on handguns.
The concealed-carry movement also has been aided by a fractured opposition, said Jim Kessler of the progressive think tank Third Way, who has been advocating gun-control measures for years. “The gun safety movement is splintered. … They have different issues and they fight each other.”
Indeed, gun-control advocates are often at odds over such basics as the effect of relaxed concealed-carry laws on crime.
Nationwide statistics aren't available
Rand, the spokeswoman for the Violence Policy Center, acknowledged that “we don’t have centralized data-gathering to know what people are doing with these licenses.”
“(But) anecdotally, we know they’re doing quite a bit of harm,” she said.
Her group posts news accounts of concealed-weapons permit holders allegedly involved in firearms deaths on a part of its Web site called “Concealed Carry Killers.” The site says 130 civilians and nine police officers have been killed and 13 mass shootings have been carried out by people with concealed-weapons permits since May 2007. Helmke, of the Brady Campaign, cited the work of Rand’s group in a recent blog post that mocked the NRA for saying concealed weapons permit holders “are all ‘law-abiding’ citizens.’”
But Third Way’s Kessler, while agreeing there is “no evidence” that more concealed-weapons permits have led to lower crime rates, said, “I’ve not seen any evidence on the other side that it creates havoc either.”
Gun-rights activists point to studies they say prove that having more guns in civilian hands, whether being carried by permit holders or not, has reduced crime rates.
“Firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent 1 million robberies, murders and rapes every year,” said John Pierce, a Virginia-based gun-rights activist with opencarry.org. That’s at least partly due to the huge increase in “shall-issue” states, which has been “the most significant beneficial public policy move in my lifetime,” said the 41-year-old Pierce.

But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.
Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10881) by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”
Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.
In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.
The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.
The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years.


Because the gun death rates parallel an overall drop in crime, Hemenway suspects that the decline “has nothing to do with concealed-carry laws.”
While other researchers point to numerous, complex reasons for fluctuations in the crime rate, Hemenway said the surge that began in the 1980s and the subsequent decline were "all about inner-city gun crime." Crime "declined nationwide after the crack wars died out," Rand agreed.
Hemenway said valid studies of the effects of more concealed weapons permits on firearms deaths could only be obtained by studying shooting deaths that involved concealed-carry permit holders.
But such data is not collected by most law enforcement agencies and not compiled nationally, said Rand of the Violence Policy Center. Her group would like to see nationwide reporting of the number of concealed-weapons permit holders, a “systematic collection of arrest and conviction data” for them as well as hard data on the number of justifiable homicides they’re involved in.
But “the NRA and the gun lobby would never allow that,” Rand charged. “The gun lobby is trying to keep all this data secret. … They know it’s not going to go well for them.”
The NRA’s Arulanandam denied that the organization universally opposes the collection of such data, but said it would not endorse the concept without seeing a specific proposal in writing.

Meanwhile, the NRA and its allies continue to push for even fewer restrictions on where civilians can carry concealed weapons, in some cases provoking charges that they are trying to place gun rights above other fundamental rights.
They fell just two votes shy of winning approval in the U.S. Senate last summer of a measure that would have guaranteed state-to-state reciprocity for all concealed-carry laws. The Thune amendment, named for sponsoring Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., would have automatically allowed a permit holder from one state to carry a concealed gun in all states that issue such permits.
Currently, reciprocal arrangements are left to the states, and critics of the Thune amendment labeled it a trampling of states’ rights because it would have forced one state’s training and other standards on states that may have tougher rules.
“I think a lot of senators did not understand that if Florida gives someone a concealed-carry permit and they have a criminal record a mile long, you’ve got to let them carry in your state,” Rand said. “I think that’s why you haven’t seen it come back up. … People are seeing it as more of a states’ rights issue.”
Even some gun-rights enthusiasts like Pierce agree with that. “It would have been wonderful for the 6 million permit holders across the country, but ultimately I think it would have been constitutionally unsupportable,” he said.
But others, including Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Arulanandam of the NRA, say gun-control advocates had no such concern for states’ rights when they pushed for federal laws to ban specific weapons and mandate background checks. They foresee that argument crumbling and say it’s only a matter of time before right-to-carry reciprocity is the law of the land.
2nd Amendment vs. property rights
Another front in the push to expand concealed-carry rights involves private property. In most states, property owners are free to bar concealed-gun carriers. But gun-rights activists say that goes too far when it extends to firearms locked in private vehicles. The NRA successfully helped defend Oklahoma laws that prohibit banning guns in private parking lots and has tackled the issue in other states.
Arulanandam said the parking lot fight was actually started by gun-control groups who encouraged employers across the country to search workers’ vehicles and fire those caught with guns, often outdoorsmen planning to go hunting before or after work. Once gun-control forces made it an issue, the NRA responded, he said.
“We’re always looking for opportunities to enhance the rights of law-abiding Americans,” Arulanandam added.

Rand said such comments are double-talk from “cynical” NRA leaders who are more interested in fear-mongering and fund-raising than constitutional rights.
“The idea that you send people out into public and if someone else has a gun, you have to kill them, that becomes anarchy,” she said.
But Jim Corley, the Columbia, S.C., attorney whose three squeezes of the trigger of his Kel-Tec .32 ended the life of would-be robber Kayson Helms, says he’ll stick with his gun.
“I was glad I was legally able to carry,” said Corley, 61, unemotionally, in the gravelly voice of a three-pack-a-day smoker. “I did what had to be done under the circumstances at the time. If it happened again today, I’d do the exact same thing.”


© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/)


MSN Privacy (http://mobile.msn.com/device/en-us/privacy.aspx) . Legal (http://mobile.msn.com/device/en-us/terms.aspx)
© 2010 MSNBC.com

ablarc
March 30th, 2010, 08:51 PM
Some years ago, I had an employee who owned a gun. One day he brought it in from his car for me to look at. It was like one of the rods Humphrey Bogart took from Elisha Cook in The Maltese Falcon. It was beautiful and shiny and chrome plated. The moment I saw it, I thought: how can you own this thing and not use it?

BBMW
March 30th, 2010, 11:19 PM
^
You can use it any time you want. You just have to go to the range.

Ninjahedge
March 31st, 2010, 07:54 AM
Ranges are not exciting.

BBMW
April 2nd, 2010, 12:00 PM
Some follow-up and analysis of the CNBC article
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/29/msnbc-shocker-firearms-deaths-fall-gun-restrictions-ease

I missed the charts from the end of the article that this guy points out.

lofter1
April 2nd, 2010, 12:06 PM
The charts reflect the rise and fall of the crazy crack years far more than they do any cause and effect that gun toters have on each other.

Unless we see documentation of gun-toting stand-offs ("Don't even think of shooting me 'cuz I'll shoot you first") the charts and stats don't prove that carrying is what has caused the drop off.

Check out a gang-controlled neighborhood and it will be seen that knowing the other guys have guns doesn't seem to stop the opposition from shooting at will.

Fabrizio
April 2nd, 2010, 12:31 PM
Comparing Washington DC to Utah? The article is written for the low IQ audience that can't properly read and think for themselves.

The fact is Washington's murder rate is at it's lowest point in decades. The statistics below are not gun specific but I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of murders would be. As it is, according to these statistics, violent crime in DC is down 46% since 1995. :

"In the early 1990s, Washington, D.C. was known as the "murder capital",experiencing 474 homicides in 1990. The elevated crime levels were fueled by the crack epidemic in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The crack was brought into Washington, D.C. by Colombian cartels, and sold in a drug market known as "The Strip", the largest in the city, located a few blocks north of the United States Capitol. A quarter of juveniles with criminal charges in 1988 tested positive for drugs. The number of homicides in Washington, D.C. peaked in 1991, followed by a downward trend in the late 1990s. In 2000, 242 homicides occurred, and the downward trend continued in the 2000s, with 181 murders and non-negligent homicides in Washington, D.C. in 2007."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

^ and note the paragraph on "gun laws".

--

ZippyTheChimp
April 2nd, 2010, 12:35 PM
The first paragraph was all I needed to read. :rolleyes:

For a true, uncorrupted view of handgun violence, compare the US with other countries.

Europe too European? How about Canada? Same hemisphere, same language. There's a history of gun ownership and recreational shooting. Their gun laws are similar to those of NYC. They don't have a 2nd Amendment.

Percent of all homicides by firearm

Canada: 34%
USA: 65%

Total homicide rate (per 100,000 population)

Canada: 1.58
USA: 4.55

But wait, break this down....

Homicide rate by non-firearm

Canada: 1.04
USA: 1.58

The above is pretty much in line with similarly developed countries. In this respect, the USA doesn't appear to be particularly violent. It's when you add in...

Homicide rate by firearm

Canada: 0.54
USA: 2.97

...that we become a more violent society.

Ninjahedge
April 5th, 2010, 08:21 AM
Awww shoot.

Alonzo-ny
April 5th, 2010, 09:22 AM
Zippy, when are your stats from? The murder rate in the US has been about 5.6 for almost all of the decade.

ZippyTheChimp
April 5th, 2010, 11:23 AM
They are UN figures.

The US DOJ numbers are higher. Internal reporting for Canada was also higher (1.8). I needed a common source for both countries that broke down the homicide rate by firearm/non firearm.

ablarc
April 19th, 2010, 05:56 PM
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler_1928_crop.jpg), in 1928, is a photo of another country's citizen-militia exercising their rights of free assembly and the bearing of arms in a public place. Not one person in this photograph was working for the government; they would all be private citizens until 1932, when they had become bigger than the official army, which they eventually displaced. The burgher at lower left was Hermann Goering, and I guess everyone knows the gent in the middle.

More on the citizen-militia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung)

Ninjahedge
April 20th, 2010, 08:10 AM
The official German head-patter of the erly 20th century?

or was he just the guy that showed how tall you needed to be at the amusement park... :confused:

ZippyTheChimp
April 20th, 2010, 10:30 AM
Flower Power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFhGPhxEGA)

lofter1
August 13th, 2010, 10:52 AM
The ever desperate Anti-Moooo-slim-ite (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23759&p=333952&viewfull=1#post333952), in an effort to trash NY Senator Chuck Schumer and Democrats in general, pulls up a NY Times story from ten years ago (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/quisling-schumer-kills-times-square-restaurant-but-sansctions-ground-zero-mosque-mosque-oh-the-hypoc.html) about an NRA idea to open "a fabulous themed restaurant and sporting game zone" in the heart of Times Square.

But notice that Geller leaves out the lede (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/quisling-schumer-kills-times-square-restaurant-but-sansctions-ground-zero-mosque-mosque-oh-the-hypoc.html) (or any mention of Rudy).

Here's how the Times put it back in the day ...

Giuliani Doubts N.R.A. Arcade In Times Square Would Survive

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/23/nyregion/giuliani-doubts-nra-arcade-in-times-square-would-survive.html)
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Published: May 23, 2000

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said yesterday that he did not think a theme restaurant and shoot'em-up arcade run by the National Rifle Association could realistically survive in Times Square.

Leaders of the gun lobbying organization said on Friday that they wanted to open a restaurant and gift shop much like Planet Hollywood and ESPN Zone, except with firearms as the theme. The restaurant would feature wild game, as would the arcade, the association said.

Democratic lawmakers and gun control advocates have condemned the proposal, saying it is an N.R.A. attempt to interest children in guns.

Mr. Giuliani said there was no need for him to take a position on the propriety of the restaurant, because he said he believed that it would never open. ''Well, I don't think it is going to happen, I don't see how that is really realistic, that they are going to open a store on Times Square,'' Mr. Giuliani said. ''It is unrealistic in light of all the resources that would be necessary and all of the plans that I know for Times Square.''

He was more explicit at a reception honoring the Walt Disney Company's efforts to revive the square, saying: ''Now, everyone wants to be in Times Square, even the N.R.A. Don't worry, it won't happen.''

Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.'s executive vice president, said the association would sue if the city tried to stop the restaurant. He said the mayor was mistaken in his analysis in that millions of sport shooters would visit the restaurant. He said that despite the high rent, the venture would be profitable.

Giuliani administration officials said that since the store had no intention of selling guns, there was little legally that they could do to stop it. But the mayor's aides said his remarks reflected his belief that an N.R.A. restaurant could not make enough money to survive in a neighborhood where ground-floor rents top $7 million a year.

Brendan Sexton, president of the Times Square Business Improvement District, disagreed with the mayor's view of restaurant economics. He said that space was available and that arcade and theme restaurants had worked in Times Square.

But Mr. Sexton said he did not want the N.R.A. to come to Times Square. At a news conference with Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat, he said he hoped landlords in the neighborhood would not rent to the association.

Mr. Schumer said that if the N.R.A. did move into Times Square, he would push the city or the state to revoke any tax breaks that the property owners receive.

Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Merry
January 24th, 2011, 06:34 AM
100 Years Ago, the Shot That Spurred New York’s Gun-Control Law

By PETER DUFFY

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/01/21/nyregion/21sullivan-cityroom/21sullivan-cityroom-blog480.jpg
The New York Times, May 11, 1911.

Nothing spurs talk of gun-control legislation quite like a highly publicized crime committed with the aid of a handgun.

Such was the case 100 years ago this month, when a brazen murder committed near Gramercy Park (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/books/review/Duffy-t.html) led to the enactment a few months later of New York State’s landmark Sullivan Law, which required police-issued licenses for those wishing to possess concealable firearms and made carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon a felony (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2011/bar-hidden-weapons.pdf) (pdf).

The Sullivan Law, still on the books as section 400.00 of the New York Penal Law (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0400.00_400.00.html), became a model for gun-control legislation enacted throughout the country (https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html#FOOTNOTE_7).

On Jan. 23, 1911, a novelist, David Graham Phillips, was shot by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough in a brazen early afternoon attack on East 21st Street (or, as it is known today, Gramercy Park North). After firing six shots, Goldsborough put the gun to his temple, killing himself. Phillips survived until the next evening.

