(Missouri) House overrides abortion, concealed guns veto

[Terran]

House overrides abortion, concealed guns veto
DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - The Missouri House voted Wednesday to override Gov. Bob Holden's veto of bills legalizing concealed guns and imposing a 24-hour waiting period before women can have abortions.

The House votes sent both bills to the Senate, where supporters face a more difficult task in achieving the two-thirds majority needed to make the measures law without the governor's signature.

<snip>

Under the concealed guns legislation, Missourians age 23 and older could apply to their county sheriffs for permits to carry hidden guns. Applicants would have to complete a course on handgun safety and marksmanship. Felons and others with violent pasts would be barred from obtaining concealed guns permits.

Both supporters and opponents of the gun legislation argued that Missourians would be safer if their views prevailed.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/6737856.htm
_____________

I predict the Senate won't be able to override the conceal/carry bill (I live in Jefferson City). I drive through the Capitol grounds two or three times a day to and from work, and this afternoon, while there was a massive public presence supporting the abortion bill veto override, I didn't see anybody out there for the gun bill. Just FYI, y'all.

[iverglas]

1. strange coincidence

I'm just betting there was a great big overlap between those refusing to burden the "right" to carry concealed firearms and those eager to burden the RIGHT to an abortion.

We mustn't interfere with the packing of heat in public, but we can interfere, at will and on whim, in women's personal decisions about their private lives?

Strange coincidences just seem to abound when it comes to these kinds of things ...

.

[Terran]

3. Yes, funny how that seems to work out... n/t

[slackmaster]

6. You won't find many on DU who have those conflicting attitudes

I'm pro-choice all the way: Abortion, guns, drugs, the works. That is why I could never be a Republican.

[iverglas]

12. so whatcha doin'

about this gross and repugnant interference with women's right to life, liberty, privacy, security of the person ...?

I mean, assuming that you "do" something about your firearms concerns, which I don't know. If you do, I'd want to assume that you do something about this other quite appalling interference in the exercise of rights about which there is no possible debate. Your constitution says what it says, and your Supreme Court has spoken, if strangely: a woman's right to an abortion in the first trimester may not be burdened, and in the first trimester may be burdened only in her health interests. How can a mandatory waiting period that applies regardless of what is in a woman's health interests, which are surely best determined individually, by her in consultation with a physician, and NOT universally, by a bunch of non-physicians, possibly be regarded by right-minded people as anything other than a gross violation of rights?

The argument about carrying concealed firearms is one about possible justifications for interfering with the exercise of some right; it is an open question. That argument has already been settled in the case of abortion; the question is closed.

I wanna see some outrage. I expect to see some outrage. And of course I expect to see somebody doing something about it ...

.

[slackmaster]

15. I have never supported waiting periods for abortions or gun purchases

How can a mandatory waiting period that applies regardless of what is in a woman's health interests, which are surely best determined individually, by her in consultation with a physician, and NOT universally, by a bunch of non-physicians, possibly be regarded by right-minded people as anything other than a gross violation of rights?

I agree completely. A right delayed is a right denied.

The argument about carrying concealed firearms is one about possible justifications for interfering with the exercise of some right; it is an open question. That argument has already been settled in the case of abortion; the question is closed.

You go, girl. I'd like to see the issue of what the Second Amendment really protects settled once and for all.


I wanna see some outrage. I expect to see some outrage. And of course I expect to see somebody doing something about it ...

I'm waving my hands in the air and saying "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not gonna take it any more!"

Now I've taken off my left shoe and I'm pounding it on my desk.

And I will NEVER vote for any candidate who is against womens' choice, or who does not respect the right for women (and me, and everyone else who isn't disqualified) to keep and bear arms.

[Superfly]

2. Excellent!

I hope this concealed gun veto is dropped completely and Missourians are restored their rights to KBA.

B

[Terran]

4. Just keep in mind, Superfly,

that Missouri's voters turned down conceal weapons in a statewide vote already. This isn't something the majority *wants*.

Funny how my little corner of the redneck Midwest bucks the national trend toward being publicly armed.

