Interesting Wisconsin newspaper opinion column on concealed carry ...

[spin]

Concealed Carry First Step Toward Obeying Constitution?

Wisconsin joins 48 other states by allowing concealed carry of weapons come November, a law some believe is just the first move closer to granting Second Amendment rights.
By Rik Kluessendorf July 25, 2011

***snip**

Fortunately, the country has a guiding principal that makes the entire policy debate a moot point. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

From a legalistic standpoint, there is a very powerful word in that sentence. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be "infringed." This is different than our rights to free speech or the press, which shall not be "abridged" by Congress. To infringe is to limit, undermine or encroach upon. To abridge is to reduce in extent or quantity.

So, your right to speak may be limited, so long as the limit doesn't affect the extent or quantity of speech. In other words, the government can make it illegal to yell "bomb" on a plane, so long as the government doesn't simply ban the word "bomb" altogether.

According to the Constitution, however, your right to keep and bear arms may not be limited — although your right to use them may be.
http://wauwatosa.patch.com/articles/concealed-carry-first-step-toward-obeying-constitution

The article contains a quick overview of concealed carry in the United States and its mixed results.

[SteveM]

1. Good find. I often wondered about the distinction, evidently with a difference.

As to "mixed results," I'm not sure that the main motivation for concealed-carry was or is social policy; that is, a policy which affects society and its conditions. The primary purpose, as I see it, for concealed-carry is self-defense, an eminently personal reason. So unless one takes a policy approach, concealed-carry and its mixed results have no relevance one way or another. Until someone can come up with a suitable statistical model to measure social outcomes resulting from some sort of policy, the policy/social outcome argument remains in the fog of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. The trouble with the "social harm" school of objecting to concealed-carry is...

...that the objectors are basically asking that others be forced to practice their theory of social cohesion, since it is no

longer a plausible argument that concealed-carry increases crime rates.


I see a similar mechanism at work in the local debate over public schools: Are people with school-aged children obliged to stay

in Boston and fight for a quality education, or should they feel free to move to the burbs?


Many that advocate for public schools have their little snowflakes in private schools.

[SteveM]

6. I believe that behind the arguments of ...

"lowering crime," "preventing childhood gun-accidents," "wild west shootouts," etc. used by the gun-controller/banner is the desire to pass laws which would somehow change people's values, social outlooks, beliefs, ways of acting, perhaps their very souls. And firearms seems to be the golden fleece representing all that. I further think that many controller/banners have a cockeyed notion of self-defense, citing often MLK and Gandhi when both delineated clearly between self-defense on the one hand and a non-violent political strategy and way of life on the other.

[iverglas]

9. equivocate much?

The trouble with the "social harm" school of objecting to concealed-carry is...
...that the objectors are basically asking that others be forced to practice their theory of social cohesion, since it is no longer a plausible argument that concealed-carry increases crime rates.

When did "social cohesion" and "no increase in crime rates" become an identical set?

I won't necessarily adopt this little summary in its entirety, but it will do for our purposes (with my emphasis):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cohesion

According to the {UK} government-commissioned, State of the English Cities thematic reports, there are five different dimensions of social cohesion: material conditions, passive relationships, active relationships, inclusion and equality.

* The report shows that material conditions are fundamental to social cohesion, particularly employment, income, health, education and housing. Relations between and within communities suffer when people lack work and endure hardship, debt, anxiety, low self-esteem, ill-health, poor skills and bad living conditions. These basic necessities of life are the foundations of a strong social fabric and important indicators of social progress.

* The second basic tenet of cohesion is social order, safety and freedom from fear, or "passive social relationships". Tolerance and respect for other people, along with peace and security, are hallmarks of a stable and harmonious urban society.

* The third dimension refers to the positive interactions, exchanges and networks between individuals and communities, or "active social relationships". Such contacts and connections are potential resources for places since they offer people and organisations mutual support, information, trust and credit of various kinds.

* The fourth dimension is about the extent of social inclusion or integration of people into the mainstream institutions of civil society. It also includes people's sense of belonging to a city and the strength of shared experiences, identities and values between those from different backgrounds.