George Petit le Brun, who worked in the city’s coroner’s office, was moved to act. “I reasoned that the time had come to have legislation passed that would prevent the sale of pistols to irresponsible persons,” he wrote in his 1960 autobiography (http://books.google.com/books?id=er-rHAAACAAJ&dq=it%27s+time+to+tell,+george+petit+le+brun&hl=en&ei=4Fw4TYnLJIKClAfyhPCMBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA). “In the vernacular of the day, ‘There oughta be a law.’ ”

He sent letters to prominent New Yorkers urging their support for “a law, whereby a person having a revolver in his possession, either concealed or displayed, unless for some legitimate purpose, could be punished by a severe prison sentence,” as he told The New York Times less than a week after the killing (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2011/revolver-kills-fast-increasing.pdf) (pdf). He drew up a list of recommendations for the State Legislature and delivered them to State Senator Timothy D. Sullivan, a Tammany Hall boss better known as “Big Tim” Sullivan (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/big-tim-sullivan-tammany-kingmaker/).

Sullivan was already on record as pledging to introduce legislation that placed restrictions on guns. “The gun toter and the tough man – I don’t want his vote,” he said during his 1910 campaign (http://books.google.com/books?id=2nLW0Ext6RUC&pg=PA145&dq=the+gun+toter+and+the+tough+man+--+i+don%27t+want+his+vote&hl=en&ei=iEs4TZ7UNoG0lQeT9eXlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20gun%20toter&f=false%20and%20the%20tough%20man%20--%20i%20don%27t%20want%20his%20vote&f=false). “There are a lot of good, law-abiding people in the Lower East Side. They do not like to have the red badge of shame waved over that part of the city. They have no sympathy with the tough men, the men who tote guns and use them far too frequently.”

The Sullivan bill was opposed by the state’s gun manufacturers and, most prominently, State Senator Timothy Ferris (http://home.comcast.net/%7Erichardson156/wagerf.html) of Oneida County. “Your bill won’t stop murders,” Ferris saidduring the legislative debate (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2011/bar-hidden-weapons.pdf) (pdf). “You can’t force a burglar to get a license to use a gun. He’ll get one from another state.” The issue of whether the law violated the United States Constitution was raised. In a letter to The Times (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2011/senator-sullivans-firearms-bill.pdf) (pdf), a “law-abiding citizen” wrote that he objected to the “automatic establishment of a presumption of felonious intent by the proposed law on the part of a citizen possessed of arms for home defense. Hence the unconstitutionality of the proposed law.”

Others were skeptical of the motives of Sullivan, notorious for his association with the underworld. “Cynics suggested that Big Tim pushed through his law so Tammany could keep their gangster allies under control,” wrote Richard F. Welch in his 2009 biography, “King of the Bowery: Big Tim Sullivan, Tammany Hall, and New York City from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era (http://books.google.com/books?id=ipaBEsujrsEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=big+tim+sullivan&hl=en&ei=u0w4TaXgN8T7lwfYicXLBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gun%20control&f=false).”

“Hoodlums who forgot who really ran things in the city could be easily arrested if found with a gun – or if one was slipped into their pocket,” Mr. Welch wrote. “The Big Feller surely heard the charges and likely shrugged them off. If there were political benefits from doing the right thing, what was the problem? But all the available evidence indicates that Tim’s fight to bring firearms under control sprang from heartfelt conviction.”
He certainly sounded sincere.

“I don’t know anything about the Bible except what I’ve heard from Senator Brackett and others here, where quotations are continually made,” Sullivan said during the Senate debate. “It seems to me, though, that this bill, if passed, will help along obedience to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ I think so much of this measure that if you pass it I believe it will save more souls than all the preachers in the city talking for the next 10 years.”

The Sullivan Law, which sailed through both houses of the Legislature, went into effect as the clock struck midnight on Aug. 31, 1911 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/2011/bar-hidden-weapons.pdf) (pdf).

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/100-years-ago-the-shot-that-spurred-new-yorks-gun-control-law/#more-268693

BBMW
January 24th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Wonder if this law will now, post Heller and McDonald, pass constitutional muster?

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2011, 08:49 AM
No, because everyone interprets the constitution wrong.

The 2nd no longer has any spine. It was set up with the intent to give the people not only the power to defend their country from others, but from the government itself.

Since then, we now have National Armies and National Guards that are supplied by our government, not from what each man has in his back shed. We do not need many, if any weapons to defend ourselves from any national threat (Canada?), and our government now has enough power to crush any political (or religious) insurrection that may disagree with it (Waco).

What needs to be re-examined is how the 2nd NOW applies, and how we can reshape our own system to match its original intent.

What we have now is a sad pile of scraps and leftovers held together by duct tape.

BBMW
January 25th, 2011, 01:14 PM
I think that just happened with Heller and McDonald, and those will guide new cases coming up through the judicial system. The only way to change that will be a constitutional amendment (which isn't happening.)


No, because everyone interprets the constitution wrong.

The 2nd no longer has any spine. It was set up with the intent to give the people not only the power to defend their country from others, but from the government itself.

Since then, we now have National Armies and National Guards that are supplied by our government, not from what each man has in his back shed. We do not need many, if any weapons to defend ourselves from any national threat (Canada?), and our government now has enough power to crush any political (or religious) insurrection that may disagree with it (Waco).

What needs to be re-examined is how the 2nd NOW applies, and how we can reshape our own system to match its original intent.

What we have now is a sad pile of scraps and leftovers held together by duct tape.

lofter1
January 25th, 2011, 01:23 PM
Good. Now I can get that nuke I've always wanted. It's my Constitutional right.

Ninjahedge
January 25th, 2011, 02:37 PM
Exactly!


Actually, it works both ways Loft. We can either allow the people to have full grade military hardware, or we reduce our OWN military back down to what our smaller municipalities can train, finance and garrison. Add to that a requirement of local residency and eliminate the full time "job" as a military persona and you are getting back to the original....

Either allow Bob your next door neighbor to own an M16, mortar tube, a few rocket launchers and such, or limit the army to what our citizens can personally afford.....

Honestly, I do not know if either would work in today's modern society......

lofter1
January 25th, 2011, 04:29 PM
No Limitations! Where are there limitations in the holy Second A? Nowhere! Arms for All!

Just try to take my nuke away. Go ahead.

You'll have to pry it from my cold radiated hands.

BBMW
January 25th, 2011, 09:53 PM
I might come to that (maybe not nukes, but other military stuff). Might have interesting political implications.

No one said the constitution was perfect. But it is, if it's going to be what it should be, axiomatic. You can't ignore or tweek the parts you don't like without changing them. If there are parts that are vague, incomplete, or outdated, maybe those parts should be enforced is such a way as make it politically necessary to be addressed.

It might have interesting and unpredictable political effects to try to open up the 2A.

joegoeny
January 26th, 2011, 12:33 AM
You can't bring B52's into Starbucks!

This was decided long ago when the country was founded, who is the master, who is the servant?
If we as citizens are not allowed to carry guns then are we the masters or are we the servants of government?
I believe that citizens that carry guns should undergo training and psychological exams regularly just as police do.
There should not be any impediment to a properly trained citizen who lawfully carries one under those conditions.

Feel free to comment!

ablarc
January 26th, 2011, 11:47 AM
The official German head-patter of the erly 20th century?

or was he just the guy that showed how tall you needed to be at the amusement park... :confused:
Actually, he was an ardent proponent of citizens' right to bear arms. He had his reasons.

brianac
February 20th, 2011, 04:48 AM
The Rich, the Famous, the Armed

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns-span/20guns-span-articleLarge.jpg Emily Berl for The New York Times
Shooting targets at the West Side Pistol Range, in Manhattan.

By JO CRAVEN McGINTY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/jo_craven_mcginty/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: February 18, 2011

MEN and women. Democrats and Republicans. Doctors, lawyers, merchants and moguls. A remarkable, if relatively small, cross-section of New Yorkers legally own handguns, according to public records obtained by The New York Times.

Multimedia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com//images/2011/02/20/nyregion/gunsWIDE.jpgInteractive Feature (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/nyregion/20-Owners.html?ref=nyregion)
Boldface Names With Guns (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/nyregion/20-Owners.html?ref=nyregion)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/02/20/nyregion/20gunsgr/20gunsgr-popup.jpg
Among the more than 37,000 people licensed to have a handgun in the city are dozens of boldface names and public figures: prominent business leaders, elected officials, celebrities, journalists, judges and lawyers.

Some expressed pride in their gun ownership, like the renowned divorce lawyer Raoul Felder (http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/raoul-felder), who readily posed with his .38-caliber Smith & Wesson. Others, including David Breitbart, Yetta Kurland and Walter Mack, all well-known lawyers, were irked to learn they would be included in an article based on the public records. And there were a few conflicted souls, like Alexis Stewart (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E5D71431F934A25750C0A9629C8B 63&scp=2&sq=%22Alexis%20Stewart%22&st=cse), co-host of “Whatever With Alexis and Jennifer (http://www.marthastewart.com/tv/whatever/about-the-show)” on SiriusXM radio and the Hallmark Channel.

“I don’t believe people should be allowed to have guns in America,” Ms. Stewart, daughter of Martha, said in an interview, explaining that she bought a .357 Magnum after 9/11 — but would be happy to give it up if handguns were banned. “Having a swimming pool is way more dangerous than having a gun,” she added.
Getting a handgun legally in New York is a two-step process. First, applicants must obtain a license, which costs $340, takes about 12 weeks to process, is good for three years and requires a background check by the New York Police Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/new_york_city_police_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org). In addition, fingerprinting costs about $100.

Those who pass that hurdle then must get a purchase authorization from the police for the particular weapon they intend to buy. One handgun license may list up to 25 weapons (so far, no one has tried to register more than that, officials said), but buyers must wait 90 days between purchases.

The 41,164 handguns registered with the Police Department as of Jan. 14 include those owned by more than 2,400 people who live outside the city but have permission to bring their weapons here — people like Roger E. Ailes (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/roger_e_ailes/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the president of Fox News, whose license lists an address in New Jersey; John J. Mack (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_j_mack/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the chairman of Morgan Stanley, who lives in Westchester County; and Sean Hannity (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/sean_hannity/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the conservative talk-show host, who lives on Long Island.

There are eight kinds of handgun licenses in New York, one of which is for dealers. The most common restricts the weapon to the owner’s home, but others allow license holders, including security guards, gun custodians and people who demonstrate a need for protection, to carry weapons with them.

Nearly 4,000 license holders — those who have a “carry business,” “limited carry” or “special carry” license — can legally conceal their weapons. The Times obtained the database of handgun owners from the Police Department after filing a Public Records Act request and a lawsuit; the police released ZIP codes but omitted street addresses. The database also did not include the 14,602 retired police officers who are licensed to have weapons.

The Police Department issues a separate license for long guns: about 52,000 shotguns and rifles are registered, but the owners’ names and addresses are not public records.

There are no comprehensive statistics available on gun ownership nationally because most states do not require licenses or permits. But an annual survey by the Pew Research Center (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/pew_research_center/index.html?inline=nyt-org) suggests that about one-third of the nation’s homes have a gun. In comparison, at most, about 1 percent of New York City’s households have a licensed gun.

(It’s impossible to know how many illegal guns are circulating in the city, but in 2010, the Police Department seized 5,318, including 2,984 pistols, 1,402 revolvers, 403 rifles and 349 shotguns.)

At Westside Pistol and Rifle Range (http://www.westsidepistolrange.com/), in Manhattan’s Flatiron district, the owner, Darren Leung, said that there was a surge of new members after 9/11, but that the number had since fallen slightly, to 1,500. About 20 or 30 members a day come by to take classes or to practice with paper targets in one of 16 enclosed 50-foot stalls. On the sidewalk outside on West 20th Street, the sound of gunshots from the basement range is not audible.

“In a weird way, it’s a kind of stress reliever,” said William Rosado, an illustrator who regularly visits the range to fire his 9-millimeter Smith & Wesson. “It’s something completely different than what I do for a living.”

Most gun owners interviewed said they had never drawn their weapons in self-defense. But John A. Catsimatidis (http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/john-catsimatidis/2?scp=7&sq=%22John%20A.%20Catsimatidis%22&st=cse), the owner of the Red Apple Group and Gristedes supermarket chain, recalled a chilling episode from the mid-1980s, when he intercepted a robber fleeing one of his stores in the Bronx.

“The first guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes right by me and says, ‘Be cool, man,’ ” said Mr. Catsimatidis, who has owned a gun for at least 35 years. “The second guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, goes by me and says, ‘Be cool, man.’ The third guy comes out with a sawed-off shotgun, and I intertwine my arm into his arm, and I put my gun to his head, and I say, ‘Drop your gun, or I’ll blow your head off.’ ”

When the police arrived, they arrested the man, and examined Mr. Catsimatidis’s weapon — a Walther PPK/S 9-millimeter pistol.

“The sergeant says to me, ‘You couldn’t have shot the guy anyway: your safety is still on,’ ” Mr. Catsimatidis recalled. “The sweat started dripping off my head.

“I’m not going to do anything stupid like that again.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

lofter1
February 20th, 2011, 09:24 AM
Don Imus with a gun -- why does that freak me out?

Interesting to see, although none of the big names shown live in this district, that my precinct is included in the top tier of permit holders. Is that because it includes Little Italy and Chinatown? Or due to really rich newcomers who are paying top dollar for condos and other goodies?

Ninjahedge
February 21st, 2011, 10:25 AM
I will bet that someone who is trying to get more handgun and other firearm regulations permitted in NYC will look at teh charts and see a general trend of lower crime to areas with REGISTERED handguns.

