Posted on 09/17/2016 4:59:40 PM PDT by jazusamo
It’s now law. In Missouri, you no longer need a license to carry a firearm in public. They’re the 12th state to adopt such a law known as constitutional carry; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) represents a state with such a law. To those who love freedom and the Second Amendment, it’s a great day for the expansion of constitutional rights. For anti-gun liberals, it’s a day for hysterics, which wasperfectly captured by the editorial board of The New York Times:
The measure has drawn no great national attention, but it certainly provides further evidence that gun safety cannot be left to state lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby. Democrats opposed to the Missouri bill called it a “perfect storm” of lowered standards for the use of deadly force and an invitation for people to be armed without responsible controls. The measure was enacted by the Republicans, despite strong public opposition and warnings about the threat to public safety from the state Police Chiefs Association. Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the groups fighting the gun lobby, noted that stand your ground laws result in disproportionate harm to communities of color.[…]
In the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has called for extensive gun safety measures, including a ban on the assault weapons favored by mass shooters, closing background-check loopholes, ending the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits and denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists. Donald Trump, endorsed by the National Rifle Association, favors more armed civilians ready to engage in what he calls a defensive “shootout.” This is one of the most pathetic measures yet of his pandering, when he should be leading, on an issue of vital importance to the public.
First, if there’s any measure endorsed by Everytown, it’s bad—and pro-gun rights advocates should pour everything they got into defeating whatever policy proposal that Everytown leeches itself onto in the future. Second, it’s the same old story with these people. An expansion of gun rights would lead to more gun deaths. Nope. That’s just not the case. Gun homicides have gone down precipitously since 1993. In fact, they’ve been cut in half. Violent crime is still down, safe for a few pockets in urban areas that are run by Democrats.
Support for gun rights has reached a 25-year high, more than 100 million have been sold since Obama took the oath of office, there are a record number of Americans carrying concealed carry permits. Yet, America is not a shooting gallery. Anti-gun liberals certainly want that since dead people increase media attention, email lists, and fill their war chests, but somehow we on the Right always beat them—and beat them badly. Moreover, the Times’ notion that gun owners are somehow more inclined to shoot people is baseless, irresponsible, and totally in keeping with smug left wing attitudes of urban-based elites. That’s fine. Again, just take comfort that our side is winning, whereas their side can’t get anything passed because all of their ideas are terrible. At the same time, at the local level, we need to make sure their anti-gun proposals don’t spread to other parts of the country. Looking at you, Hawaii.
Oh, and Vermont is a deep-blue state, with constitutional carry and a population where 70-75 percent of its residents own guns. I don't hear any tales of mass bloodshed from there.
The 2nd Amendment pretty well covered that "reasonable controls" thing - there are none. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
The 2nd Amendment properly enforced would make every state a Constitutional carry state.
The infringements in some states are downright totalitarian.
We need MORE regulatory decapture.
Such as ceasing to require licenses to be in business or manufacture.
So NYT thinks that state legislatures should be forbidden from passing laws, that manufacturers should be sued when their products work, and that the unConsititional no fly list should become the unConstititutional can not bear arms list.
Lampposts for them, please
Good. Let’s see them refuse to do business in Missouri.
It’d be great to have more and more businesses like this refuse to pollute states with their effluent.
“Lampposts for them, please”
Bump!
I can remember the same establishment media twenty or thirty years ago screaming this same sort of nonsense back when places like Florida and Texas made it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain conceal carry permits. Apparently, Florida was going to be known as the “Gunshine State” and people were going to engage in shoot ‘em ups following fender benders or even supermarket check out line incidents.
Donald Trump is right to call out these people, including Maureen Dowd, for who they really are big time.
See, this is what liberals really think of states. They would love to have everything dictated from Washington.
A whole host of really, really bad ideas.
"gun safety measures" - please point to any documented cases where so-called "gun control laws" have actually reduced crime. I'll save you (any lib lurkers out there) some time, don't bother looking, there aren't any. Nada, zip, zero. Gun control laws merely disarm the law abiding and embolden criminals. They *always* result in increases in crime rates. This is obvious without even having to try it, but numerous places have tried it and learned the hard way.
