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.
where the "men" wear panties, and the women are insulted by insinuations of gender..
Johannes Wahlström, Bump!
Good to see someone speak out with the truth.
Yeah!!!
I would say there is a better than even chance you are right. 😀😀😄😎 Would you say the chump is as bright as a firefly in a sunlit sky, or as sharp as the leading edge of a bowling 🎳 ball?
A constitutional open carry state?
Or a constitutional carry it however you choose state?
The reality of the constitution is that the federal gov’t allows guns. The states enforce it as deemed by the legal citizens of that state.
Personally, I believe in a constitutional concealed carry, much for the same reason I turn the lights off in my house at night. So criminals really don’t know what’s out there.
There is no use in telegraphing that you (the open carry gun owner) are the first target during a crime, because you are the bigger threat (easily identified by the hog leg stuck on your belt) to the success of that crime.
The infringements in some states are downright totalitarian.
_______________________________
And those infringements are exactly what the Communists at the NYT want, in order to render the entire population totally subservient to a corrupt, tyrannical government.
They can take their “responsible comtrols” and sit on them and rotate.
Thugs are not cultured. So Chicago is a gangster hideout, not a culture.
Interesting. Vermont requires no permit for concealed carry. Has gun crime by law-abiding citizens gone through the roof in Vermont compared to other states because of that, or does the NY Slimes simply believe that Missouri is particularly prone to a sudden bout of gun violence by law-abiding citizens due to some inherent defect in Missourians that’s not present in Vermonters?
Subculture. (idiots)
Dumb Thugs.
But they'll never allow themselves, even in the dark of night, curled-up beneath the covers of their beds, to honestly answer the question "Why is that?".
It could not be clearer.
I once got into an argument, on air, with an Ottawa radio broadcaster who is very anti-gun.
I don't really care what Canadians say, this is a fundamental right. The Founders knew what they were doing.
Bookmark
Later
FYI, the law goes into effect on 1 Jan 2017, until, then, CC license required....
FYI, the law goes into effect on 1 Jan 2017, until then, CC license required....
The circulation of the Old Gray whore should be restricted to Manhattan.
The federal restriction must be written into law because the state is far to lenient
In law, the words “may” and “shall” have a very definite meaning. Imagine for a second how the NY SLIMES and the left would treat it if hypothetically the founders put in a right to abortion with “shall not be infringed”. Do you think they would claim it doesn’t mean what is says?
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.