The problem is, the RHG numbers also correlate with the number of "law abiding" citizens that live there, the socioeconomic makup of the area and so-forth. It also does not track the actual # of fire-arms PER CAPITA regardless of permits.....

BBMW
February 22nd, 2011, 10:05 AM
In areas that went from not having concealled carry to allowing it, the basic results seem to be no substantial change in crime rates. The antis thought this would lead to a big spike in murder, which didn't happen.

In fairness, the pro-gunner were expecting a big drop in crime, which didn't happen either.

BBMW
February 22nd, 2011, 10:16 AM
In NYC, since there are so few legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, we don't get to many of these. But we do get them occasionally. This need to happen more often:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bronx/jeweler_has_blast_with_thugs_dKlE2dfNmhYNdqhBRVPHS M
http://www.nypost.com/rw/SysConfig/WebPortal/nypost/images/nyp_logo_230x32.png (http://www.nypost.com/) Updated: Thu., Feb. 17, 2011, 2:21 AM http://www.nypost.com/images/icon_home.png

Jeweler has blast with thugs

By JAMIE SCHRAM and DOUGLAS MONTERO
Last Updated: 2:21 AM, February 17, 2011
Posted: 2:21 AM, February 17, 2011
A Bronx jewelry-store owner turned the tables on armed thugs who tried to rip him off yesterday -- blasting them with a gun he had stashed in a safe, police said.
The wild scene unfolded shortly before 2 p.m. when the owner of Spinelli & Sons on Arthur Avenue buzzed in a man and a woman.
One of the would-be robbers whipped out a gun and ordered the owner, Anthony Spinelli, 49, to take money out of the safe, police sources said.
Instead, Spinelli grabbed his licensed handgun and began firing at the suspects, according to the sources.
The couple fled, but Spinelli continued firing after them -- hitting a third suspect who was standing by the getaway vehicle, a Cadillac Escalade, the sources said.
That man was struck in the left leg and taken to St. Barnabas Hospital in stable condition. Charges were pending last night.
As the man and woman continued running on Arthur Avenue toward Crescent Avenue, two other merchants joined in the chase.
"This is our neighborhood and we protect our neighborhood," one told The Post.
"Our guard was off -- because there should have been three dead people on the street."
The male suspect dropped a bag containing the jewelry during the fracas and his female companion ran back to retrieve the stolen goods, witnesses said.
"That's when they started struggling for it," said one witness.
"All the watches started spilling into the street."
Those two suspects were still on the loose.
jamie.schram@nypost.com

Ninjahedge
February 22nd, 2011, 11:32 AM
It usually does not work that way outside of Murdoch-ville BBMW.

Most of the times a gun is either used improperly, not used in time, or simply escalates a situation to the point where someone gets shot.

Pointing out an isolated example of a jewler "blasting [the theives] with a gun he stashed in a safe" (which reads like a spy novel) is not what we can guarantee free ownership will produce.

BBMW
February 22nd, 2011, 11:47 AM
There are more of these from around the country. People successfull defend themselves with privately owned weapons quite often. Usually, they don't get beyone the local news.

Maybe I'll start posting the news items here.

Ninjahedge
February 22nd, 2011, 12:22 PM
Yep, anyone with a gun in their sock can fight off several burgulars with it and nobody ever got hurt, shot with their own weapon, killed.

Fabrizio
February 22nd, 2011, 03:27 PM
Over here by me where private gun ownership is legal but controlled and limited, many jewelers are armed. Jewelry is small, expensive and easily sold, so jewellery shops are good targets for thieves.

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2011, 05:00 PM
There are more of these from around the country. People successfull defend themselves with privately owned weapons quite often. Usually, they don't get beyone the local news.But the murder rate in these places is high.

So we trade some feel-good anecdotal stories for more people actually getting killed.

Sounds like a plan.

BBMW
April 6th, 2011, 11:43 AM
Just thought I'd throw this tidbit in here. This makes at least three federal suits in the hopper against various aspects of NYS/NYC gun control laws. Note that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is the same organization that filed and won the Heller and McDonnald cases.

http://www.nysrpa.org/ (note: as this gets older, the direct link may age out. It's their front page)

NYSRPA & SAF file lawsuit against NYC

Tuesday, 05 April 2011 17:58 administrator
http://www.nysrpa.org/templates/ja_purity/images/printButton.png (http://www.nysrpa.org/index.php?view=article&catid=1:latest-news&id=336:nysrpa-a-saf-file-lawsuit-against-nyc&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=#)

TROY, NY (04/05/2011)(readMedia (http://readme.readmedia.com/NYSRPA-files-lawsuit-against-NYC-over-pistol-license-fees/2258075))-- The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed suit against the City of New York over the fees charged by the New York City Police Department for the costs associated with the processing of pistol license applications.

NYSRPA believes that both the City and State of New York violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by requiring the payment of fees as a prerequisite for the lawful exercise of the specifically enumerated individual civil right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has recently made it clear that individuals have a right to own guns. Government cannot place arbitrary financial constraints upon those wishing to exercise this right any more than it can for those wishing to exercise their right to vote," said Tom King (tking@nysrpa.org) This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , President of NYSRPA.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself publicly acknowledged the indefensible nature of the fee structure last October when he urged the City Council to lower the costs specifically to avoid a lawsuit:

"We want to be in compliance with the law ... so that we don't want to lose the ability to have reasonable controls. If we have controls that the courts have ruled too onerous or too unfair, we could lose the whole thing."

The City Council ignored the Mayor and flatly refused to take up this issue. NYSRPA has no choice but to take the issue to court.

BELLEVUE, Wash., April 5, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saf-files-federal-lawsuit-against-bloomberg-over-gun-permit-fees-119283184.html)/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/) today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that alleges New York City's $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in the home is "excessive and ... impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and five individual New York City residents. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

"Under state law," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "the maximum fee for issuing a New York State handgun license is $10, but the law exempts citizens living in New York City. That exemption allows the city to charge an exorbitant fee for the license, which discourages city residents from exercising their civil rights while violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

"For decades the City has charged its residents exorbitant license fees that far exceed the fees charged by other states and cities that impose them," said attorney David Jensen, who is representing the plaintiffs. "The effect of this is to force a punitive tax on New York City citizens who choose to own firearms in compliance with the law. But people have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and the City cannot simply impose fees for the sake of burdening law-abiding gun owners."

"The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association was founded 141 years ago in New York City and we are proud to participate in an action to help restore the Second Amendment rights of all New York City residents," said NYSRPA President Tom King (tking@nysrpa.org) This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

In its lawsuit, SAF notes that the $340 fee is not used to defray administrative costs, so there appears to be no purpose for it other than to discourage people from applying for a permit. The excessive fee, according to Gottlieb, puts the exercise of a constitutional right solely within the financial reach of the wealthy class, essentially turning a civil right into a privilege for the rich and well-connected.

"New York is one of only two states that require a permit just to keep a handgun in one's own home," Gottlieb said. "Citizens in the other 48 states would consider that an outrage. The city's 'residence premises' handgun license amounts to a charge of more than $100 annually to keep a handgun in one's home, which is ridiculous. Mayor Bloomberg is essentially taxing the fundamental right to defend one's self in his or her own home. We cannot think of anything more egregious than perpetuating a fee structure that puts a financial obstacle in the way of citizens who want to protect their homes and families."

"We believe the only recourse is to take this issue to the federal court," he concluded. "Billionaires like Mayor Bloomberg can be cavalier about a citizen's rights, but we can't, and we won't."

A copy of the lawsuit is available at http://www.nysrpa.org/files/NYSRPA-SAF-NYC-Lawsuit.pdf

Ninjahedge
April 6th, 2011, 12:55 PM
Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself publicly acknowledged the indefensible nature of the fee structure last October when he urged the City Council to lower the costs specifically to avoid a lawsuit:
"We want to be in compliance with the law ... so that we don't want to lose the ability to have reasonable controls. If we have controls that the courts have ruled too onerous or too unfair, we could lose the whole thing."



"We believe the only recourse is to take this issue to the federal court," he concluded. "Billionaires like Mayor Bloomberg can be cavalier about a citizen's rights, but we can't, and we won't."

It helps when you do not waffle on your targets. They site Bloomberg being against the increased fees, as too exorbitant a fee would put the whole thing at risk, but yet quote someone dissing Bloomberg as being a "Cavalier Billionaire".

Don't site someone as being on the same side as you are on an issue and then go on to decry him IN THE SAME ARTICLE.

Ninjahedge
April 6th, 2011, 12:56 PM
My bad, two articles, but they do not seem to be focusing on the right people/coordinating their positions.

BBMW
April 6th, 2011, 01:41 PM
The point isn't the press releases (or press release within a press release), it's the lawsuit. Since Heller and McDonald there are a lot of these, and more coming. It may take a while, but things will change.

ablarc
April 6th, 2011, 02:10 PM
Posts such as #99 are a whole lot easier to read if you leave gaps between paragraphs.

What modest interest I had in the subject evaporated under the onslaught of all those flush-left digits.

BBMW
April 6th, 2011, 04:36 PM
^
That was a direct copy/paste from their website. If you go to the link, the formatting is better.

Anyway there was an article about it in the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/nyregion/06gun.html?ref=nyregion

April 6, 2011

Bloomberg Is Sued Over City’s Handgun Permit Fee

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/anahad_oconnor/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

A gun-rights-advocacy group sued Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on Tuesday, claiming that the city fee for obtaining a home-handgun permit (http://bit.ly/6cKSgg) was so excessive that it impinged on the Second Amendment.
The group, the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/), based in Bellevue, Wash., is focusing on New York’s fees because, according to the group, the city is one of the few places in the country that requires people to obtain permits to keep guns in their homes.
The city’s fee is $340, plus a $94.25 charge for a fingerprint check. The fee in most other places in the state is $10, according to the foundation. Mr. Bloomberg has long been a staunch supporter of gun control and has made efforts to reduce the traffic in guns into the city through sting operations, lawsuits against gun dealers and other antigun measures.
The city’s fee for obtaining a home gun permit has long been in place.
The suit, filed in federal court, claims that the city’s fee is so exorbitant that it “impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” and the suit argues that because city residents are forced to pay more than others, the fee also violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause.
Last year (http://nyti.ms/fVQgWw), the United States Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) ruled that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to bear arms applies to state and local gun-control laws. Two years earlier (http://nyti.ms/hdQBrn), it applied Second Amendment protection under federal law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html).
In an interview, Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said that New York City’s fee had been on the group’s radar for a while, and that the two recent Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) decisions were “cornerstones for future Second Amendment litigation.”
“We needed those decisions to affirm that this right is protected in your own home,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “That’s what made it right to bring this lawsuit. This is an excessive fee being charged to exercise a fundamental right in your own home.”
A spokeswoman for the city’s Law Department said lawyers were reviewing the suit.
The Bloomberg administration announced nearly a year ago that it was moving to speed up and simplify the process for getting a gun permit, and reducing fees for permit renewals.
A spokeswoman for the state attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eric_t_schneiderman/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who was also named in the suit, declined to comment.
The group also took issue with how the revenue collected from the fees is spent. “Not one penny of it goes to processing the application,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “It all goes to the police pension fund.”

ZippyTheChimp
April 6th, 2011, 06:07 PM
Posts such as #99 are a whole lot easier to read if you leave gaps between paragraphs.

What modest interest I had in the subject evaporated under the onslaught of all those flush-left digits.


^
That was a direct copy/paste from their website. If you go to the link, the formatting is better.Links often disappear, and you're left with what's pasted here.

There's a preview button. If the format of the source doesn't transfer over, you can do it yourself. It took me 30 seconds to edit that post and restore paragraphs.

BBMW
February 21st, 2012, 01:32 PM
http://cdn1.ammo.net/media/images/infographics/Greatest-Gun-Salesman-In-America-President-Obama.jpg

Fabrizio
February 21st, 2012, 01:42 PM
Before the discussion begins: a round of applause for the kids in the graphics department.

Ninjahedge
February 22nd, 2012, 08:59 AM
What a load of crap.

Whenever a poster like that starts out with 100 word or less splash points, and a poor picture deliberately edited to look even worse, I do not feel like spending the time to pick it apart.

If this is blaming gun sales on the President, good luck on that. That is Congress combined with our own back-breaking paranoid stupidity involving the recession. (If I have a gun, nobody will rob me, see! They can't "take" my home if I am armed!!!)


BTW, wasn't one of the surges in gun purchase because of a proposed change to the regulations involving buying the weapons? People went to the store ASAP.....

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2012, 09:12 AM
To get a handle on huge economic numbers, I always use the Fiji Islands for comparison.

If this isn't just an attempt at sarcasm, it's really silly.

BBMW, would you like to comment on why you posted this.

BBMW
February 22nd, 2012, 11:14 AM
We have open gun control threads (this is just one of them.) I came across this and it seemed to be relevent.

There also seem to be cross connections to the political threads, especially the 2012 election thread. However, I didn't think it belonged in there.

This being a NYC based forum, a lot of the attitudes here reflect a NYC view of the world. However, this is not how it works across the rest of the country. If you look at the base of conservative sentiment in the country, it tends to center around gun owners. One of the things this point out graphically is that they are a large and growing demographic.

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2012, 11:32 AM
I didn't mean why it's posted in the forum.

I meant what are your thoughts about what it says.

Where is it from? Is it anti/pro Obama? Is it strictly an economic position - the importance of the gun industry? I'm not sure gun advocates would want to dilute the social issues of gun ownership with economics. You could make a much better case for war; compared to military armaments, the personal gun industry is puny.

The message seems to be targeted to the low end of gun ownership advocates. If you wanted to let us know that a significant segment of the gun-ownership position is illogical and stupid, it's not really a revelation.

