How many senators does it take to screw in a light bulb? Of course the answer is 60 — and thank god for that. The Senate narrowly rejected an ammendment (which has to be approved by 60 votes — not a majority of 50+) attached to the new defense bill which would have allowed people to travel between states with concealed weapons, no matter the laws in the states to which they are traveling. In other words, anyone who has a gun permit, which is about as easy to get these days as a driver’s license in some places, could legally carry their hidden firearm on the streets of your home town, no matter what your local laws dictate.
My home town happens to be New York City, and I am so grateful to the two dissenting Republican Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio, because while its one thing to have a gun in your house, it is entirely different to bring it out with you at night. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A BAR?!?!? There are so many morons out there (see below)… adding weapons to idiocy is never smart.
400 big city mayors, who came together to form Mayors Against Illegal Guns, agreed with me, including my own, Dictator Bloomberg, and sent a letter to the Senate pleading with them to come to their goddamn senses not to pass the bill. While this is clearly a case of the Federal Government imposing itself on State’s Rights, which is like, the main platform for conservatives these days, it was of course a Republican sponsored and supported bill.
The debate forced senators to wrestle with issues of states rights, sometimes in ways that seemed to clash with the general philosophies of their parties. Many Republicans, who typically favor limiting the ability of the federal government to dictate to states on social issues, voted in this case to limit the ability of states to insist on their own rules for concealed weapons carried by people from other states.
That said, however, 20 democrats also voted for the bill (NOT including my new Senator, Kristen Gillibrand, who was previously considered gun friendly but voted with her brain this time around). Why do people think this is a good idea? I know the argument – 
– but it doesn’t sit well with me. Is the good of the one really more important than the good of the many? Do we really live in a state of such fear that we generally feel a need to arm ourselves at all times? Maybe if we fixed the broken things in this country — health care, the economy, the middle-class — crime wouldn’t consume our streets. Is adding weapons really the answer to the problem?
#1 by professorx619 - July 30th, 2009 at 02:19
I dont know if you saw Glen Beck’s take on this, it went something like:
“I took my gun to the movies.. and guess what? I didn’t shoot anyone!”
I don’t understand how people can throw around those arguments like “well, I go to banks and not rob them, so why can’t there be laws for letting people walk into banks with ski masks on?” We’re not saying YOU are going to shoot anyone, but there are people who will .. and those are the ones we need to protect against!
#2 by thatgrrl - July 31st, 2009 at 18:44
Quite the tattoo. I wonder if he ever blows himself away with it.
#3 by -dan z- - September 6th, 2009 at 12:52
From the page: “could legally carry their hidden firearm on the streets of your home town, no matter what your local laws dictate.” This article is based on misinformation and falsehoods. For example, the quote here is false. The law required that a licensee from a different state must adhere to the laws of whatever state he is in. For his specific fear, NYS law forbids NY CCW licensees to carry in NYC.
This writer also blithely ignores the fact that CCW license holders are the good guys - they have no criminal records, no domestic violence complaints, and have passed full background checks. In fact CCW holders have been proven to be much more law abiding in all ways than the general public.
The general public is:
* 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses than CCW permit holders.
* 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than CCW permit holders.”
(from concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf [concealedcampus.org] )
It would have been so much better if the author had looked up a few facts instead of going with his feelings.
#4 by -dan z- - September 7th, 2009 at 10:08
professorx619 commented “We’re not saying YOU are going to shoot anyone, but there are people who will .. and those are the ones we need to protect against!”
Well, prof, there are people who will kill you with hatchets, baseball bats, shoes, fists, rocks, etc, etc. Are you going to call for bans on them? Maybe you would prefer the results of the island (no US borders) of Jamaica, where firearms are totally banned, but the murder rate is the highest in the world. Evil people will find a way to do evil, regardless of the non-availability of any specific tool.
On the other hand, over the last couple of decades the number of firearms in the U.S. has grown by 10’s of millions (per BATF). During the last couple of decades, 40 states have passed legislation allowing any law-abiding person to carry a concealed firearm. And over the last couple of decades, the violent crime rates in the United States have dropped drastically (per U.S. Dept. of Justice, FBI).
Perhaps the tool is not the problem. Perhaps letting the good guys have the tool scares the evil guys. At the very least, several studies (the latest from the FBI) have shown that no gun control law has reduced violent crime rates.
So, what is the purpose of a law whose only effect is to reduce freedom? Or maybe that is the purpose, and the supposed anti-crime benefits are simply propaganda?