M14 Forum

Sweets · December 30th, 2011, 01:32 PM

Survivalblog has a link to this New York Times article, in which they really surpass themselves; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us...ands.html?_r=3

As JWR recommends, the readers' comments are worth looking at but one links to the National Review Online and they sum it up best IMO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ert-verbruggen

Chromebolt · January 1st, 2012, 05:50 AM

I read several pages of comments. the only ones supporting the article were from Chicago and NY. Go figure.

nSquid · January 1st, 2012, 06:52 AM

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

One could believe that copy writers get as frustrated as anyone else, standing on the cusp of a tool to reach the masses yet unable to further their own personal agendas. So they get creative and push out pulp like this article.

Now, if the bike rider and his wife had also been CC permit holders and carrying at the time of the incident one must wonder how that unknown copy writer would have spun the encounter. My guess is it would never have seen print.

Gus Fisher · January 1st, 2012, 05:58 PM

After reading the article and comments, I'm not at all surprised the NY Times did such a blatant hatchet job with the facts to support their Anti-FREEDOM position.

The only thing of merit I found, and because the Times reported it I do NOT believe it without supporting evidence, is what happens to someone who commits a felony and does not get his/her concealed carry permit taken away. The TIMES basically stated the concealed weapons permit is not taken away. Folks, that may be the most TRULY nefarious part of the article.

When someone is convicted of a crime where the punishment CAN be one year in jail or more, they may and usually are not legally allowed to even POSSESS a gun. Most felonies are in that category. So by FEDERAL Gun Control Law, the CCW permit doesn't mean anything because the person then can no longer even possess a gun, legally.

Now, I do believe that those who control the issue of CCW permits SHOULD also have in their authority and budget, a way to cross check felonies after the CCW permit is granted. If the person with a CCW permit commits such a felony, local law enforcement HAD BETTER be notified for their safety and of course the permit should be revoked.

GARRARD · January 1st, 2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

My guess is it would never have seen print.

Only in the Armed Citizen section of The American Rifleman.

LemmyCaution · January 2nd, 2012, 04:44 AM

The story hinges around this paragraph:

Quote:

In the end, most researchers say the scattershot results are not unexpected, because the laws, in all likelihood, have not significantly increased the number of people carrying concealed weapons among those most likely to commit crimes or to be victimized

None of the cases cited effectively argue for more conservative permitting standards, and neither do the available violent crime statistics.

The only thing the article manages to argue somewhat convincingly is that the laws we already have are not being effectively enforced. For example, the several cases cited where men who had assaulted their wives remained out of prison and uncastrated. Or the suicidal alcoholics who were not involuntarily committed.

Given that Vermont has the nation's most liberal gun laws, and also one of the lowest violent crime rates, my opinion is that the violent crimes committed by NC's permit holders stems less from the availability of firearms and more from the culture of NC residents to resort to offensive violence to work out their social problems.

CAVman · January 2nd, 2012, 05:11 AM

Wyoming changed to Permit-less Concealed Carry Similar To Vermont last year...

Nothing to see here, folks...move on...

http://trib.com/news/local/govt-and-...fd9756552.html

CAVman in WYoming

Coffindancer · January 2nd, 2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.

So they admit to professional negligence. I wonder if they could be sued.

Quote:

Among them was Bobby Ray Bordeaux Jr., who had a concealed handgun permit despite a history of alcoholism, major depression and suicide attempts.

So by implication, someone deemed an alcoholic, or suffering from depression, should be stripped of a constitutional right, on that basis alone. The list of disqualifying conditions is very long, including, as of late, veterans with PTSD. I have a better idea. Since there is no constitutional right to vote in presidential elections, it would be less of an infringement to apply that standard in this regard. Disqualifying alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill should remove a giant segment of the Democrat voter base.

Quote:

More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.

Very creative writing, seeing as a weapon could be anything other than one's own physical body. How many used a gun?

Quote:

In addition, nearly 900 permit holders were convicted of drunken driving, a potentially volatile circumstance given the link between drinking and violence.

Driving is obviously secondary. The link between drinking and violence is the obvious concern. Therefor, by implication, gun owners should not be allowed to drink. This argument is really getting weak now. Evidently, owning a gun legally is the only disqualifying factor, for Democrat's unending love and support of criminals. Rapists, murderers, and cop killers, can apparently all be "rehabilitated," as long as they didn't have a carry permit when they went on their murderous rampages.

Quote:

Bobby Ray Bordeaux had obtained a concealed carry permit in 2004 and used to take a handgun everywhere. He was also an alcoholic and heavy user of marijuana with a long history of depression, according to court records. He had been hospitalized repeatedly for episodes related to his drinking, including about a year before, when he shot himself in the chest with a pistol while drunk in an apparent suicide attempt. Mr. Bordeaux, then 48, started drinking heavily at age 13. He had been taking medication for depression but had not taken it the day of the shooting, he later told the police. He also said he had 15 beers and smoked marijuana that night and claimed to have no memory of what occurred. He was eventually convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.