BBMW
February 22nd, 2012, 11:59 AM
Definitely anti-Obama. I heard about it second hand from a gun board. I can't speak to it's background more than that, but I could probably track down the source and post it, if you want.

I just think it's an interesting examble of the law of unintended consequences. I'm sure Barak Obama is not happy that he's the best thing that's happened to the gun industry since the invention of the Metallic cartridge.

I think it also provides some interesting metrics on the size and scope of the gun culture in this country.

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2012, 12:54 PM
Definitely anti-Obama. I heard about it second hand from a gun board.Where?


I just think it's an interesting examble of the law of unintended consequences.Explain.


I'm sure Barak Obama is not happy that he's the best thing that's happened to the gun industry since the invention of the Metallic cartridge.What has Obama to do with it?


I think it also provides some interesting metrics on the size and scope of the gun culture in this country.Again, explain.

Ninjahedge
February 22nd, 2012, 01:27 PM
Why Zip?

Inference is one of the best way to get more material to base your own arguments on w/o getting it yourself in the first place.

Are you asking him to actually provide background to his controversial statements? The NERVE! ;)


BBMW, this is just weird. Honestly. When you splash something like that up, you should be able to talk about it, not just do a BBS *shrug* "whatever" and walk away.

You threw a few logs on the fire, why don't you let us know where you got them so we know how they will burn?

BBMW
February 22nd, 2012, 04:00 PM
Where?


Near as I can tell, this is where it originally came from, but I don't know if they made it or not. That isn't the first place I saw it, I traced it back there to link to it. I hadn't been to that site before. I've now seen it crossposted on other sites.



Explain.

What has Obama to do with it?


Both of these:

I don't think its unfair to say that many of those voting for Obama thought he'd increase gun control in this country. He didn't (politically he couldn't.) But the perceived threat of this has created a running multiyear boon to the gun industry.





Again, explain.

There's nothing to explain, the numebrs are presented. Take them any way you want (or not)

BBMW
February 22nd, 2012, 04:04 PM
This site exists in it's own little liberal, NYC centric, bubble. That's fine for what it is. Sometimes I find the need to put something on here that might serve as a reminder of what goes on in that vast uncharted land west of the Hudson (and even beyond Jersey). I don't see any problem with this.

If you want to understand with NYC will always be pissing into the wind about gun control, this poster spells it out pretty well.


Why Zip?

Inference is one of the best way to get more material to base your own arguments on w/o getting it yourself in the first place.

Are you asking him to actually provide background to his controversial statements? The NERVE! ;)


BBMW, this is just weird. Honestly. When you splash something like that up, you should be able to talk about it, not just do a BBS *shrug* "whatever" and walk away.

You threw a few logs on the fire, why don't you let us know where you got them so we know how they will burn?

Ninjahedge
February 22nd, 2012, 04:17 PM
BBMW, you really do not need to.

This "liberal bubble" is what allows people to accept different ideas and ideologies which, by definition, would not be accepted by conservatives.

The whole political landscape has become skewed in the definitions imposed during the Bush years as to the true meaning of Liberal. many who profess to be are not, and many that claim conservative are more liberal than they care to admit.

It is just a shame to see this, as both leanings have their weaknesses. Liberal, by definition, makes it harder to settle on one particular plan of action, a weakness in politics. It is an inherent strength in actual leadership though (ironically). Liberal candidates have to look like they are appealing to so much, that it is difficult to get a coherent following/mantra that is not easily criticized.

"Conservative" has to cherry pick its "values" to run on, avoiding difficult subjects and proclaiming strong adherence to easily modified "qualities" like "Morality", "Judgement" and the like. So long as you do not go too far in DEFINING the "American Way", many a conservative will wave a flag and beat a drum in your honor.

As soon as you tell them that it involves giving out health care at a fraction of the cost that it does today (by eliminating the insurance middle man) then you are too specific, since there is rarely a majority of sick people.....


meh.

BTW, Gun Control and 2nd Amendment "debate" is a crock. Just another classic example of an issue that does not matter a hill of beans whether it goes one way or another (so long as other things are kept in place) but people will fight it until they die of a cancer they cannot afford to treat.

ZippyTheChimp
February 22nd, 2012, 04:31 PM
This site exists in it's own little liberal, NYC centric, bubble. That's fine for what it is. Sometimes I find the need to put something on here that might serve as a reminder of what goes on in that vast uncharted land west of the Hudson (and even beyond Jersey). I don't see any problem with this.

These numbers you talk about, but you don't really explain much about, are a distortion about the "vast uncharted land west of the Hudson."

The increase in gun sales is majority in assault weapons, and this increase has been going on since 2004, when Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. The flyer you posted is mostly preaching to the choir; the people that think it makes sense are not on the fence about whether or not to vote for Obama.

Gun attitudes, and the way they change, can better be seen in this Gallup graphic:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/8bv3b4xxkkcknxgayaod3a.gif

While the percentage of people who favor stricter gun-control laws has dropped, the percentage of those who favor the status-quo has risen. The percentage of those who want gun-control reduced or eliminated - the target of that flyer - has remained low and hardly changed in decades.

A good way to look at these shifting attitudes is to correlate them with the level of crime from 1990 to the present.


So where's this gun forum? Those of us in this liberal bubble would like to know what goes on west of the Hudson.

BBMW
February 23rd, 2012, 12:49 PM
So where's this gun forum? Those of us in this liberal bubble would like to know what goes on west of the Hudson.

I'll give you a few...


http://www.thehighroad.org/

http://www.ar15.com/

http://sigforum.com

http://www.glocktalk.com/

Many of these are initially focused on on brand or type of firearm, but they all end up covering a lot of ground, and not all gun specific.

BBMW
February 23rd, 2012, 12:52 PM
How about another article. This pics up some of the themes from the poster, but gives more of the background info you wanted.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby
Image via Wikipedia


As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.
National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that “Americans’ preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.”
Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing. According to Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents about 7,000 firearms manufacturers and related companies, in 1959 some 70% of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. This support is reflected in the marketplace. Sanetti observes that the $4.1 billion gun industry “has had nineteen months of growth in an otherwise anemic economy.”
Recognizing these positive trends, most states now issue permits allowing qualified law-abiding people to legally carry handguns outside their homes. Unprecedented numbers are becoming licensed to do so, now totaling an estimated 10 million Americans, contributing, in turn, to a dramatic growth in gun sales.
A record of more than 1.5 million background checks for customers looking to purchase a firearm were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Background Check (NICS) system last December. About one-third of these occurred during the six weeks before Christmas. They had previously recorded a 49% rise in background checks during the week before President Obama was elected in 2008 compared with the same week one year earlier.
The Brady lobby is upset that there has been no progress in leveraging tighter gun control legislation following the shooting January 8, 2010 rampage that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. That tragic incident raised serious questions about background checks after it was determined that the accused shooter, having previously exhibited erratic behavior, legally purchased the weapon he “allegedly” used from a store.
The National Rifle Association clearly agrees that guns should not be sold to individuals found to have serious mental problems, although many states fail to provide mental health records to the federal computerized background check system. According to a November, 2011 report by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), 23 states have shown “major failures” in complying, and four (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island) submit no records at all. (Although murder has been in decline in New York (http://www.forbes.com/places/ny/new-york/) and other major cities for years, a Pepsi and Honda Super Bowl advertisement spot featured New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (http://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg/) and Boston (http://www.forbes.com/places/ma/boston/)’s Thomas Menino on a couch calling for stricter government measures to curb illegal gun sales.)
Dennis Henigan, the Brady group’s acting president, told Reuters: “Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson (http://www.forbes.com/places/az/tucson/) was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines.” Referring to a proposed “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011″ (H.R. 822) which has passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, the resolution would require states to recognize one another’s concealed carry permits the same way they recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. The intent is to eliminate confusion and potential legal problems for traveling gun owners.
As pointed out in a recent paper titled “Tough Targets” released by the Cato Institute, “The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. But authors Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett believe these restrictions put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage to criminals who acquire guns from underground markets since it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where intervention is urgently needed. They also document large numbers of crimes…murders, assaults, robberies…that are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.
A widely-known study conducted by Gary (http://www.forbes.com/places/in/gary/) Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.
For these reasons, the Cato researchers investigated published news reports which much more often reveal how Americans use guns in self-defense. The data set is derived from a collection of nearly 5,000 randomly selected incidents published between October 2003 and November 2011. Still, the authors also recognize limitations with this approach, since many defensive incidents are never reported by victims, or when they are, never get published. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the successful self-defense outcomes are those where the defendants’ guns are presented but never fired.
Most of the actual self-defense shootings in the Cato study didn’t involve concealed carry licenses, but more typically had to do with responses to residential invasions. Of these, 488 involved home burglaries. In addition, there were 1,227 incidents where intruders were induced to flee the scene by armed inhabitants, circumstances that might otherwise have resulted in injurious assaults including rapes and murders. There were 285 news accounts indicating that the defender had a concealed weapon license, which in the majority of these incidents took place outside a home or place of business. Pizza delivery drivers were common robbery targets.

Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.
Still, it should also be remembered that the threatened party often has more motivation to fight back than a criminal hoping for an easy score. There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts.
Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.
On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Doesn’t this comparison offer some indication that criminals are getting the message? Don’t you wish those bent on eliminating our Second Amendment rights would also?

lofter1
February 23rd, 2012, 03:43 PM
... The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

... There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts.

... There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.



You want startling?

30,536 gun-related deaths in 2006.




The Geography of Gun Deaths

THE ATLANTIC (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/)
January 11, 2011

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/FirearmDEDIT.jpg

The map (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2) above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state ...

And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34).

And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34).

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/assets_c/2011/01/preventionEDIT-thumb-600x463-40174.jpg (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/richard_florida/preventionEDIT.jpg)

And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

lofter1
February 23rd, 2012, 03:49 PM
Good to know that the massive presence of guns keeps the number of deaths down to an un-startling 30,000 bloody bodies per annum.

As long as we keep in mind that "every lost life is tragic" then it's so much easier to bear -- and the statistics so much easier to ingest.

ZippyTheChimp
February 23rd, 2012, 06:27 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

All you have to read is the first few lines:
As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging:Violent crime rates plunging? Compared to what, ourselves?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

ZippyTheChimp
February 23rd, 2012, 06:33 PM
So the Liberal Bubble has a low firearm death rate. Who would have guessed?

Ninjahedge
February 24th, 2012, 12:47 PM
We are just too open minded to, you know, "protect" ourselves from people we disagree with.

ZippyTheChimp
February 24th, 2012, 01:19 PM
If you look at the map (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2) link that Lofter provided, the list of death-rate by firearm has these states at the bottom of the list:

46. Connecticut
47. New Jersey
48. New York
49. Rhode Island
50. Massachusetts
51. Hawaii

Of the five in the northeast, only Rhode Island has somewhat less restrictive concealed-carry regulations. The others are the most restrictive in the country, except for Illinois, which is #39. Nearby Pennsylvania is a "shall-issue" state, and their death-rate by firearm is over twice that of the Liberal Bubble.

No matter how you try to distort the statistics, you're much less likely to die by firearm in New York than in places with less gun control.

And it seems you're less likely to die by suicide: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/why-is-new-yorks-suicide-rate-so-low/

lofter1
February 24th, 2012, 05:41 PM
Guns don't kill people.

Bullets kill people.

lofter1
May 24th, 2014, 11:58 AM
Not for the faint of heart: this sorry self-entitled slug, who apparently shot & killed seven in Isla Vista (http://www.noozhawk.com/article/multiple_shootings_reported_in_isla_vista_20140523/comments) near UC Santa Barbara last night, is totally American Psycho (seems he posted this vid the day before his killing spree) ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbv5Vpa-B-0

scumonkey
May 24th, 2014, 01:47 PM
damned youtube censorship :(

lofter1
May 24th, 2014, 04:44 PM
It's still up on Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/96314548

scumonkey
May 24th, 2014, 05:02 PM
Thank you for that... (and vimeo)!

Merry
May 26th, 2014, 07:26 AM
Guns don't kill people.

Bullets kill people.

Only if people carry and use loaded guns.

Confirmed by this latest sorry tale.

BBMW
May 28th, 2014, 11:24 AM
CA has all the gun control you want, short of an outright ban. It's something of a model for what groups like the Brady bunch want to foist on the rest of the country. All of this guy's guns were bought in state. So all of CA gun control failed miserable.

TREPYE
May 28th, 2014, 11:39 AM
Boy, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel of your humanity....



http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--F8LDAOgK--/ztcaspqy4mjgehh3o09r.png (http://wirednewyork.com/)


Joe the Plumber: "Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights" (http://gawker.com/joe-the-plumber-your-dead-kids-don-t-trump-my-constit-1582097167)

Joe the Plumber is an idiot. But in his latest idiocy—a crass dance on the graves of the just-murdered mass-shooting victims in Isla Vista—he teaches us all an important lesson about exactly how conservative thought on individual rights has shifted in recent years.
Joe, whose real name is Samuel Wurzelbacher, inexplicably became famous as the moron who "stood up" to candidate Barack Obama in 2008, and he's since made some money as a failed Tea Party congressional candidate and talk-radio ranter. Continuing his tradition of providing answers to questions no one ****ing asked him, Joe decided to post an open letter to the families of victims (http://www.donotlink.com/juJ) killed in Elliot Rodger's murder-suicide rampage over the weekend. Just the victims who were shot, though; not the ones who were stabbed.
His message of hope and love: Stay the **** away from my guns.
I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But:
As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights.
Richard Martinez, whose son (Christopher) was among the murdered, choked back tears at a news conference, blaming politicians the next day: "The talk about gun rights. What about Chris' right to live?" Martinez said – and much more...
But the words and images of Mr. Martinez blaming "the proliferation of guns", lobbyists, politicians, etc.; will be exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left...
We still have the Right to Bear Arms and I intend to continue to speak out for that right, and against those who would restrict it – even in the face of this horrible incident by this sad and insane individual. I almost said "Obama Voter" but I'm waiting for it to be official...
In conclusion, I cannot begin to imagine the pain you are going through, having had your child taken away from you. However, any feelings you have toward my rights being taken away from me, lose those.