* Lastly, social equality refers to the level of fairness or disparity in access to opportunities or material circumstances, such as income, health or quality of life, or in future life chances.

(My emphasis relates to the issue under discussion here; I consider the fourth and fifth dimensions identified to be essential pre-requisites to social cohesion: inclusion and equality.)

Crime rates are relevant in assessing achievement of the second dimension. They are not identical sets.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. "Protecting social cohesion" *without* an increased crime rate to point at amounts to...

...criminalizing 'transgressive' behavior. And it has led to such idiocies as:

Anti-crossdressing laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagging_(fashion)#Reaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rave#United_Kingdom

...The illegal free party scene also reached its zenith for that time after a particularly large festival, when many individual sound systems such as Bedlam, Circus Warp, DIY, and Spiral Tribe set up near Castlemorton Common. In May 1992, the government acted. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the definition of music played at a rave was given as:

"music" includes sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.
–Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994<10>

Sections 63, 64 & 65 of the Act targeted electronic dance music played at raves. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act empowered police to stop a rave in the open air when a hundred or more people are attending, or where two or more are making preparations for a rave. Section 65 allows any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a five-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area; non-compliant citizens may be subject to a maximum fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (£1000). The Act was officially introduced because of the noise and disruption caused by all night parties to nearby residents, and to protect the countryside. However, it has also been claimed that it was introduced to kill a popular youth movement that was taking many drinkers out of town centres, where they would drink taxable alcohol, and into fields to take untaxed recreational drugs.. In November 1994, the Zippies staged an act of electronic civil disobedience to protest against the CJB....

The specific definition of the prohibited music in the last bit is telling. This is social engineering, not crime control.

[iverglas]

15. do you have any regard for sincerity and candour in discourse?

"Protecting social cohesion" *without* an increased crime rate to point at amounts to...
...criminalizing 'transgressive' behavior. And it has led to such idiocies as:

"Protecting social cohesion" is not EQUAL to criminalizing ANYTHING, so there's a big round zero for you.

The Act was officially introduced because of the noise and disruption caused by all night parties to nearby residents, and to protect the countryside. However, it has also been claimed that it was introduced to kill a popular youth movement that was taking many drinkers out of town centres, where they would drink taxable alcohol, and into fields to take untaxed recreational drugs..

Snork. You're expecting me to take loonitarian loonassy seriously?

Your ".." at the end of that excerpt covers an interesting sin: "<citation needed>".

You did note, re your source:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since July 2008.
It may require cleaning up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since April 2008.

The UK is home to many famous music festivals held in the open air; "sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats" would tend to distinguish them from the disruptive events in question.

I'm not particularly defending this legislation or its application, I just expect a little better argument against the actual concept of social cohesion and efforts to enhance it. Or are you opposed to social inclusion, social equality, public safety ...?




omission fixed

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. The *claim* of "protecting social cohesion" is too nebulous to be a metric for restrictions....

on something, barring demonstrable harm caused by the practice. It sounds perilously close to Robert Bork's theory of "moral harm"

encoded into law.



The old anti-crossdressing and any current anti-'sagging' laws serve only to protect against what a certain segment perceive as

wrong, as the sight of some kid's ass-crack (or some guy in a sundress) may offend certain sensibilities but do not

harm society as a whole



This was discussed recently in GD:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1348316#1348569


Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf



I am amused at how people on my side are painted as either raving libertarians or thralls of the decidedly unlibertarian

Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. *Both* have been implied about me recently.


Can't you lot make up your minds? It reminds me of how Trotsky was simultaneously a Left Deviationist and a Fascist

agent...

[iverglas]

29. I don't even know where you dragged this "claim" into the discussions from

I just object to your misrepresentations of the concept.


The old anti-crossdressing and any current anti-'sagging' laws serve only to protect against what a certain segment perceive as wrong, as the sight of some kid's ass-crack (or some guy in a sundress) may offend certain sensibilities but do not harm society as a whole

Why would you try to represent right-wing assholery as having anything to do with social cohesion?