Dirk

[Superfly]

5. Gotcha, but

how many of those voters are in KC, STL versus places like Joplin, Waynesville, Springfield? I think what typically happens in states where the majority of the people live in urban environments is that their voice is heard and those in rural areas are not adequately represented. Whatcha think?

[MrBenchley]

11. Gee you mean that in democracy

the majority rules?

Used to be that way until lately....

[Superfly]

14. No, my dear, dear friend

a democracy was designed so that the majority could not silence the single, unpopular vote. That's called mob rule. Politics 101, asleep that day were we?

[MrBenchley]

44. Hahahahahahahahahaha!!

"the majority could not silence the single, unpopular vote. "
Especially when it's backed up by millions in blood money from a corrupt industry....

[Superfly]

46. What a pantload

It only took you a whole day to come up with a response to that one! And whatcha know? It's the same fucking response as always!!!

If there's one thing you are is consistent.

[MrBenchley]

62. Gee, fly...

I didn't realize there was any time limit to showing what a load of hooey your posts are. Now go snivel about how the poor gun industry is being unfairly maligned to someone who cares.

[Terran]

16. LOL, I can tell you're not from here

Springfield, Joplin, etc., are the Big City, just as much as KC and StL, to most rural folk. Hell, even Jeff City, at 35,000, is the Big City to many of the folks who live in villages scattered around this immediate region.

In answer to your question, it's my feeling that small-town/rural concerns play a disproportionate role in state politics, if anything; they are certainly not under-represented. It's a truism that no one from KC or St. Louis will ever get elected Governor. Too many people distrust *anyone* who comes from the Big City. Mel Carnahan, our former Gov who died untimely in that plane crash, came from a town called Rolla, a place not much bigger than Jefferson City.

Also, I believe the urban vs. rural population here is about three million vs. two million, so the difference is not as staggering as one might think. And the rural areas are largely Republican, while KC and St. Louis are solidly Democratic...and we know the voting habits of Republicans and Democrats--the city Dems only come out 50%, if that. Repubs in rural areas have a much higher turnout.

[Superfly]

18. I lived in St Robert (pop 1200) for almost 2 years

I am very familiar with Rolla, even took some courses at UMR.

Interesting breakdown about the population, though.

[jody]

8. The statewide vote was very close, 44,000 votes out of 1.3 million

QUOTE
But a funny thing happened on the way to the Prop B celebration. On April 6, 1999, Proposition B was defeated -- which shocked the measure's proponents who had expected an overwhelming victory. It was defeated by a fairly narrow margin of about 44,000 votes out of a total of 1.3 million. Opponents of right to carry legislature claim the defeat of the measure in an "off-cycle" election shows Missourians do not support such laws and contend that the margin of defeat in a much higher turnout election (such as a general election in November) would be much greater --especially if opponents had a larger advertising budget. Proponents of right to carry claim they won 104 of Missouri's 114 counties, so their views represent the true "hearts of souls" of Missourians. Of course, the 10 counties that voted against the measure (including, by the way, my own sparsely populated rural county) have a combined population much greater than that of the combined population of the 104 that favored it but that doesn't seem to make much difference to those who often use this geographic argument to claim they "really" won in April of 1999.

What this vote revealed was a profound rural-urban split in the opinions of Missourians on this issue. Urban Missourians, who I would argue have a great deal more experience with gun crime, were against the measure while rural Missourians, who probably don't have such experience, supported it. Therefore, it is no surprise that Missouri's legislature is now proposing to revive right to carry since rural Missouri is actually over-represented in the legislature by a factor of around 2-1.
UNQUOTE

[Terran]

17. interesting

I might guessed that the rural areas are over-represented, but I don't have figures. Should be easy to figure out though.

Yes, urban vs. rural is perhaps the defining characteristic of Missouri's politics. And that is partly because of the way the state is divided up, accidents of geography. Two big population centers at the western and eastern edges; Springfield is a recent addition to the urban chart, in the south west; and everything else in this fairly large state is rural. If you travel the state, the rural character of the place is overwhelming. As the article says, 104 counties out of 114--that's a lot of territory.

Missouri is not my state of birth, but it is an incredibly beautiful state. The people are mostly practical Midwesterners, but the geography was once mostly at the bottom of the sea, and is quite exotic. It reminds me a lot of coastal California at times, without the ocean.