There's something refreshingly honest in Joe's acknowledgement that this tragedy is all about him. It's the reductio ad absurdum of an ethos that's obsessed with the self and the self's freedom without a concomitant empathy for other selves and their freedoms. Joe's rant illuminates quite starkly how the right-libertarian absolutist interpretation of individual rights comes into direct conflict with the lives of his fellow countrymen and their children. To talk of responsibilities is to water down a right, and we cannot do that, no matter what the cost! (On the other hand: "They talk about gun rights," Martinez said in his stirring press statement (http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996) about his son. "What about Chris's right to live?")
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--b3lWF_FT--/c_fill,fl_progressive,g_center,h_77,q_80,w_137/clqpxhvu0ktrodyeejln.jpg (http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996)
Father of UCSB Shooting Victim: "When Will This Insanity Stop?" (http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996)Father of UCSB Shooting Victim: "When Will This Insanity Stop?" (http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996)Father of UCSB Shooting Victim: "When Will... (http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996)

Richard Martinez, the father of 20-year-old UCSB shooting victim Christopher Martinez, gave a… Read moreRead on (http://gawker.com/father-of-ucsb-shooting-victim-when-will-this-insanit-1581191996)


It's part of a larger move in conservatism away from appeals to the common good and toward an antipathy for anything but the self. Where conservatives used to justify the free market, for example, in Adam Smith's practical terms—the invisible hand provides for all, a rising tide floats every boat—they now rationalize it in Ayn Rand's fundamentalist terms: Who gives a shit if the market is good or just? It's right. Now get the **** out of our way, you illogical bromide-hawking self sacrificer.
Likewise for gun rights, where conservatives led by lobbyists and luddites like Joe the Plumber have abandoned talk about the good and replaced it with talk about the right. The good can be negotiated as hard cases arise. The right is non-negotiable. It is immutable. It is either respected or infringed. If you believe, as Joe and the NRA do, that the Second Amendment is an absolute right to personal firearms ownership—not merely that it's good for something, like self-defense or recreation, but that it's an immutable right—then even background checks or limits on multiple-magazine purchases or just simply talking about compromise and offering real sympathy to survivors is an infringement on that right.
In this ideology, talk of social responsibility in the exercise of rights becomes synonymous with socialism. This is the ultimate problem with the modern movement that clubbed traditional conservatism to death, squeezed into its clothes, and now traipses around like it owns the place.
Even if you believe that a discussion of social responsibilities is the same thing as socialism—and frankly, only an ignoramus could—you can't fight socialism by becoming a sociopath.
[Photo credit: AP; h/t TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-ucsb-shooting-dead-kids?utm_content=buffer9cb28&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)]




Something very apropo about someone who deals in so much sewage; it more than rubbed off on him, it defines him. Wow.

TREPYE
May 28th, 2014, 11:50 AM
It's still up on Vimeo:

http://vimeo.com/96314548

Chilling stuff....

As always, thank you NRA for giving this individual the right to bear and misuse arms.

ZippyTheChimp
May 28th, 2014, 12:22 PM
CA has all the gun control you want,Obviously not. You shouldn't assume to know what everyone wants.


It's something of a model for what groups like the Brady bunch want to foist on the rest of the country.The "rest" of the country? The number of individuals who own guns has been declining, while the number of gun sales has been increasing. In the 1970s, half of US households possessed guns; today it's less than a third. This minority owns about one-third of all the privately owned guns in the world.

The NRA does not want this information to become widely understood. They'd rather have the issue framed as a majority of Americans vs the federal government. In reality, they're the ones trying to foist their model on "the rest of the country."

What does this indicate to you? It tells me that the entire gun debate at its core is an economic issue. All the Second Amendment stuff is just a load of bullshit, used by people who probably don't know the other nine Bill of Rights.

People like you need to wake up to the fact that the NRA is no longer the organization it was in the mid 20th century, when they advocated safety and responsible ownership, and supported laws such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968).


All of this guy's guns were bought in state. So all of CA gun control failed miserable.So your solution is what - the hell with it?

BBMW
May 28th, 2014, 02:17 PM
Obviously not. You shouldn't assume to know what everyone wants.


I see what the anti-gun activist try to ram though congress. It seems an awful lot like what CA has already.



The "rest" of the country? The number of individuals who own guns has been declining, while the number of gun sales has been increasing. In the 1970s, half of US households possessed guns; today it's less than a third. This minority owns about one-third of all the privately owned guns in the world.


This number is based on a survey of unknown and questionable accuracy. I have a feeling that a fairly large percentage of people who own guns are probably not going to tell a survey taker that.



The NRA does not want this information to become widely understood. They'd rather have the issue framed as a majority of Americans vs the federal government. In reality, they're the ones trying to foist their model on "the rest of the country."


The constitution foists this model on the country. The NRA is a lobbying group that is supported by, and represents the interests of millions of individual Americans. The power of the NRA comes from their members, who will get in the faces of any politician that threatens their rights. This is why the NRA has the pull it has.



What does this indicate to you? It tells me that the entire gun debate at its core is an economic issue. All the Second Amendment stuff is just a load of bullshit, used by people who probably don't know the other nine Bill of Rights.


The Second Amendment is every bit as valid as any of the other amendments. The SCOTUS has ruled that it confers a right to individuals, and that that right is binding on all levels of government. This is a done deal. If you want to change it, get yourself a crayon, and write an amendment repealing it. But good luck trying to get it passed.



People like you need to wake up to the fact that the NRA is no longer the organization it was in the mid 20th century, when they advocated safety and responsible ownership, and supported laws such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968).

So your solution is what - the hell with it?

If your talking about the crazies, there are lots of other ways to carry out mass murder, and lots of ways to get guns, even if they're illegal (especially if you're on a suicide mission, and don't care about your future.) So if you want to stop the crazies, you're going to have to lock them up, or at least keep them under tight control BEFORE they commit any crime. So how many law abiding citizens are you going to lock up, most of whom will never hurt anyone, in order to stop the few who'll go on a rampage. Short of that, I don't see too many ways of stopping them.

I think there's a media issue here also. If you want to go out in a nationally televised blaze of infamy (glory not really being the correct word here), killing a bunch of people is the way to do it. I think this is what's driving a lot of the crazies. Short of banning coverage of these things (which would have it's own issues, constitutional and otherwise), I'm not sure there's anything that can be done about this issue either.

ZippyTheChimp
May 28th, 2014, 04:45 PM
I see what the anti-gun activist try to ram though congress. It seems an awful lot like what CA has already.Not close to what I said.


This number is based on a survey of unknown and questionable accuracy. I have a feeling that a fairly large percentage of people who own guns are probably not going to tell a survey taker that.Do you have a source for the questionable accuracy, or are we going to rely on your emotions?


The constitution foists this model on the country.What are you talking about?


The NRA is a lobbying group that is supported by, and represents the interests of millions of individual Americans. The power of the NRA comes from their members, who will get in the faces of any politician that threatens their rights. This is why the NRA has the pull it has.Again, not close to what I said. Why bother quoting me if you're going to spew out non-sequiturs?


The Second Amendment is every bit as valid as any of the other amendments.You so missed the point. The bullshit is not the Amendment; it's the people that don't know what they're talking about when the invoke the Constitution. I refer you to the typical defenders of the (NRA version of the )Second Amendment, the idiots running around the Nevada desert protecting our rights.


If your talking about the crazies,I said, "People like you need to wake up to the fact that the NRA is no longer the organization it was in the mid 20th century, when they advocated safety and responsible ownership, and supported laws such as this."

I was talking about you; not crazy, but delusional in denying the the NRA has morphed into a trade group that works on behalf of gun manufacturers and sellers. The members who support them are means to that end.

They always had members and lobbied for their interests, but you will never hear them talk about their past. Did the Second Amendment not exist when they supported the 1968 Gun Control Act?


So if you want to stop the crazies, you're going to have to lock them up, or at least keep them under tight control BEFORE they commit any crime. So how many law abiding citizens are you going to lock up, most of whom will never hurt anyone, in order to stop the few who'll go on a rampage.These things happen all over the world. Happened in Norway. There are crazy people everywhere. But it happens here more than any other place. Embarrassingly more.

It goes beyond one crazy person acting out. When you have a culture that advocates and promotes arming its citizens, encouraging them to decide for themselves to stand their ground or back off, to set themselves up as arbiters of law and the use of deadly force without any professional training; then you're going to have more and more of these incidents.

Like those morons in the desert who threatened to put women in front and challenge law enforcement to a firefight. Do you think they're crazy, or maybe just typical. Nobody on the Far Right thought that was crazy until Cliven Bundy started talking.

There's a lot of macho insecurity tied up in gun-control, not just about guns, but about the loss of political power of white males.

BBMW
May 28th, 2014, 07:02 PM
Not close to what I said.

Do you have a source for the questionable accuracy, or are we going to rely on your emotions?


It has nothing to do with emotions. It's more about lack of information, and using an inferior method for trying to come up with that information. In point of fact, no one has any concrete information about how many households in the US own guns. There is no mechanism for collecting this information. So some organization does a survey.

How many gun owners, getting a survey call, even if they chose to participate, would volunteer the information that they have guns in their home. I guarantee you, it will not be 100%, knowing how a lot of these people think, I doubt it would be 50%. There's no way this survey doesn't skew low.



What are you talking about?


You said the NRA foists their model on the country. This is false. It was always part of the design of the country. You, being anti-gun, don't want to realize/admit this, and blame it on the NRA boogyman.



Again, not close to what I said. Why bother quoting me if you're going to spew out non-sequiturs?


You dragged the NRA into the conversation. I'm just pointing out where they fit in the issue.



You so missed the point. The bullshit is not the Amendment; it's the people that don't know what they're talking about when the invoke the Constitution. I refer you to the typical defenders of the (NRA version of the )Second Amendment, the idiots running around the Nevada desert protecting our rights.


Again it isn't the NRA. It was the Supreme Court. In your mind, the Second Amendment only grants right to "keep and bear arms" to the states themselves. Individuals don't have this right The Supreme Court crushed that argument. It is a personal right, at this point absolutely equivalent to the First Amendment.



I said, "People like you need to wake up to the fact that the NRA is no longer the organization it was in the mid 20th century, when they advocated safety and responsible ownership, and supported laws such as this." I was talking about you; not crazy, but delusional in denying the the NRA has morphed into a trade group that works on behalf of gun manufacturers and sellers. The members who support them are means to that end.


Actually this is incorrect. AFAIK, the NRA gets no money direct from gun manufacturers. Some retailers have set up a mechanism for gun buyers to contribute to the NRA at the point of sale. But all their money seems to come from individuals.

The gun industry has it's own separate lobbying organization (the NSSF, IIRC), and I'm sure they fund it significantly (as does every industry with a lobbying trade group.) But this has nothing to do with the NRA



They always had members and lobbied for their interests, but you will never hear them talk about their past. Did the Second Amendment not exist when they supported the 1968 Gun Control Act?


For some reason, and I'm not sure why, until the Heller decision, there was never any direct precedent from the Supreme Court on whether the Second Amendment applied to individuals. Why it took over two hundred years for that to get to the Supremes, I don't know. But now it has. I'm sure at some point the 1968 GCA will be challenged under Heller.



These things happen all over the world. Happened in Norway. There are crazy people everywhere. But it happens here more than any other place. Embarrassingly more.
It goes beyond one crazy person acting out. When you have a culture that advocates and promotes arming its citizens, encouraging them to decide for themselves to stand their ground or back off, to set themselves up as arbiters of law and the use of deadly force without any professional training;


I agree with at least parts of this. To some extent, especially when you get out of the big cities (and actually sometimes in the big cities) Americans tend to be a bit more, I don't know, feral, than say, Europeans. This has its good and bad aspects to it. The violence is the latter. But this is unlikely to change.



then you're going to have more and more of these incidents.


Yes, but at least as far as the out and out crazies, I blame this more on the media, as I stated before.



Like those morons in the desert who threatened to put women in front and challenge law enforcement to a firefight. Do you think they're crazy, or maybe just typical. Nobody on the Far Right thought that was crazy until Cliven Bundy started talking.


I'm going to say this about that incident. This is not very far from how James Madison saw purpose of the Second Amendment. It was meant as a way to challenge what people might perceive as overreaching by the federal government.



There's a lot of macho insecurity tied up in gun-control, not just about guns, but about the loss of political power of white males.

Not exactly (althought there is some of that.) It's about the rules, and how they're interpreted and applied. The pro-gun people read the constitution, see the SCOTUS decisions, and think, rightly, they have the right own and carry guns. Then you have some politician who comes along and says, "well, screw the constitution (implicitly) we're not going to let you". Then gun owners then get pissed off, and act to protect their rights.

Oh, and this is where the NRA comes in. They feed on this. They say, give us money, and contact your politicritters when we tell you, and we can beat down the antis (which, actually, has worked fairly well.)

ZippyTheChimp
May 28th, 2014, 10:31 PM
It has nothing to do with emotions.Yes it does. The fact that there is no census-like data on gun ownership is because the NRA resists it (I already said it). But that doesn't mean there's no information. So I give you surveys, and you counter with your feelings. You discount it out of hand because you don't believe it going in. That's emotion.


How many gun owners, getting a survey call, even if they chose to participate, would volunteer the information that they have guns in their home. I guarantee you, it will not be 100%, knowing how a lot of these people think, I doubt it would be 50%.Using your logic, it would always skew low, so the percentage reduction would be the same.