Do you imagine that I have any duty to respond to crap like this? I don't. So you may as well give up this vain attempt to pretend that right-wing assholery is even a distant cousin of anything being discussed here.

Even if the proponents of such measures SAID the goal was to promote social cohesion, it would be no never mind of mine.



It's been years now since I first asked this: why can you not format your posts in the normal way as everyone else does? Not double-spaced with hard returns at the end of every line. There's no reason to do it that way, and there are good reasons not to do it that way. I'm not proposing that you be executed at dawn for this annoying practice, I'm just expecting you to be responsible in your exercise of your freedom to type.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. The right-wing assholes are making a specious claim about protecting society.

They can't point at any concrete reason for banning what they want to ban, so they fall back on some bullshit 'moral'
argument.

"Protecting" or "promoting" "social cohesion" as a rationale is the same shit in a differently-labled bag.

As an aside, I'd still like to know how I have managed to (supposedly) push a Libertarian line while at the very same time promoting the crypto-Falangists that lately occupy the Republican party...

[spin]

4. I personally feel that those who expect concealed carry to be a solution to the crime problem ...

presume too much.


Many people who carry concealed practice something called situational awareness. They do not walk around with a cell phone glued to their ear and are somewhat watchful and alert to their surroundings. Street predators are looking for easy targets and may decide to overlook an alert person and wait for a better victim to surprise.

The Situational Awareness Mindset

It is a common strategy that the street predator will look for targets that are totally
unaware of their surroundings.

The tactic of the “ambush” or the “sucker punch” is what the street predator relies upon
and uses to his full advantage. People who are unaware of their surroundings are prime
candidates (victims) for this street strategy. If the street predator can catch you by
surprise, then it allows him to strike first. Face it, on the street the first person to strike a
good stopping blow, will usually,, not always, but in most cases, win the fight.

***snip***

Just like the army in time of war, you have to be aware of your surroundings at all times.
By having this awareness mindset, you will have the insight, knowledge, and time to
recognize what is going on around you, and thus have time to deal with any potential
problem more effectively.
Through the

Through the awareness mindset, you have taken the advantage of the sucker punch,
which is the primary tactics of most attackers, from the street predator. By being aware
of what is going on around you, two clear messages are being sent to a potential street
predator who may be out hunting:
1) I recognize you are there. Because of this fact, their primary tactic of “surprise”
is defeated, and
2) To beat me is going to cost you physically because I’m no easy target.
http://www.personalprotectionsystems.ca/articles/the_situational_awareness.pdf

If anything, the fact that street criminals are aware that their victims might be armed may well cause them to be more selective at picking their victims. They may still attack the same number of people.

Also, it is necessary to realize that a person with a carry permit is neither a cop or a vigilante. Most people who legally carry avoid dangerous areas as they are not looking for trouble. They are not paid to combat crime and have no little desire to do so.

The biggest benefit of licensed concealed carry is probably that often people can stop a violent attack with their weapon and frequently they do not even have to fire a shot. Of course, carrying a firearm is not a guarantee that an individual will survive an attack unharmed. In experienced hands, a firearm can be a force equalizer.

You may live in an area with a high crime rate and passing a concealed carry law may have no effect statistically. However if you have the permit, have the firearm with you and have the skill and training to use it -- you may be able to stop a violent attack. I'm sure those who have successfully used a firearm in such situations are damn glad their state passed the law that allowed them to carry.

[SteveM]

5. "...street criminals are aware..." seems to be at the heart of the matter...

"If anything, the fact that street criminals are aware that their victims might be armed may well cause them to be more selective at picking their victims. They may still attack the same number of people."

That seems to be the problem. Eventually, some kind of research model may be developed to measure the deterrent value of concealed-carry, but it has to rely on criminals' perceptions, as to the likeliness of encountering armed resistance. I don't know how that can be ascertained. That thugs may change their perceptions for another set of perceptions -- and attack more desirable targets -- is a complicating problem.