As for the voter margin, 44,000 votes may seem small in some states, but not so much here. And it's about 3%--not a massive victory, but still definitive and not open to doubt. I agree that a main cycle election would have caused a larger margin, with more City Dems coming out to vote on the issue. Much larger, I'd say, like even 10%. If the veto is overriden, maybe we'll ahve another statewide vote to repeal the law! :)

[CO Liberal]

7. And If It Is.....

...I'll be glad I live two states away.

[jody]

9. CO, I thought Colorado also passed CCW laws. eom

[CO Liberal]

22. The Republicans Did, But I Don't Expect It To Stick

They're trying to apply a statewide CCW standard. But Colorado is a "home rule" state, and several of the home rule cities (such as Denver) are contesting the legality of the new law.

[slackmaster]

25. Interesting contrast with California law

The city of San Francisco passed an ordinance banning even the possession of assault weapons (as defined by the state). But it was found to be unconstitutional.

California state law is constructed so that AWs are illegal to posess except under (blah blah blah) exceptions.

The state constitution forbids a city overriding state law. The circumstances under which one MAY possess an assault weapon are phrased so as to provide a definitive defense for someone who is charged with unlawfully possessing one. So San Francisco violated state law by attempting to invalidate a criminal defense guaranteed (in a bass-ackwards manner) by the state.

The unconstitutionality of San Francisco's ordinance illustrate a classic unintended consequence of the heavy-handed nature of the state's draconian gun laws.

The same applies for concealed weapons permits in California. It's illegal to carry a concealed handgun but if you have a permit you are guaranteed a defense in court against a charge of carrying a concealed handgun. No locality can legally adopt an ordinance that invalidates that definitive defense.

[1a2b3c]

30. CO i listened to the AM radio in your state

when i drove through wyoming. From what i gathered on your radio, there are plenty of conservative dickwads in that state to keep a gun law on the books. :-)

[CO Liberal]

31. Not If The Courts Overturn Them

There were enough dickwads here in 1992 to pass Amendment 2, which denied rights to gays and lesbians. It was never enacted, because the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

But the homophobes here are still trying to make life miserable for gays and lesbians.

[1a2b3c]

32. There is a difference though

Carrying a firearm isnt unconstitutional and denying rights to a citizen is.

[CO Liberal]

33. Violating the Provisions of "Home Rule" ....

... may also be considered unconstitutional. We'll have to see how the courts decide.

[1a2b3c]

34. Home rule

Meaning the citizens can vote for or against this. Did they vote for it or against it?

[CO Liberal]

37. No

"Home rule" means local governments have a certain degree of autonomy regarding laws and their enactment. Local officials act on behalf of the citizens to enact laaws suited to the special needs of the community.

[slackmaster]

45. I guess Denver's City Council thinks its citizens are pretty special

So special they cannot be trusted with concealed weapons.

Isn't that just... ...special?

[MrBenchley]

64. It's more like Denver's City Council knows

its citizens don't think coping with armed neurotics on a daily basis is a good idea....

[RoeBear]

10. That made no sense CO

Your own state has a newly adopted CCW law. Or were you talking about abortion?

[CO Liberal]

23. Please Refer to My Post #22 Above

The new law is being contested.

[jody]

13. Dirk, one question. The Missouri constitution says:

QUOTE


Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
UNQUOTE

Do you support your state constitution that recognizes a citizen's right to keep and bear "unconcealed arms" but not "concealed arms"?

[Terran]

19. Well, sure

It's the Constitution, I pretty much have to "support" it. But being a very broad statement, as Constitutions typically are, I don't necessarily "support" an interpretation that it gives everyone the right to go openly armed in public on the city streets.

I'm one of those hated people who actually acknowledge the fact that "things have changed" since these documents were written, and it's generally not necessary to walk down the street displaying a firearm at your side in order to ward off being called out for a duel or some similar Wild West nonsense. Missouri was The Frontier for quite some time, and that no doubt made a having a gun for personal security a common-sense thing to do and encourage. But now...?