You said the NRA foists their model on the country. This is false. It was always part of the design of the country. You, being anti-gun, don't want to realize/admit this, and blame it on the NRA boogyman.You missed what I meant by "foist their model." It was a response to your: "It's something of a model for what groups like the Brady bunch want to foist on the rest of the country."

The NRA wants everyone to think it's a few gun-control advocates against the rest of the country. The reality is something else.

If you think the NRA has always been the way it is today, explain how they supported gun-control in 1968.


You dragged the NRA into the conversation.Dragged them in? Are you serious?


It is a personal right, at this point absolutely equivalent to the First Amendment.The first Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, is not absolute.

[/quote]Actually this is incorrect. AFAIK, the NRA gets no money direct from gun manufacturers.[/quote]So what's incorrect, that I didn't say the NRA got direct contributions from gun manufacturers? I said [b][works on their behalf./b]


I'm sure at some point the 1968 GCA will be challenged under Heller.you still don't understand. The NRA supported that law.


I agree with at least parts of this. To some extent, especially when you get out of the big cities (and actually sometimes in the big cities) Americans tend to be a bit more, I don't know, feral, than say, Europeans.Feral? change.


I'm going to say this about that incident. This is not very far from how James Madison saw purpose of the Second Amendment. It was meant as a way to challenge what people might perceive as overreaching by the federal government.You can't separate the Second Amendment during the time of James Madison with the concept of regulated militias. Not mobs.

Even in the 17th century, there were colonial statutes that required men to have firearms. A 1619 Virginia ordinance required that on the Sabbath when attending services, men had to bring their firearms. If they didn't, they were fined. There were similar laws throughout the colonies. There was an obvious reason for this.



The pro-gun people read the constitution, see the SCOTUS decisions, and think, rightly, they have the right own and carry guns.If the pro-gun people read the Constitution, how come many of them don't know about, ignore, or misinterpret so much of it. What I see are people who have memorized a particular talking-point, and believe it is absolute.

The Constitution itself is not absolute.

ZippyTheChimp
May 29th, 2014, 07:57 AM
Georgia is a Red State. In April, the state legislature passed a bill which is to go into effect on July 1, dubbed the "Guns Everywhere Law."

The NRA called the bill passing "a historic victory for the Second Amendment."

A poll conducted among Georgia voters:
Among respondents in the new poll, 59 percent give House Bill 60 a thumbs down. Half the naysayers own guns themselves or live with someone who does, such as native Georgian Lynda Greaves, 66, of Pike County.

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/news/11456358/ajc-poll-shows-georgia-voters-like-guns-but-not-the-new-gun-law

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2014, 06:41 AM
May 20, 2014


Chipotle Asks Patrons Not to Bring Guns Inside their Eateries Anymore

Polly Mosendz


http://cdn.thewire.com/media/img/upload/wire/2014/05/20/gunschipotle/lead_large.jpg
Some gentlemen posing with their assault rifles in a Texas Chipotle. (http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-bloomberg-wants-to-ban-guns-in-chipotle-2014-5)

In the past, Chipotle has been compliant with the local laws for concealed carry and open weapons. Now, they are changing their tune (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101688198) after some gun rights advocates made a point to bring assault rifles into one of their locations.

This wasn't one or two hunting rifles. This was a sizable group of armed burrito-lovers (http://act.everytown.org/sign/Moms-Chipotle/) carrying some pretty impressive weapons. The guns are circled below:


http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2014/05/chipotle_group_lp_0514/cbb3ad009.jpg


The group outing was organized through a now-removed Facebook page. One of the members, whose Facebook name is Flakoo Decampo, dined at a Chipotle in Downtown Dallas. He posted: "Nothing like eating openly with your SKS and good budiiess...fact of the matter is...know your rights and dont give them up because of fear." Flakoo will have to leave his rifle at home now, because the display sparked a successful petition asking Chipotle to change their gun policies.

After a petition (http://act.everytown.org/sign/Moms-Chipotle/) began circulating online, the company quickly changed their policy and issued this statement: (http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/05/19/gun-control-group-asks-chipotle-to-ban-guns-after-open-carry-event/) "The display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."

Chipotle now joins Starbucks as a chain that does not welcome guns in their establishments, regardless of local laws.

Copyright ©2014 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

Merry
June 3rd, 2014, 07:43 AM
What would those two in the first photo actually need those assault rifles for exactly?

And, has there ever been any instances of a genuine need to carry a weapon while at Chipotle or Starbucks?

lofter1
June 3rd, 2014, 10:31 AM
What would those two in the first photo actually need those assault rifles for exactly?



Size matters (especially when lacking elsewhere).

ZippyTheChimp
June 3rd, 2014, 01:47 PM
What would those two in the first photo actually need those assault rifles for exactly?The question was answered in Comments:


Mister Justin (http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/chipotle-asks-patrons-not-to-bring-guns-inside-their-eateries/371249/#) Gary (http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/chipotle-asks-patrons-not-to-bring-guns-inside-their-eateries/371249/#comment-1396152011) • 14 days ago (http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/chipotle-asks-patrons-not-to-bring-guns-inside-their-eateries/371249/#comment-1396152674)
I think it's more likely they're afraid that a woman might talk to them.

scumonkey
June 3rd, 2014, 01:53 PM
http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9t0xx2Nm51qca92qo1_500.gif

Merry
June 4th, 2014, 10:29 AM
Lol!

ZippyTheChimp
June 11th, 2014, 08:54 AM
These things happen all over the world. Happened in Norway. There are crazy people everywhere. But it happens here more than any other place. Embarrassingly more.

It goes beyond one crazy person acting out. When you have a culture that advocates and promotes arming its citizens, encouraging them to decide for themselves to stand their ground or back off, to set themselves up as arbiters of law and the use of deadly force without any professional training; then you're going to have more and more of these incidents.

Like those morons in the desert who threatened to put women in front and challenge law enforcement to a firefight. Do you think they're crazy, or maybe just typical. Nobody on the Far Right thought that was crazy until Cliven Bundy started talking.

There's a lot of macho insecurity tied up in gun-control, not just about guns, but about the loss of political power of white males.

From Louisville KY:

The NRA — National Rifle Association — which used to be a respectable, albeit a conservative, group representing mostly hunters, has sided with the extremists demanding the right to tote assault rifles in public. It is now the face of the gun madness.

Editorial | Gun deaths keep coming (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/06/10/gun-deaths-keep-coming/10291669/)

BBMW
June 11th, 2014, 02:18 PM
You still don't get it. It's not the NRA. It's the millions of people who support the NRAs position, and forcefully let their representatives know that.

ZippyTheChimp
June 11th, 2014, 05:03 PM
I think you're the one that doesn't get it.

How many millions are you talking about? Poll after poll after poll... (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm)

See post #141 again.

Think about gerrymandering, and how the NRA supports these propped up districts, and how politicians are afraid to go up against it.

BBMW
June 12th, 2014, 01:56 PM
^
The polls the politiicritters care most about are the ones the go right into their inboxes (both real and electronic.) Even if you ask people whether they support gun control, and a majority of them say yes, that's about as much support as they give it. Support for gun control may be a mile wide, but it tends to be an inch deep. Support for gun right may be a half mile wide, but it's a mile deep.

Gun rights supports on the other hand tend to go balls to wall to maintain their rights. When there's a pro/anti gun legislation pending anywhere, they tend to get inundated by the pro-gun rights constituents. This, by the way, is the real power of the NRA, they ability to marshal and direct the actions of it's members.

eddhead
June 12th, 2014, 02:11 PM
I think the overwhelming majority of gun right supporters think groups like OTC are sociopathic. The NRA's initial response was likely more than a mere slip - groups like this do not slip with their press releases. There initial reaction is overwhelmingly consistent with the views of their membership, many of whom beleive that this it is a bridge to far even for them.

I actually think this group did Gun Control advocates a huge favor. I, for one, am grateful.

Even guns rights advocates are disturbed by the prospect of someone arned with an AK 47 eating lunch at Chipoltes.

lofter1
June 12th, 2014, 03:18 PM
^
The polls the politiicritters care most about are the ones the go right into their inboxes (both real and electronic.) Even if you ask people whether they support gun control, and a majority of them say yes, that's about as much support as they give it. Support for gun control may be a mile wide, but it tends to be an inch deep. Support for gun right may be a half mile wide, but it's a mile deep.

Gun rights supports on the other hand tend to go balls to wall to maintain their rights. When there's a pro/anti gun legislation pending anywhere, they tend to get inundated by the pro-gun rights constituents. This, by the way, is the real power of the NRA, they ability to marshal and direct the actions of it's members.

If my rights are not to be infringed upon, then why can't I carry around my "arms" of choice: A nuclear bomb?

It's a simple question. And on topic regarding the wording of the Second Amendment.

BBMW
June 12th, 2014, 04:44 PM
No one's run that one up the flagpole yet.


If my rights are not to be infringed upon, then why can't I carry around my "arms" of choice: A nuclear bomb?

It's a simple question. And on topic regarding the wording of the Second Amendment.

ZippyTheChimp
June 12th, 2014, 06:08 PM
The polls the politiicritters care most about are the ones the go right into their inboxes (both real and electronic.) Even if you ask people whether they support gun control, and a majority of them say yes, that's about as much support as they give it.Again, you miss the point. The majority of people support gun control. It's not (your buzzwords) "the rest of the country."

The NRA frames the argument as the federal government and its supporters trying to take away the rights of all Americans. Most Americans don't agree.

The real power of the NRA is distorted Congressional districts.

lofter1
June 12th, 2014, 08:21 PM
Re: Nuclear bomb as protected "arms"


No one's run that one up the flagpole yet.

Based upon prior declarations that it's been determined across the board that individual ownership of arms is A-OK, do you think that if an attempt to claim a right to a nuclear bomb went before the Supreme Court that a majority of justices would rule that such "arms" are protected by the constitution for personal use?

eddhead
June 13th, 2014, 10:39 AM
You forget who sits on the Supreme Court...

BBMW
June 13th, 2014, 02:07 PM
Does the First Amendment protect speech on the internet. No one even dreamed of it when the Bill of Rights was written.

Let's assume the absurd, and say that somehow a case about legalizing the possession of nuclear weapons somehow got the the SCOTUS. From a strictly legal technical standpoint, should they allow it? Yes. So what should they do. Essentially ignore the Second Amendment, and allow them to be banned? That would be the practical decision, but it would have the effect of making the constitution itself worthless. Why have the damn thing if the courts and the government can ignore it when it's expedient to do so. It's not the courts job to fix the constitution, but to interpret it. What they should do is allow the possession, and explicitly say this is absurd but necessary, and the language in question needs to be fixed by the amendment process.

I guarantee you if possession of nukes by individuals was deemed constitutional, the process of changing the 2nd Amendment would start. And I said changing, not eliminating, because even with that absurd hypothetical decision in place, there would be enough political will in place to block a straight up elimination. There would have to be compromises made on language to allow certain weapons (think individual infantry type weapons), and disallow other (think what would fall under weapons of mass destruction - nukes, chemical, biological, etc.)


Re: Nuclear bomb as protected "arms"



Based upon prior declarations that it's been determined across the board that individual ownership of arms is A-OK, do you think that if an attempt to claim a right to a nuclear bomb went before the Supreme Court that a majority of justices would rule that such "arms" are protected by the constitution for personal use?

EastMillinocket
June 13th, 2014, 03:59 PM
Why wait? Demand your Congressman support the anti-nuclear constitutional amendment now!

The future is in your arms.

I mean hands.

The future is in your hands.

lofter1
June 15th, 2014, 04:24 PM
BBMW: "It's not the courts job to fix the constitution, but to interpret it."

Imperfect as the SCOTUS has shown itself to be, one might assume that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is deeply flawed. So perhaps we should just ride out this absurd moment when some old guys have decided that guns in every hand is a good thing, non-hypothetical as that is, and wait for wiser citizens to sit on the bench.

BBMW
June 16th, 2014, 08:45 PM
It's now a settled issue it's not going to change. The same way the Row v. Wade survived though a lot of years of Republican nominated judges (while being on MUCH shakier legal ground), Heller and McDonald will survive if the Democrats ever get a chance to get control of the SCOTUS. What is a new court going to do, say "Oops that was a mistake, we're going to undo it. Oh and BTW, the constitution doesn't mean what it directly says." Not going to happen. There's only one time I can think of where this has happened. That was Brown, and with that you can clearly see where the invalidated precedent was actually tiptoeing around the wording constitution.

Every gun control issue that goes up the legal food chain from now until the unlikely even the Second Amendment is repealed will turn on the precedents set by Heller and McDonald.


BBMW: "It's not the courts job to fix the constitution, but to interpret it."

Imperfect as the SCOTUS has shown itself to be, one might assume that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is deeply flawed. So perhaps we should just ride out this absurd moment when some old guys have decided that guns in every hand is a good thing, non-hypothetical as that is, and wait for wiser citizens to sit on the bench.

lofter1
June 16th, 2014, 10:02 PM
Of course it can change. Long held "settled" decisions can be tossed aside as our society evolves. Precedents are not set in stone.

As you note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

If a majority of a future court decides different from what came before, then a new direction is set. And there isn't much anyone can do about that. Except maybe impeach a sitting Justice and try and cram the court with someone more favorable to the impeachers. Fat chance that will happen, at least not while we have a "can't do anything" bunch in Congress.

ZippyTheChimp
June 16th, 2014, 10:42 PM
@BBMW: What are you talking about?


What is a new court going to do, say "Oops that was a mistake, we're going to undo it.It's happened a lot. And it's not a mistake, it's their job.


Oh and BTW, the constitution doesn't mean what it directly says."The US Constitution is surprisingly short compared to those in some other countries, which try to cover every eventuality, and are rigid documents with little interpretation.