I think the police practice of keeping tabs of violent crims and thugs (following the oil slick of the Bismark) when they are released can concentrate resources, not so much on preventing additional offenses, but on keeping da thug behind bars much longer; hence, out society. This can result, and I think has resulted in lower violent crime rates.

[iverglas]

16. "Eventually, some kind of research model may be developed ...

... to measure the deterrent value of concealed-carry, but it has to rely on criminals' perceptions, as to the likeliness of encountering armed resistance.

But meanwhile, we'll just take y'all's word for it!

:rofl:

[SteveM]

41. Don't have to. CCW is for self-defense.

[spin]

18. Imagine that you supplemented your living or your drug habit by mugging people ...

Imagine yourself as a tough young thug with a history of violence. Perhaps you are high or drunk.

You pick your target as you are watching people walking down the street. You decide on the well dressed middle aged man who appears to be fairly wealthy and may well be a businessman.

Not only are you in far better shape than he is, but you are carrying a weapon, either a knife or a handgun. You approach, pull your weapon and in a very threatening manner tell him to give up his money or you will kill him.

He pulls a .40 caliber Glock from under his suit jacket. The hole in the barrel of his weapon looks enormous and he looks like he knows what he is doing.

You run.

You decide that in the future you will do things differently and you consider several different choices.

1) You will take up a different line of crime as the fucking NRA has armed far to many people and your workplace environment on the street now sucks.

2) You will be more careful in who you target. One of your buds tell you to watch out for those people who see you approaching and are unafraid to make eye contact. Such people may either have martial arts training or are often packing heat or both.

3) You will apply for a job at a fast food joint.

Now let's suppose that you are not a young thug but a more professional and experienced criminal. You have noticed that the bouncer from the local strip joint or bar takes the night's profits in a bag to an overnight depository at local bank. As he is walking down the street, you and two of your friends pull up in two cars. You all get out with guns drawn both in front and in back of him and politely ask him for the bag. He considers his options and realizes that you only want the money and have no intentions of killing or hurting him. He gives you the money even though he is also carrying.

I agree that the solution to crime on the streets is better policing and better surveillance. Cameras and the concentration of police resources will reduce crime far more than concealed carry.

However, there are currently still valid reasons for a civilian who has the training, skill and mindset to carry a legally concealed firearm. While the likelihood of being attacked are extremely slim, it does happen. If you have the license it is far better to have your weapon with you if you ever are attacked by someone who may seriously hurt or kill you than to have left you gun behind in the gun safe.

[iverglas]

22. imagine that you are a person who carefully weighs

the risks and consequences of your actions and makes decisions based on rational analysis of all the factors involved and the likely outcomes of what you choose to do -- both before undertaking your mugging activity and after the person you are pointing a gun at points theirs at you.

Now imagine that you are a drug addict.

(a) you don't try to mug anybody because the risks are too high
(b) you run when you see the opposing gun

:rofl:

Your drug addicts down there are a whole lot smarter and less addled than the ones we have up here!

At least the ones we have up here aren't carrying guns.

[spin]

34. You might be right ...

it is quite possible that our drug addicts are smarter and less addled than yours.

[SteveM]

42. About cameras...

These have started popping up in some crime areas in N. Austin; 360-degree, joy-stick-operated. First time operating, they recorded several drug transactions between people who didn't give a damn about the cameras. They may do some good, but as one officer said: Trouble is, the criminals will just set up somewhere else.

About 15 years ago, some blowholes rented a house a block from where I live. My neighborhood is filled with neatly-kept post-WWII carpenter-built homes where the land is more valuable than the structure ($400K per standard lot), so we found it peculiar that a group of loud music-playing turds, parking on the lawn, letting a pit bull run free, traffic in & out at all hours, chose our area. Whenever I walked by their house, I stopped at looked at it for a long time, until I caught their attention and they turned the music down. Others would complain about the dog. Two months later, they skipped the lease.

[DWC]

2. Extremely good information. +1

[iverglas]

7. interesting how?

http://wauwatosa.patch.com/users/rik-kluessendorf

Rik Kluessendorf is a solo-practice attorney in Port Washington. His area of law is in general practice. He has lived in Port Washington and Saukville for most of his life, and has been actively involved in the community since he graduated college, including stints with the Port Washington Fire Department, COPE Hotline, Port Washington Lions Club, Ozaukee Bar Association, and a campaign for state assembly in 2011. His areas of interest range from law and politics to history and music.