I'm not suggesting a change to the state's constitution based on that; I don't have a ready answer. It's just a valid observation, one that I've seen some people here deny, to the detriment of their credibility, IMO.

Dirk

[Man_in_the_Moon]

20. Well since,

I'm one of those hated people who actually acknowledge the fact that "things have changed" since these documents were written, and it's generally not necessary to walk down the street displaying a firearm at your side in order to ward off being called out for a duel or some similar Wild West nonsense. Missouri was The Frontier for quite some time, and that no doubt made a having a gun for personal security a common-sense thing to do and encourage. But now...?


Well since the 'wild west' never was really the 'wild west', and that 'nonsense' never really took place, I would say that the argument 'things have changed' isnt really correct.

After all the main reason to carry a firearm even back in the nonexistent 'wild west' was for self-defense, I would say that in order to say that 'things have changed' that their would be no instances where 'self defense' might be called upon.

Are you saying that Missouri is perfectly safe and that there is no crime?

[Terran]

26. I'm not talking about "Shootout at the OK Corral"

I'm referring to the extended period when there was little or no American civilization between the Mississippi River and the California Coast. Maybe I shouldn't have used that hackneyed phrase "wild west", but I'm not referring to movie cliches, I'm referring to the very different situation that existed, say, 170 years ago, in terms of the spread and influence of American civilization. No police forces, an itinerant legal system, "frontier justice"--you think none of that happened?

And of course there's crime in Missouri. But now we have well-established and well-funded law enforcement agencies--city police, county sheriffs, highway patrol, administrative law enforcement agencies, special task forces--to protect the security of the populace. None of those insitutions existed 170 years ago, not in the form they exist in now. So in that sense, surely it's obvious that "things have changed"--the male population no longer relies on carrying firearms with them everywhere they go to ensure their survival, and the majority of the voters here like it that way.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

27. Yes you were.

I'm not referring to movie cliches

Sure you were, you said this:

it's generally not necessary to walk down the street displaying a firearm at your side in order to ward off being called out for a duel or some similar Wild West nonsense.

Classic movie cliche.

The entire 'everybody has a sixgun' thing is movie cliche.

No police forces, an itinerant legal system, "frontier justice"--you think none of that happened?

Nope it most assuredly happened. But that is not what you seemed to be referring to, it certainly seemed that you were referring to the idea that everyone was armed to 'duel' at the drop of a hat. Or some other 'wild west nonsense'.

But it never was really as bad as you are making it out to be.

Just as today, most people (I would say the vast majority) back then didnt go around armed to the teeth. They may have toted a Musket, or rifle, (or later on a shotgun, or lever action, or maybe a army/navy pistol) every once in a while, but it was nowhere near as 'lawless' as you indicate. Once something became a territory the institutions of law-enforcement and Justice were fairly well established, with the scattered communites administering the laws of the territory. Granted they may have at times been corrupt, but they were there.

In other words the 'lawless frontier' you are descibing is more 'movie cliche'.

And of course there's crime in Missouri. But now we have well-established and well-funded law enforcement agencies--city police, county sheriffs, highway patrol, administrative law enforcement agencies, special task forces--to protect the security of the populace.

Sure. The populace, not the individual.

Same as back then.

None of those insitutions existed 170 years ago, not in the form they exist in now. So in that sense, surely it's obvious that "things have changed"--the male population no longer relies on carrying firearms with them everywhere they go to ensure their survival,

But 'the male population' didnt even rely on carrying firearms with them everywhere to ensure survival back then. As I mentioned above that is 'movie cliche'.

and the majority of the voters here like it that way.

Would you support a law denying people (to be in theme for the day, lets say Arabs or Muslims) the right to speak, or to peacebly assemble, simply because 'the majority of the voters' like it that way?

[Terran]

28. For a clarification of what I *was* talking about

reread Post #26, above. Sorry if my initial post on the subject contained some hyperbole. I don't actually think the American West was like a Clint Eastwood film.

But it never was really as bad as you are making it out to be.

Please provide proof of this. Common sense says that in the absence of any government or law enforcement in the area and time I referred to above, when people left their homes for any extended period, to travel, hunt, or otherwise be without the security provided by a homestead, the males probably went armed. This is especially true given the problematic relations between Euros and Native Americans. Their circumstances of living apart from American civilization would made it illogical to do otherwise.