"ban on the assault weapons" - we tried that, for 10 years from 1994 to 2004 (thanks to another Clinton). Guess what, by actual test (as in, we tried it) it made no statistically attributable difference in crime rates. None. Again, this is obvious. So-called "assault weapons" are used in a shockingly low percentage of crimes. Sure, a few isolated cases get massive coverage. But overall, you are quite literally far, far more likely to be bludgeoned to death by a hammer, club, or similar blunt instrument than you are to be shot by an "assault weapon." The odds are so far down there it literally is not worth talking about... Unless your agenda is complete disarmament of civilians, then it is a stepping stone.
"closing background-check loopholes" - ah yes, that old chestnut. The "gun show loophole" by chance? Doesn't exist. SMH. All the so-called "universal background check" laws and proposals are fundamentally, irreparably flawed: they assume criminals will obey these laws while demonstrably being willing to break dozens of others. The idiocy behind such thinking is breathtaking.
"the gun industry’s outrageous protection from civil damage suits" - is in fact no different than the protections afforded many other industries. Why not punish the maker of the car the criminal drives to commit the crime? The maker of his shoes he wore while running making his escape? The fast food place he ate at that gave him the energy to commit the crime... The list goes on and on. Here's an idea, how about placing the blame for the crime squarely on the criminal that commits it?
"denying guns to risky suspects on the government’s no-fly lists" - ah but then that pesky thing called the Bill of Rights gets in the way. Can't easily take away someone's Constitutionally protected rights without due process. Sorry, but the shady and provably suspect no-fly list falls far short of any legal standard for such action.
Hillary Clinton is a power-mad big government socialist/fascist that wants everyone but people under her control to be disarmed. She is exactly the kind of person the Founding Fathers had in mind when they penned the protections in the Bill of Rights.
NYT liberal morons apparently can’t connect the dots.
Hillary is losing in part because of her anti-2nd Amendment position.
It sucks in states like NV, CO, WI, MI, PA and FL where guns are a big part of the culture.
But they still push gun control. Good luck with it.
Don’t forget AZ.
I am in Mo, and I’ve had a CCW since its inception. The NYT just can’t handle a state doing anything without big brother, and to be honest, the entire staff of the Times can write everything they know about firearms on a matchbook cover in capital letters. In other words, STFU. We honestly don’t give a damn what you think.
It's a beautiful thing, to see liberal heads explode.
Actually Chicago has a gun culture too.
Punch Sulzberger needs to go up to Wayne LaPierre and kick him in the shins, if he wants to put teeth in his belief.
Otherwise, STFU, New York Times. You’re as audible as an Alka Selzter in a typhoon.
Uh, that’s Pinch Sulzberger. My bad.
;^)
don’t forget Texas!
The New York Times opinion piece has an interesting comment regarding Missouri Governor Jay Nixon: “Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in June, saying it would allow individuals with a criminal record to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they had been, or would have been, denied a permit under the old law’s background check.”
Apparently, our governor is so stupid/naive that he believes that felons (those who are prohibited from possessing a gun by both federal and state law) had no choice prior to the new laws passage than to sign up for a concealed carry class, pay $100 or so for the class, spend 8 hours in the classroom and then trot on down to the Sheriff’s office, plop down their $50 for a permit and then be thwarted by the Sheriff’s background check. I guess it never occurred to him that convicted felons aren’t really all that concerned about following the law. It escapes his mental grasp that felons would probably just buy a gun on the street (bypassing a background check) and will just carry that gun without a permit . . . get this . . . without applying for a permit. No, he never saw that one coming. But, boy, by golly, now that Missouri passed this law felons will be able to carry guns (Guns they’re prohibited from possessing) without giving the Sheriff an opportunity to deny their permit.
Genuis, I tell you. Gov. Nixon is a freaking genius.
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.