Rik writes the Attorney at Large column, which appears every Monday. The column will explore law and politics, at a local level, and aims to be an informative analysis of community issues. The author will admit to his conservative slant, but works hard to keep that directly out of his columns.

http://www.wisconsinvote.org/candidateProfile.cfm?id=691

Candidate:
Rik Kluessendorf
Office:
Assembly District 60
Party:
Republican

Because it's yet another in the unending series of the same thing posted here, produced by minor luminaries of the great right wing?

From a legalistic standpoint, there is a very powerful word in that sentence. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be "infringed." This is different than our rights to free speech or the press, which shall not be "abridged" by Congress. To infringe is to limit, undermine or encroach upon. To abridge is to reduce in extent or quantity.

This is just laughable. Seriously.

So, your right to speak may be limited, so long as the limit doesn't affect the extent or quantity of speech. In other words, the government can make it illegal to yell "bomb" on a plane, so long as the government doesn't simply ban the word "bomb" altogether.

Read your constitution, you bozo!

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...

Not "the extent or quantity of speech". The FREEDOM of speech. The FREEDOM of speech may not be abridged.

I'll leave it to the constitutional experts in the crowd (hahahaha) to take that further if they wish, and I'll just advise that nobody hang their hats on this bit of nonsense.

The only thing interesting here is that some right-wing cretin is saying that governments in the US may not place limits on the exercise of one particular right, and that this nonsense is posted at DU.



html fixed

[spin]

28. It's always good to hear the opinions of a legal expert from Canada ...

However, even you say,

"I'll leave it to the constitutional experts in the crowd (hahahaha) to take that further if they wish, and I'll just advise that nobody hang their hats on this bit of nonsense.

Technically we would probably need to research the meanings of the words abridge and infringed at the time the Bill of Rights was written.

I did look up the definitions of the terms as currently used.

Abridge Law & Legal Definition

In a generic sense the term “abridge” means to cut short. For example, to make an abridged copy of a book means to reduce the number of words in a book without affecting the quality or substance of the book. In a legal context, the term is generally used to explain taking away or restricting some existing right of a person such as abridging the right to vote; or abridging the rights and obligations of an administrator.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/abridge/

Infringe Law & Legal Definition

Infringe means to violate; exceed the limits of. It means to encroach upon the law or rights of another.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/infringe/

[ileus]

8. Excellent article....makes one think indeed.

[iverglas]

10. demagoguery

Those laws began falling off the books in the 1990s as states reasoned that private citizens could best defend themselves from criminal activity if allowed to carry a handgun — either as a deterrent, or as a necessary tool.

States don't reason, of course. And legislators often reason from campaign funds and vulnerability to special-interest lobby groups. Of course as special-interest right-wing lobby groups increasingly get legislators who toe their lines elected, the legislators are happy to do it.

I'll say "as states succumbed to the money and power of gun militants and bowed, willingly or unwillingly, to their agenda".

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Perhaps- but you'll need more than "It's counter to my theories of social cohesion" to reverse it.

Without demonstrable harm, you can get examples like those I posted above- or worse.

[iverglas]

14. perhaps indeed

So I guess we're in agreement.

Recent firearms policies in some US states are a result of right wing gun militant pressure on legislators / right wing gun militant success in electing adherents to their agenda.

Okey dokey!

[Atypical Liberal]

19. The power of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING!

Recent firearms policies in some US states are a result of right wing gun militant pressure on legislators / right wing gun militant success in electing adherents to their agenda.

Just like Unions allow workers to team together to fight for their interests, so does the NRA allow pro-firearms rights folks to team together to fight for theirs.

The power of collective bargaining works.

[iverglas]

20. yeah

Make no distinction between the fact that one group is organizing to promote the interests of a vulnerable and exploited class of people ... and the other is organizing out of pig-ignorant self-interest and a desire to increase right-eing hegemony.