If he had only not obtained a permit, the liberals would have told this same sad tale, and explained why it wasn't his fault, and that he never had a fair chance at life. If you want undying sympathy from Democrats for abusing drugs alcohol, being a violent criminal, and in general, a total loser, just shoot people WITHOUT getting a permit.

If I had the energy, I would find some examples of the thousands of stories, written by the NYT, intended to pull the heart strings of readers, regarding the poor, poor, pitiful, violent criminals, driven to that course in life by the evils of society, and how sad it is that they had no other options, and have tried so hard, just to have a normal life. And how difficult it is to do right, when the mean old government makes them face consequences for their actions, and they just want to move on.

Sadly, there are probably tons of people who read this, and bought right into the BS the Times wanted them to. However, for anyone paying attention, it is really quite obvious, that the Times in particular, and liberals in general, could care less about violent crime, and what contributes to making society more or less safe. They know that laws won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and using them to commit violent acts, and frankly, they don't care. What they do care about, is that law abiding citizens can obtain guns, and permits to carry them, and because that is an individual right, it must be fought. Liberals don't like individual liberties, and they don't like freedom. Therefor, they will always fight against the second amendment, and gun rights at large. And knowing full well that a majority of their readers are incapable of using logic and reason, they can readily do their part to demonize gun owners, and gun rights, through blatantly disingenuous articles like this.

nSquid · January 2nd, 2012, 02:17 PM

Coffindancer:

Mellow, please mellow. I deal with manic/depression. I rode submarines so maybe I've got some as-yet unrecognized PTSD. Iowa just opened the statute on CC, but even the raunchiest parts of Iowa have less crime than most upscale parts of America. I've decided against getting my Iowa CC permit, unless a possible job comes through in Oregon, then I will get it here and transfer. More goofies, greenies, hippies and dipsh!ts in Oregon than Iowa.

But really: this is just a case of so many conflicting laws on the books and even with computers supposedly tracking everything too many civil servants are just slugs hauling in a paycheck at the taxpayers expense. Spousal abuse is supposed to be treated like a felony, resulting in life-long loss of firearms rights, but often it does not.

Real criminals don't worry about CC permits, terminated driving priveledges, driving drunk, stealing, mugging, rape, murder... The list goes on and on.

So please chill, just for me. Don't jack your blood pressure up over the liberal press. When the Collapse comes they will be the FIRST people blaming gun owners for making them not want to own a gun, a gun they very much need when the police state they were living in is gone.

Even Dan Rather had a gun in his house... Food for thought.

GARRARD · January 2nd, 2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nSquid

Even Dan Rather had a gun in his house... Food for thought.

No... No... That's not true... That's impossible!

Coffindancer · January 2nd, 2012, 02:45 PM

nSquid - I promise to take deep breaths and count to ten before making further posts. Maybe I'll even try to make that my new year's resolution. My blood pressure has now returned to normal.

Gus Fisher · January 3rd, 2012, 10:07 AM

Coffindancer,

I TOTALLY understand your concern about vets who have PTSD possibly being denied their 2nd Amendent Rights when there is not just cause. I have actually written hard copy letters to my Congress Critters about that and believe you me, they look at each hard copy letter as representing about 100 or more of their constituents. I made the point in each letter that since Doctors disagree about so many things, especislly in psychiatry, it should only be denied by a court order proving the person unfit.

However, it doesn't help when Liberal PUKES won't report anti social conduct as in the case of the Mass Murderer at Virginia Tech OR better still, actually PRESS CHARGES against them. I was enraged that the teacher who decided NOT to report Cho's anti social behaviour was the same woman who did the speech at the "Healing Ceremony" they held. But that wasn't the first case we ran into that kind of crap with VA Tech officials.

Just a few years earlier, VA Tech officials were sweeping date rape by their atheletes under the rug and even told victims there was really nothing they could do about it. So it came as no surprise to me how badly they handled Cho. With a background like Cho had, there is no way he should ever have been allowed to buy firearms and he SHOULD have been arrested numerous times BEFORE he ever did the mass murders.

Surprisingly there is a good article on it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-pet...e_b_46327.html

Grumbler · January 3rd, 2012, 01:44 PM

You read the Huffington Post? You will need to wash your brain with soap and water after that episode.

Coffindancer · January 3rd, 2012, 03:50 PM

Thanks Mr. Fisher. A common behavior seems to be not enforcing laws already on the books, and then using the results of that to justify passing new laws. It is really ridiculous. Without any serious knowledge, and relying only on my opinion, I think it is very insulting and unjust to try to prevent veterans from owning weapons. That shows me how low they will stoop to achieve their goals. Combat veterans ought to be treated like rock stars everywhere they go, and have politicians trying to help them out instead of screwing them over. But obviously, some don't think as highly of combat veterans as I do.

Gus Fisher · January 3rd, 2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grumbler

You read the Huffington Post? You will need to wash your brain with soap and water after that episode.

Only read the Huffington Post because that is what is on AOL now and I don't read many articles. I found that link when searching for some other info on Cho and VA Tech. Please note I said it was a surprisingly good article.