One can debate the details all one wants, but it seems rather strange to claim that there is no difference, socially, between the American wilderness of 1830 and the State of Missouri in 2003--which was my original point.

[RoeBear]

42. I'm not sure the difference between...

...being accosted by a band of highwaymen in 1830 compared to a gang of punks in 2003. In either situation I want something to give me a fighting chance. I want a concealed weapon.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

77. Are you talking about

The Missouri of 1830?

It was already a State. It had been one for nearly a decade.

There was a system of government already in place, with law enforcement and all the other trapings.

In other words 'civilization' was already there.

In other words, Missouri for the most part was no longer 'wilderness'.

Now if you are talking about the true frontier with 'wild injuns', then yeah those guys (such as trappers) were armed alot of the time. But more for defense against 4 legged predators, not 2 legged ones, and to procure food. Those frontiersman nearly always were on good terms with the 'injuns' (hell most of the maintained 'indian wives'), if they werent they got dead very quickly, no matter what they carried, and probably were safer wandering around the frontier than when they went to town for supplies.

If you compare the 'frontier' to the year 2003, I would say that being armed 24/7 makes more sense to more people today than it did back then. For while we need less protection from 4 legged predators, we need more protection from the 2 legged variety.

If you rely upon the police or some other authority to ensure your safety you are seriously naive.

[Terran]

82. My god man, you are so nit-picky!

1830, 1804, 1790, *whatever* year you want, as long as it fits the unregulated frontier model to which I was referring.

Whether people needed guns to ward off animals, hostile natives, or each other back then is immaterial--it looks like you agree that such folk *did* need to go armed pretty much all the time. Now, you say that we need to go armed all the time *now* to protect ourselves from our fellow citizens, and that makes 2003 equivalent to the frontier (i.e., "nothing has changed"), but the fact is most people today don't care to do that, and they manage to muddle through unharmed.

My point is, there is no prevailing *perceived* need to go armed because the reality is, most people *are* willing to rely substantially on law enforcement to protect them. That is something that *has* changed. Do I expect the cops to be there to save me from an axe murder? Of course not. But I do expect that the overall infrastructure of law enforcement, of which I used to be a part, will catch a lot of the bad guys *before* they get to me.

Life is a freaking daily gamble. Someone might murder you, or a plane might fall out of the sky and kill you, or lightning might strike you. Either way, I'm not going to let those threats dictate the order of my life. I'm *really* not anti-RKBA. But I find the "We have to protect ourselves!" pro-gun defense a little, well, unrealistic. I prefer wrangling over the wording of the bloody Second Amendment to that stuff.

(PS: I didn't mean "bloody" literally; using a Britishism--do you all still say that?)

[1a2b3c]

29. Do you think we couldnt be taken back to the 'wild west' days?

If there was an extended break in communications and electricity from a terrorist attack our civilization would be broken down considerably. We seen something close to this with the east coast blackouts and the UK blackouts.

Now i ask, if this was to happen would you want to be the guy thats unarmed or the guy thats armed?

[MrBenchley]

35. So we should arm neurotics

in case civilization comes to an end...ho kay.

[1a2b3c]

36. I love how you make up something totally unrelated to what ive said.

I take it you want to be the unarmed guy then. Fine by me and i wish you luck if something like this does happen. Can i ask how old you are? I sense a level of maturity in almost all of your replys ive read.

[MrBenchley]

38. It's right on the money, chief...

You're arguing that we need armed neurotics because civilization might fall apart any minute...ho kay.

"Fine by me and i wish you luck if something like this does happen."
Yeah.....be sure and hold your breath until then.

[1a2b3c]

39. Well i guess thats how you might see it

What i was saying is that incase of emergencies it would be wise to have a firearm for defense, food, and other needs.

[CO Liberal]

40. Other Needs?

Such as blowing away those who piss you off???

[Superfly]

41. Nice...

My, Mr. CO, that's a nice little hyperbole you have there. How old is it? I see it's not potty trained.

[slackmaster]

43. I use mine to open beer cans and turn the TV on and off

What do you use?