Be very careful not to make that distinction, now!

You might want to notice that "collective bargaining" has nothing to do with right-wing gun-militant pressure on governments. The word you are after is "lobbying", with its attendant buying and threatening.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. self-interest is self-interest.

Make no distinction between the fact that one group is organizing to promote the interests of a vulnerable and exploited class of people ...

The only reason the pro-firearm community is no longer vulnerable and exploited is because our collective bargaining efforts worked. But we will remain ever vigilant.

and the other is organizing out of pig-ignorant self-interest and a desire to increase right-eing hegemony.

Self-interest is self-interest. And the right to keep and bear arms is a personal freedom issue. It has nothing to do with right-wing hegemony.

[iverglas]

25. the only reason the earth no longer orbits around the moon ...

Oh look! It never did!

The only reason the pro-firearm community is no longer vulnerable and exploited ...

Oh look! It never was!

But you've come up with another vulnerable exploited class whose coattails you can attempt to ride.

Have you asked them how they feel about your efforts?

Nobody's ever asked African-American DUers or GLBT DUers how they feel about gun militancy being likened to their struggles. So I don't expect anybody to ask trade unionists. I wonder why.

And the right to keep and bear arms is a personal freedom issue. It has nothing to do with right-wing hegemony.

Who was talking about the "right to keep and bear arms"?

I was talking about gun militants and their agenda.


I got a question: what is the "pro-firearm community"? People in favour of inanimate objects? Isn't that kinda ... odd?

[gejohnston]

30. I don't know about

African Americans or GLBT, but I do know trade unionists who own guns, hunt, and join the NRA. Certainly not to the extent as the first two, but union members, yes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. It's obvious- said unionists are simultaneously Tea Party statists and Libertarians.

I've seen both claims made here in the Gungeon- and it's ridiculous on the face of it.

The teabaggers are about as 'libertarian' as Falangist Spain.

[TPaine7]

33. African-American DUers post here

A certain sophist called one an Uncle Tom and a boy and strongly implied that the other one was a misogynist.

For that same sophist to then complain that African American DUer aren't being asked their opinions is, well, iverglasian.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. They don't count. They're being used by the racist misogynist right wing.

They suffer from false consciousness, and are less aware than a certain visitor from the north is of where their true interests lie.

[DonP]

43. That's "Used by the racist, misogynist, right wing, NRA, gun manufacturers cabal"

[PavePusher]

38. Jello. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

39. I disagree.

Oh look! It never was!

I disagree. In 1986 hardly any state allowed concealed carry. Now all do but one.

Things are definitely much better today on the firearm rights front than they have been in the past, and they are getting better every day. This is due to the pressure that lobbying groups like the NRA spearhead. Collective bargaining works.

But you've come up with another vulnerable exploited class whose coattails you can attempt to ride.

Have you asked them how they feel about your efforts?

Nobody's ever asked African-American DUers or GLBT DUers how they feel about gun militancy being likened to their struggles. So I don't expect anybody to ask trade unionists. I wonder why.

I'm sure anyone who truly supports the right to organize and collectively bargain would support those efforts, even if they didn't agree with what they were bargaining for. It's like free speech. Intelligent people support all kinds of free speech, even speech they disagree with.

Likewise with collective bargaining. Collective bargaining allows people who's voices individually would be too weak to influence policy to band together and join forces to influence policy. This is precisely what the NRA has done for firearm rights activists.

And the right to keep and bear arms is a personal freedom issue. It has nothing to do with right-wing hegemony.

Who was talking about the "right to keep and bear arms"?

I was talking about gun militants and their agenda.

I don't know what you mean by "gun militants" so it's all the same to me. You choose whatever words makes you happy.

I got a question: what is the "pro-firearm community"? People in favour of inanimate objects?