The US Constitution is dubbed a "Living Constitution;" it expands and changes, adapting from one era to another. That's what the Court does when it interprets constitutional issues.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.This is not from the US Constitution; it's from the Declaration of Independence. It's surprising how many idiots in public office make this mistake. Unalienable rights, from Natural Law, does not include the right to bear arms.

With the godlike wisdom that's bestowed on the Constitutional Framers, is ironic that one of the smartest things they did is often ignored - making the document flexible. They must have known that they could not see over distant mountains. Also, they were a diverse group, and many of them had issues with particular parts of the document. And there were 13 state conventions with hundreds of delegates that had to weigh in and ratify it.

There are several ways to interpret the Constitution.

Originalism: Attempts to look at the intent of the Framers, through not only the Constitution, but other writings, newspaper articles, Constitutional Convention notes, the Federalist Papers.

Historical literalism: More rigid than the above, it holds that only the actual words of the Constitution apply. Even the writings and opinions of the Framers are considered not relevant.

Contemporary literalism: Somewhat more flexible than historical literalism. Again, only the text is considered, but modern definitions of the words and phrases are studied.

Normative reinforcement:The Constitution is a framework for guidance, its principles adapted to modern society. It's noted that the Constitution is deliberately vague; important terms such as "due process" and "equal protection" are not defined.

None of these methods of interpretation are used exclusively, but the last one is the only one where almost 250 years of legal precedent isn't ignored.


Every gun control issue that goes up the legal food chain from now until the unlikely even the Second Amendment is repealed will turn on the precedents set by Heller and McDonald.where did you get the idea that the Second Amendment would have to be repealed?

EastMillinocket
June 16th, 2014, 11:15 PM
Unalienable rights, from Natural Law, does not include the right to bear arms.



It's a non-exclusive list - "among these."

It's true that the Declaration of Independence does not have the force of constitutional law, but if anyone makes this mistake, I don't think there's great harm done. The bigger problem is that half of Congress thinks the ten commandments override the ten amendments.

ZippyTheChimp
June 17th, 2014, 07:46 AM
It's true that the Declaration of Independence does not have the force of constitutional law, but if anyone makes this mistake, I don't think there's great harm done.I wasn't really comparing the two documents. I was showing the mindset of the constitutional framers in what they considered to be unalienable rights. If carrying a firearm was derived from Natural Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), I think a group of people embarking on a course of action that would involve a bloody conflict would have mentioned it in their break-away document.

ZippyTheChimp
June 17th, 2014, 07:55 AM
Opinion


The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

By John Paul Stevens April 11


John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book,
“Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316373729?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0316373729&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20)



Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html) disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html) in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html) in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clauseof the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.

In my dissent (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf) in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the court’s decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll “in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States’ long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Court’s meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.”

“Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.”
In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.

First, the court did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion, the court made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by the Second Amendment because that protected class was limited to weapons in common use for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Even though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.

Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.

A second virtue of the opinion in Heller (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf) is that Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way to limit the court’s holding not only to a subset of weapons that might be used for self-defense but also to a subset of conduct that is protected. The specific holding of the case covers only the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, while a later part of the opinion adds emphasis to the narrowness of that holding by describing uses that were not protected by the common law or state practice. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, or on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are specifically identified as permissible regulations.

Thus, Congress’s failure to enact laws that would expand the use of background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons cannot be justified by reference to the Second Amendment or to anything that the Supreme Court has said about that amendment. What the members of the five-justice majority said in those opinions is nevertheless profoundly important, because it curtails the government’s power to regulate the use of handguns that contribute to the roughly 88firearm-related deaths that occur every day.

There is an intriguing similarity between the court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, which began with a misinterpretation of the 11th Amendment, and its more recent misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. The procedural amendment limiting federal courts’ jurisdiction over private actions against states eventually blossomed into a substantive rule that treats the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity as though it were part of the Constitution itself. Of course, in England common-law rules fashioned by judges may always be repealed or amended by Parliament. And when the United States became an independent nation, Congress and every state legislature had the power to accept, to reject or to modify common-law rules that prevailed prior to 1776, except, of course, any rule that might have been included in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-navy-yard-rampage-leaves-14-dead-alleged-shooter-killed-idd-as-aaron-alexis/2013/09/16/d084842e-1ef9-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html) in Washington, may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.

Copyright © 2014 by John Paul Stevens. Reprinted with permission of Little, Brown and Company. All rights reserved.

eddhead
June 17th, 2014, 11:11 AM
God, I miss Jusice Stevens. A true lion.

ZippyTheChimp
June 17th, 2014, 04:30 PM
THE NEW YORKER

June 17, 2014


Scalia’s Word Games

Posted by Jeff Shesol

Antonin Scalia likes dictionaries. He has cited, in Supreme Court opinions, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1773), Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), Timothy Cunningham’s A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771), and others of more recent vintage, including the Random House College Dictionary (1982). More than any other sitting Justice, he sees himself as both an authority on and an arbiter of our mother tongue. This makes him, in some instances, the last word on words.

In a new biography (http://www.amazon.com/Scalia-Court-Bruce-Allen-Murphy/dp/0743296494/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402943037&sr=1-1&keywords=scalia), Bruce Allen Murphy writes that Scalia carved out this territory from the beginning: in the late nineteen-eighties, as the Court’s most junior Justice, Scalia already showed a “dazzling ability to solve perplexing legal issues armed mainly with an out-of-date dictionary, demonstrating an etymologist’s skill for determining word origins, and relying on his ability to parse semantics and grammar.” That skill is apparent—often ostentatiously so—in nearly every opinion that Scalia has put on paper over the past three decades, and that includes his short, and typically tart, dissent in Abramski v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf), this week’s 5-4 ruling in which the majority found that a “straw purchaser” cannot buy a gun for another person, even if both are legally eligible to own a gun.

In his dissent, Scalia—joined by Roberts, Alito, and Thomas—heaps contempt on the majority’s view that the “true buyer” of the handgun in question was not Bruce Abramski, who went to the counter, (falsely) filled out the forms representing himself as the purchaser, and bought the gun, but Abramski’s uncle, who had given him the money and, as arranged, took possession of the gun just after the sale. This, to Scalia, is sophistry. “Abramski’s uncle,” he writes, “was not the ‘person’ to whom the gun was ‘s[old].’” The “plain language of the Act” makes that obvious; so does “ordinary English usage.” Scalia offers a homespun example: “If I give my son $10 and tell him to pick up milk and eggs at the store, no English speaker would say that the store ‘sells’ the milk and eggs to me.”

But Justice Elena Kagan is an English speaker, and here is what she replies in a footnote to her majority opinion in Abramski: “The dissent claims the answer is easy…. But try a question more similar to the one the gun law’s text raises: If I send my brother to the Apple Store with money and instructions to purchase an iPhone, and then take immediate and sole possession of that device, am I the ‘person’ … who has bought the phone or is he? Nothing in ordinary English usage compels us an answer either way.” Scalia, in a retort to Kagan’s reply (this could go on all day!), professes to find it “puzzling” that the majority thought “the answer would be different if the sale involved consumer electronics instead of groceries.”

This is not at all what Kagan is saying, as Scalia surely knows. What Kagan has done, in a neat twist on Scalia’s analogy, is to highlight the ambiguity and contingency of language. And that, for Scalia, is something that can never be acknowledged, because it would lay bare the game he plays. His approach has always been to reach for a dictionary; find, in one edition or other, a definition that drives toward his predetermined decision; and express, eyes wide with disbelief, utter amazement that anyone could even think of seeing it any other way.

Sometimes, this has yielded a comical result, as in Scalia’s dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard, a 1987 decision overturning a pretty plainly labelled Louisiana law called the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act on the grounds that it advanced a particular religious belief. Scalia, having considered very carefully the phrase in question, insisted, presumably with a straight face, that the term “creation science” had no religious meaning whatsoever. “The Act’s reference to ‘creation,’” he wrote, “is not convincing evidence of religious purpose…. We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth.”

In other instances, Scalia’s word games have had profound, societal implications, leading to—in at least one case—a dramatic shift in constitutional law. In District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf), which Scalia considers his greatest achievement, he relied not on one but on three eighteenth-century dictionaries to “clarify” the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By the time that Scalia had finished his exegesis, the “prefatory clause” about a militia had been clarified into irrelevance, and “bear arms” had been so scrutinized and squinted at and worked over that Americans awoke to find that they had a new, individual right to carry a handgun—a right that cannot be found in the language, plain or otherwise, of the Constitution. Michael Waldman, who has just published a book on the Second Amendment (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/147674744X/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i3?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=01KMMZEC78134GRH0EQW&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846), observes that Scalia, in his opinion, “has the feel of an ambitious Scrabble player trying too hard to prove that triple word score really does exist.”

But the rules, or tenor, of the game could be changing. Scalia has never lacked a foil—at different times, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and other Justices have played that role. But the back-and-forth in Abramski suggests that Elena Kagan is prepared to meet Scalia on the battleground of his choosing: words and their meanings. Kagan writes that “we must (as usual) interpret the relevant words not in a vacuum,” but with regard to the “structure, history, and purpose” of the statute. And because “purpose” is one of those notions that originalists disdain, Kagan, in another footnote, presses her point just a little more sharply: “Contrary to the dissent’s view … we simply recognize that a court should not interpret each word in a statute with blinders on, refusing to look at the word’s function within the broader statutory context.” Abramski, like the other opinions Kagan has written since arriving on the Court, in 2010, makes clear that she is armed not only with a dictionary but with what she identifies as one of the principal “tools of divining meaning”: “common sense.”

Jeff Shesol, a former speechwriter for President Clinton, is the author of “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court” and is a partner at West Wing Writers. Follow him on Twitter at@JeffShesol.

Read Margaret Talbot on Antonin Scalia (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/03/28/050328fa_fact_talbot).

© 2014 Condé Nast. All rights reserved

lofter1
June 17th, 2014, 08:33 PM
Three cheers for common sense.

BBMW
June 20th, 2014, 12:02 PM
Stevens is off the court. Unless he wins a seat congress, he has no further say in the matter beyond that of any other private citizen. Lots of people would like to amend the constitution in lots of different ways, for lots of different reasons. It very rarely happens. It takes the closest thing to political unanimity this country ever gets. And, as you may have noticed, not only is there nothing like political unanimity for changing or repealing the Second Amendment, it appears to have very strong political support, seeing how pretty much all the national level gun control proposals made recently have gone down in flames.

And despite the "living document" blather, the constitution means what it says. The arguments about the meaning of the preamble to the Second Amendment will continue ad infinitum, but the language " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the dominant phrase. The term "right of the people" cannot be construed in any other way except to mean a right directly conferred on individuals, as it does in other amendments without argument. The SCOTUS has directly and unambiguously acknowledged this. You can blather all you want about why this is wrong and why it should be changed. But short of a constitutional amendment, it isn't and it won't be. End of story.

ZippyTheChimp
June 20th, 2014, 01:03 PM
And despite the "living document" blather, the constitution means what it says.Source?


The arguments about the meaning of the preamble to the Second Amendment will continue ad infinitum, but the language " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the dominant phrase.Source for dominant phrase?

I always thought that legal statements are defined in their entirety. Why would they include "a well regulated militia;" was it fill, needing a minimum number of words like a grade school assignment? What does the Constitution say about a well regulated militia - guys with guns?


[The SCOTUS has directly and unambiguously acknowledged this.Actually, the vote was split, and there was a dissenting opinion.


You can blather all you want about why this is wrong and why it should be changed.It's amazing that you still don't realize all we've ever argued about gun-control and the Second Amendment is that it is wrong. We're aware of the political realities, but that's what it is - politics.

You, on the other hand, can't seem to find a coherent argument for why it is right.

BBMW
June 21st, 2014, 07:27 PM
Why is the second amendment right? Ignoring the politics and the legalities, people have a fundamental right to be able to defend themselves. Whether it's from a thug on the the street or a tyrannical government run amok (the latter being the direct reason the Second Amendment was incorporated into the Bill or Rights.) The extension of that is that people have the right to have the tools (in this case, weapons) necessary to do this.

If certain people abuse this right, and use these weapons to cause mayhem, then they have to pay the price for that. But that is the responsibility of the individual, not the weapon. It's also not the responsibilities of other who may have weapons, but treat them responsibly.

ZippyTheChimp
June 23rd, 2014, 08:23 AM
Ignoring the politics and the legalities,You can't; it's been part of the Constitution since before it was ratified.


people have a fundamental right to be able to defend themselves.Does that right have limits? (example: Stand Your Ground)


Whether it's from a thug on the the street or a tyrannical government run amok (the latter being the direct reason the Second Amendment was incorporated into the Bill or Rights.) The extension of that is that people have the right to have the tools (in this case, weapons) necessary to do this.If, as you said previously, "the Constitution means what it says," where in the amendment does it say anything about a tyrannical government? Or maybe, as I said, the Constitution is interpreted.

The US military is the most powerful in the world. Does this bring us back to Lofter's nuclear option?


If certain people abuse this right, and use these weapons to cause mayhem, then they have to pay the price for that. But that is the responsibility of the individual, not the weapon.i think it's the responsibility of society; it's how we solve all our problems. When individuals decide this for themselves, it's the road to anarchy.

BBMW
June 23rd, 2014, 07:47 PM
You can't; it's been part of the Constitution since before it was ratified.


In your last post it sounded like you wanted to discuss the moral issues outside of the legal issues, so I did. If you want to discuss the political and legal issues, well, we have been for years now.



Does that right have limits? (example: Stand Your Ground)


Yes. However, I would say stand your ground is well within those limits.



If, as you said previously, "the Constitution means what it says," where in the amendment does it say anything about a tyrannical government? Or maybe, as I said, the Constitution is interpreted.


