Posted on 09/04/2006 11:19:03 PM PDT by neverdem
Editorial Observer
A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: Firearms Banned on These Premises. The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.
Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a concealed carry law, which means that its legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a shall require state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you.
I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a shoot first bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked.
There are some other twists to these laws. A person carrying a concealed weapon cannot be banned from a public building, even if its a library full of kids. Churches have succeeded in keeping guns out of the pews, but theyre having to fight another court battle to keep them out of the parking lot. The application for a concealed-weapon permit appears to have been created by people who believe the real threat in carrying a gun is...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
a social calendar at the range that would be the envy of most social organizations. International silhouette matches, cowboy action shooting, youth firearms training, local law enforcement training, long range shooters, airgun target tournaments. That's just the September lineup.
CASTLE laws means the attacked need not be passive pawns....
Neither NY or CA are gun-free.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Believe me.....California may not be a "shall issue" state, but it is certainly NOT "gun free"..
Semper Fi
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
This guy is working slower than a crackhead with a jonesing.
So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a shall require state.
The author AND his editors are ignoramuses.
The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked.
This man's mental confusion, as evidenced by his following thought "The criminals know theyre not supposed to have them but find them easy to get" is the definition of cultural victimhood.
A person carrying a concealed weapon cannot be banned from a public building, even if its a library full of kids.
Accepting the fact that criminials can get their hands on guns, including nutjobs intent on Dunblane style massacres in libraries full of kids and bunnywabbits, he doesn't believe the parents of the kids should be able to shoot the nutjob befoer the kids are the victims and the parents mourners.
Yet it isnt possible for a member of the public to find out who has received a permit and may, in fact, be packing heat.
This "man" accepts the fact that criminals will know where to find guns illegally, goes on to blame the NRA for criminals acquiring guns, then demands the necessary solution is an internet searchable database of every CCW gun in the state. Maybe he believes "members of the public" and "criminals" are mutually exclusive classifications?
But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. the Democratic Farmer Labor Party and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots.
1. this man equates socially progressive political parties as centralized bureaucracies that keep the citizenry defenseless, and calls this local control. His common sense, as he explicitly states, is a stripping of the individual the right to self defense in the name of the common good. "A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good." Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.
Mr. Lott has proven this oft repeated notion false. John Lott doesn't have a column in the NYTimes, so he actually doesn't exist.
The last three paragraphs are some wild eyed speculation. It's a really sad piece, the "shall require" mistake sets the tone, the ignorant preaching to the dwindling number of adherents to the victimhood cult of the "socially progressive" state.
Conceal carry with "must issue." That sounds like PROGRESS to me. Progressive? Sure.
Yeah, a big democratic sweep in November; not!
Gun control has been a big flop. The liberals are in a fog as they are on every social issue they embrace. Simply it's
do nothing.
The liberal contempt for their bretheren.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
VERLYN KLINKENBORG
The face of generic, uninformed liberal hysteria.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
I would add "smug" to the list of adjectives.
And it works for either pic.
I am smiling right now just thinking of how upset Garrison Keillor must be about this. Bwahahahaha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.