Yes. And in favor of owning and using them for lawful and righteous purposes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. I'M a trade unionist, and I find the "concern" to be the very definition of presumptuousness

I'm an SEIU member. I love how she claims to speak for my brothers and sisters and I

Our membership (at least in New England) is predeominantly people of color and we have quite a lot of single mothers.
We care for some of the most vulnerable populations out there- the disabled, elderly, and the chronically ill.
None of us are in it for the money, as the pay isn't all that good, and thanks to the lovely Department
of Labor most of us do not get even time-and-a-half for overtime.

We are working our utmost to obtain a living wage and healthcare for our members. When I go to rallies, or when I'm at
meetings or caucusing at the State House in Boston, I get very little (if any at all) deference because of my gender or
noticeable lack of melanin. (The "geezer faction" is another story. Us old heads of all kinds know how to network, and do so shamelessly!). I'm just Brother Iconoclast. If I tried to lay some kind of power trip, my ass would be handed to me in short order.

So when I hear some white Canadian academic (who already enjoys healthcare that I, amongst many others, are still fighting for)
banging on about "the exploited", I naturally have to say-

Precisely what the fuck do you know about me, or where I'm coming from?

Not a damn thing.

This pisses me off so much, that when I do break down and buy a gun, I'll see about getting some group rates
at local ranges (yes, we DO have them in Massachusetts) for me and my fellow union members...

[Kennah]

45. 9 or 10 states in 1986, 41 today, that are Right To Carry

Perhaps a million carriers in 1986. 5+ million today.

Look Ma, lower crime rates!

[Atypical Liberal]

17. MY agenda.

I'll say "as states succumbed to the money and power of gun militants and bowed, willingly or unwillingly, to their agenda".

And I'm proud to contribute money to the NRA to help make those states succumb to my agenda.

It's working.

[iverglas]

21. atypical indeed

Most "liberals" don't contribute to funding the election campaigns of right-wing candidates and defeating "liberal" candidates.

Atypical is one word!

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Neither do I.

Most "liberals" don't contribute to funding the election campaigns of right-wing candidates and defeating "liberal" candidates.

Atypical is one word!

Nor do I.

As you can see in my signature, in the last election, all of my Democratic candidates except one received high marks from the NRA. Three of them were the endorsed candidate. Only one received an F rating, and I voted against him because of it.

I did vote for Obama in spite of his anti-firearm record, because the alternative was too serious but also because I felt Obama was powerless to move against firearms.

I am also a charter member of Progressives United.

[iverglas]

26. You voted against a Democratic candidate because of his NRA rating.

all of my Democratic candidates except one received high marks from the NRA. Three of them were the endorsed candidate. Only one received an F rating, and I voted against him because of it.

You voted against a Democratic candidate because of his NRA rating.

Interesting.


I am also a charter member of Progressives United.

Are you Russ Feingold?

:rofl:

"Russ Feingold founded Progressives United (a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation) to focus on opposing corporate dominance."

An odd little niche outfit.

If only you had ... oh ... political parties ...

[russ1943]

36. A reason to visit the dungeon.

To read iverglas’ posts, again, is indescribably delicious.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Considering the state of gun legislation in the few years since I became a DU memeber...

...I hope she keeps posting here for a long, long time.....

[Atypical Liberal]

40. You bet.

You voted against a Democratic candidate because of his NRA rating.

Interesting.

You bet your butt. I will not vote for candidates who are against the right to keep and bear arms if I can help it. I made an exception for the President because the alternative was a certain expansion of our imperialistic wars overseas, and more erosions of civil liberties chasing the terrorism bogey man. Sadly, Obama has not lived up to my hopes in this regard, but I'm certain it would have been worse under Republican leadership.

But I definitely will and have voted against political candidates hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. I don't trust a politician that doesn't trust me with firearms.


Are you Russ Feingold?

:rofl:

"Russ Feingold founded Progressives United (a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation) to focus on opposing corporate dominance."

No, but again, I am a charter member of the organization. I was one of the first people to donate money to it.

An odd little niche outfit.

If only you had ... oh ... political parties ...

No true Scotsman, eh?

[ileus]

13. Only now are the states beginning to relax those infringements

finally the states realize the citizens are actually individuals to respect and not subjects to dominate over....it took a while but they've come around.