In the Constitution itself, no. But read the Federalist Papers. Madison, lays out his thinking pretty directly.



The US military is the most powerful in the world. Does this bring us back to Lofter's nuclear option?


I already discussed the nuclear option



i think it's the responsibility of society; it's how we solve all our problems. When individuals decide this for themselves, it's the road to anarchy.

There are two extremes of this. When someone kicks in your front door, or tries to rob you on the street, "society" won't likely be there until after the fact (unless you get attacked by a very dumb crook.) On the other extreme, society has gone to hell in one form or another. Between there, basically yes. The two are not nearly as incompatible as you'd like to believe.

EastMillinocket
June 23rd, 2014, 07:53 PM
As Learned Hand himself wrote, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

ZippyTheChimp
June 23rd, 2014, 10:05 PM
In the Constitution itself, no. But read the Federalist Papers. Madison, lays out his thinking pretty directly.Make up your mind. I'm still waiting for "a well regulated militia." Unlike the Federalist Papers, which can be an aid to INTERPRET the Constitution, those words are in it. So, what do they say?

And Madison is not the sole arbiter of the Constitution, not by a long shot. It was a contested document that adapted to the politics of the time.

As for doors being kicked down, the gun violence in this country speaks for itself. We are not safer walking down the street packing handgun.

eddhead
June 24th, 2014, 10:31 AM
If certain people abuse this right, and use these weapons to cause mayhem, then they have to pay the price for that.

[/B]But that is the responsibility of the individual, not the weapon. It's also not the responsibilities of other who may have weapons, but treat them responsibly.

And that makes it all good right? Of course there is the small matter of accounting for the victim, but that's just a detail....

BBMW
June 24th, 2014, 06:17 PM
The "well regulated militia clause" is a preamble, it a very short way of saying why they wanted an armed populace. And, yes, I'm only using the Federalist Papers and an aid to try to answer a question you asked.


Make up your mind. I'm still waiting for "a well regulated militia." Unlike the Federalist Papers, which can be an aid to INTERPRET the Constitution, those words are in it. So, what do they say?

And Madison is not the sole arbiter of the Constitution, not by a long shot. It was a contested document that adapted to the politics of the time.

As for doors being kicked down, the gun violence in this country speaks for itself. We are not safer walking down the street packing handgun.

BBMW
June 24th, 2014, 06:21 PM
Lots of bad and/or stupid people do lots of bad and/or stupid things, with or without tools. The responsibility for the crime lays with the attacker, not whatever tool he used.


And that makes it all good right? Of course there is the small matter of accounting for the victim, but that's just a detail....

eddhead
June 26th, 2014, 11:22 AM
.. and holding the attacker responsible for her/his actions makes it all good, right?

BBMW
June 26th, 2014, 01:31 PM
"Makes it all good"? No. Is the proper response? Yes.


.. and holding the attacker responsible for her/his actions makes it all good, right?

eddhead
June 26th, 2014, 04:41 PM
Great. So I guess the pain and suffering of the victims and their families is a mere annoyance, an inconsequential byproduct.

lofter1
June 26th, 2014, 07:39 PM
Collateral Damage of Well-Armed Freedom.

lofter1
June 26th, 2014, 07:45 PM
What to do about the resulting mayhem?

I'd say, "Get over it!" But that just seems wrong.

17933

ZippyTheChimp
June 26th, 2014, 09:41 PM
The "well regulated militia clause" is a preamble, it a very short way of saying why they wanted an armed populace. And, yes, I'm only using the Federalist Papers and an aid to try to answer a question you asked.You keep inventing terms for what's in the Constitution.

Where did you get preamble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble)?

The entire amendment is one sentence, 27 words. A well regulated militia is 15% of the text. Why does it need a preamble? And if that phrase is a preamble, it should explain the purpose of the rest of the amendment. The Constitution itself has a preamble, which states why they drafted a constitution.

Do you realize that you stated my side of the argument?

Merry
July 16th, 2014, 05:17 AM
These people have got to be kidding, right?


Shiva: How about they all forget the penis extenders and just be people instead of paranoid morons?

Quite.


Open Carry Texas Schedules New Date For Armed March Through Black Neighborhood

By: Justin Baragona


http://edge1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/open-carry-texas-485x272.jpg (http://edge1.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/open-carry-texas.jpg)

Open Carry Texas, a gun rights advocacy group, announced that they have scheduled their march through the Fifth Ward in Houston. The march, which was initially scheduled for Juneteenth but postponed at the last minute (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/24/white-gun-nuts-plan-march-black-neighborhood-carrying-assault-rifles.html), will feature open-carry enthusiasts marching through the streets of the predominantly black Houston neighborhood carrying long assault rifles. The group has gained notoriety in recent months due to their publicity stunts which have featured members entering restaurants and stores with their assault rifles on full display. Apparently, the group has decided to up their game.

CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas, decided to address the criticism his group has encountered regarding this planned march. When the march was first scheduled, Grisham and the group came under intense criticism for a variety of reasons. Even after OCT postponed the march, the group was under fire due to the appearance of racial insensitivity. OCT posted the following (http://opencarrytexas.org/1_2_OCT-Blog.html) late Monday evening on the group’s website:

“We are not going to be marching through 5th Ward,” said OCT Founder CJ Grisham, “we’re going to hopefully be marching with 5th Ward.”



Open Carry Texas believes that Texas’ gun laws continue to be rooted in racism. In order to obtain a concealed handgun license in Texas, one needs to shell out over $250 in fees and requirements to do so. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty rate in Texas was 14.4% in 2010, the date of the last census. In the African-American community, the poverty rate was 27.1%, nearly twice the state poverty rate and almost three times higher than non-Hispanic whites. In other words, the extreme cost to obtain a license in Texas – over $250 – disproportionately prevents African-Americans from getting one.

Texas law prevents anyone convicted of a Class B misdemeanor or higher from qualifying for a concealed handgun license for at least five years. The convictions do not need to be related to violence or even involve a gun. Some examples of “crimes” that will cause you to lose your CHL or fail to qualify for one are littering, writing a hot check, or even certain traffic infractions not involving another person.




Much like the Jim Crow laws of the past, Texas gun laws seem geared towards preventing the minority community from exercising their rights. We aim to change that.



Open Carry Texas also announced that they’ll have a real-life black person marching with them, Maurice Muhammad. As Liberaland pointed out (http://www.alan.com/2014/07/15/open-carry-texas-announce-new-plans-to-march-in-black-neighborhood-with-an-actual-black-guy/), Muhammad is a radical who promotes the killing of police officers on his Facebook page. He also is apparently the leader of a group that openly wishes for a race war. Liberaland also pointed out that OCT’s blog entry is more about Grisham’s own issues with the law than his concerns about the black community. While he talks a big game about unfair laws regarding gun ownership, and he positions himself as some kind of civil rights fighter, the reality is that he himself has a conviction on his record and cannot apply for a conceal-carry license. Which is likely the reason he started this group in the first place.

Anyway, these gun nuts plan on marching through the Fifth Ward on August 16th. Once again, like they claimed last time, this is only supposed to be a peaceful demonstration as well as a charitable action. They just want to educate the residents of the area. They positively, absolutely do not want anything unseemly or ugly to occur. Nuh-uh. No way. And this time, no one can claim it is all just a bunch of white guys marching through a black neighborhood carrying a bunch of guns. Because they got a black guy with them. It is totally cool now.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/15/open-carry-texas-schedules-date-armed-march-black-neighborhood.html

scumonkey
July 16th, 2014, 11:55 AM
If anyone believes this pile 'O..., I have a bridge to sell them ;)

Ninjahedge
July 19th, 2014, 01:57 AM
As sad as it is... I hope they all shoot each other.


The REALLY sad part is, they would blame it on not having enough guns to stop what happened.

TREPYE
August 28th, 2014, 02:27 PM
Girl, 9, Accidentally Kills Instructor While Firing an Uzi

Aug 27, 2014, 12:59 AM ET
By DAN GOOD (http://abcnews.go.com/author/dan_good) Dan Good More from Dan » (http://abcnews.go.com/author/dan_good)
Digital Editor/Reporter

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/HT_girl_range1_ml_140827_16x9_992.jpg A fatal shooting occurred at a gun range located at Last Stop Arizona, Aug. 25, 2014.
KNXV







A 9-year-old girl being taught how to use an Uzi sub-machine gun lost control of the powerful weapon and accidentally killed her instructor, authorities said.
The shooting happened at 10 a.m. Monday at Bullets and Burgers, a gun range within the Arizona Last Stop tourist recreational complex southeast of Las Vegas.
Young Guns: Can You Really Hide Guns From Children? (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/young-guns-hide-guns-children-22306882)
Boy, 8, Killed Himself With an Uzi at a Shooting Range in 2011 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/father-christopher-bizilj-died-firing-uzi-urged-son/story?id=12565132)
According to the Mohave County Sheriff's Office, the instructor –- identified as Charles Vacca, 39 –- was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use the Uzi. The girl's parents, who are from New Jersey, stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.
Sam Scarmardo, a former Lake Havasu City Council member who operates the shooting range, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the girl's parents signed waivers saying they understood the rules of the range and were standing nearby, video-recording their daughter, when the accident happened.
"I have regret we let this child shoot, and I have regret that Charlie was killed in the incident," Scarmardo said.
The girl, in a gray T-shirt, pink shorts and her hair in a braid, can be seen in the video being advised to adjust her feet. "All right, go ahead and give me one shot," Vacca is heard telling her.
The instructor praises the girl for the shot and then tells her, "All right full auto."
As the girl pulled the trigger, and the recoil caused her to lose control of the gun, with Vacca accidentally shot in the head, the Mohave County Sheriff's Office said. Vacca was flown to the University Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, authorities said.
Sam Scarmardo, the gun range operator, was distraught about Vacca's death.
"It's like losing a brother," Scarmardo said. "These aren't employees or associates of ours, these are family. We're all family."
Many gun ranges allow children who are 8 years and older –- with parental supervision –- to shoot firearms, Scarmardo said.
"We instruct kids as young as 5 on .22 rifles, and they don't get to handle high firearms, but they're under the supervision of their parents and of our professional range masters," Scarmardo said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

TREPYE
August 28th, 2014, 02:28 PM
<sighs while SMH> :rolleyes:

treebeard
August 29th, 2014, 10:26 AM
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/hartmann-how-long-texas-changes-open-carry

This should be fun

BBMW
August 29th, 2014, 05:51 PM
You do know that the first gun laws in NYS were put in place to keep blacks from owning guns. There's a long history there.


http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/hartmann-how-long-texas-changes-open-carry

This should be fun

212
September 5th, 2014, 02:17 AM
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/hartmann-how-long-texas-changes-open-carry

Everyone scares the crap out of everyone else, everyone buys more guns, and the gun industry laughs all the way to the bank. NRA mission accomplished.

ZippyTheChimp
September 5th, 2014, 07:43 AM
What in the world are they going to do over at Faux "news" if more images like this one start showing up in the press? They're going to have to choose between the open carry nuts and making people afraid of black people.


You do know that the first gun laws in NYS were put in place to keep blacks from owning guns. There's a long history there.I'm not sure if you intended this factoid to discredit the history of gun control, but I think it highlights something else.

In many of these similar issues - gun rights, Second Amendment, big government - there's a thread that seems to link disparate viewpoints. Maybe racism.

Libertarians and the Far Right are up in arms about IRS abuses. It's a well known fact that black people are lazy, and pay no taxes.

Their response to police abuses is much more muted. Paramilitary tactics are justified to maintain order. Yet to a person "concerned" about the intrusion of government, what better example could their be than police overreach?

Contrast the response of the Right to what happened in Ferguson to what happened with Cliven Bundy in Nevada. Federal officers were threatened with firearms, verbal threats to use them were made publicly. No response. As far as I know, no one was even arrested.

treebeard
September 10th, 2014, 01:34 PM
Bulls-eye Zippy

BBMW
September 14th, 2014, 05:31 PM
Funny how I'm showing how gun control in NYS has it's roots in racism, and you accuse me of being racist.

As far as Ferguson vs the Bundy situation. Ferguson had a running riot, complete with burned out local business, that needed to be put down. I feel local LE acted appropriately. They had to allow the protesters to protest while trying to stop the rioting and destruction of property, when the people involved were likely crossing back and forth between both groups. And I wouldn't have had a problem with the government taking down Bundy an his supporters. There's a cadre out west who thinks the government has no right to control the vast amount of land still owned by the feds. That's at the root of the Bundy incident. I don't subscribe to that.


I'm not sure if you intended this factoid to discredit the history of gun control, but I think it highlights something else.

In many of these similar issues - gun rights, Second Amendment, big government - there's a thread that seems to link disparate viewpoints. Maybe racism.

Libertarians and the Far Right are up in arms about IRS abuses. It's a well known fact that black people are lazy, and pay no taxes.

Their response to police abuses is much more muted. Paramilitary tactics are justified to maintain order. Yet to a person "concerned" about the intrusion of government, what better example could their be than police overreach?

Contrast the response of the Right to what happened in Ferguson to what happened with Cliven Bundy in Nevada. Federal officers were threatened with firearms, verbal threats to use them were made publicly. No response. As far as I know, no one was even arrested.

ZippyTheChimp
September 14th, 2014, 05:55 PM
Oh please, learn the language.

I didn't accuse you of racism. I said this factoid and it. They refer to an object, in this case, the history of gun control.

And I said I didn't know why you chose to bring up the roots of gun control in NYS. Why did you? If it was to show the link to racism, then it's really my side of the argument, isn't it?


And I wouldn't have had a problem with the government taking down Bundy an his supporters. There's a cadre out west who thinks the government has no right to control the vast amount of land still owned by the feds. That's at the root of the Bundy incident. I don't subscribe to that.See above.