[MrBenchley]

48. Don't forget

that civilization is about to collapse....it's hide under the bed or start waving your gun around!! (snicker)

[Superfly]

49. Guffaw

you so funny, GI.

[1a2b3c]

50. Could be considered a need

I was thinking more along the lines of shelter and clothing.

[iverglas]

90. really - in what universe

... are individuals in urban or even small-town USA going to be able to use firearms to meet "other needs ... along the lines of shelter and clothing" ... legally??

I'm not even clear on how *anyone* could meet the need for shelter with the use of a firearm, anywhere anytime. Unless the firearm is used to oust someone else from the land where one planned to build said shelter. Or to remove the grizzly bear who has ousted one from one's shelter.

Being Canadian, I share a certain perspective on firearms with USAmericans that a Brit, for instance, does not share. Subsistence hunting *does* take place in Canada -- among a small proportion of the population, but over a large proportion of the land mass.

In Canada, it would be a violation of First Nations' people's constitutionally protected aboriginal rights, for instance, to unduly interfere with their ability to hunt for food.

But that doesn't mean that *everyone* should be able to exercise a 'right' to possess firearms without being subject to reasonable and justifiable restrictions -- restrictions that are reasonable and justifiable in most cases, but not in the case of Aboriginal people. It just means that if those restrictions unduly interfered with the exercise of aboriginal rights, the people who have those rights would be exempt from them. Just as they are exempt from certain restrictions on hunting, but not others. For instance, they, like everyone else, may not hunt moose at night with spotlights, because of the public safety issues that arise when people do that, and since that restriction does not create undue hardship for them.

That whole issue -- restrictions on the exercise of constitutionally protected aboriginal rights in Canada -- is an interesting potential analogy to restrictions on the exercise of "2nd amendment rights" in the US. Maybe I'll start a thread ...

.

[1a2b3c]

95. You should read the whole thread

I was talking about in an extended lapse of electricity and communication. This, in the city, would bring on all kinds of looting and theives. Maybe a gun could be used to make sure you keep your clothing or shelter.

I'm not even clear on how *anyone* could meet the need for shelter with the use of a firearm, anywhere anytime.

You dont have much of an imagination. How do you think frontiersman got his shelter and clothing? He sure didnt go to target and pick out a shirt.

In the US everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. Also the right to liberty and freedom. It would be illegal to take away an individuals right to either.

[MrBenchley]

103. Hahahahahahahaha!

"How do you think frontiersman got his shelter and clothing?"
What did he do...shoot down trees to build a log cabin?

[MrBenchley]

47. You mean if times get tough

you want to stick up the Shoprite?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

53. I'm not sure what thread it was now...

...but on one thread for a short time he discussed a subject without name calling or being obnoxious. It didn't last very long and that is why he's on my ignore list now.

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee I'm sure it wasn't one

where we were told that we needed to hand out CCw permits like candy because civilization was about to fall apart...

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1a2b3c]

56. I see youre trying.

But can you counter debate my classist racist thread, or will you just call it crap and leave it at that? And there was no racial slur in any thread. (i can debate that if you like)

Not too many of us RKBAers like the NRA. 90,000,000 gun owners and 3,000,000 NRA members. The numbers look like atleast a few gun owners disagree with the politics of the NRA.

Did you ever meet MaineMary on here? She was pro RKBA but the NRA gave her i think a D or F rating because she was a female democrat. We all know which direction the NRA leans. I just got back online but i havent seen anyone pimping for Orrin Hatch, Tom DeLay and the NRA. Unless of course you mean being pro RKBA.

Thanks for the normal reply. I was getting tired of trying to debate a subject and only getting a one liner troll comment. This is much better.

[MrBenchley]

58. Crap is crap

I showed where you were grotesquely mischaracterizing a Democratic measure in that rubbish...far as I'm concerned, nothing else is needed.

"Not too many of us RKBAers like the NRA."
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"3,000,000 NRA members."
Funny, the audited (and falling) circulation of their magazines donn't show anything like that...and their conventions always draw the same dreary 40,000--half of whom work for the gun industry.

"Did you ever meet MaineMary on here? She was pro RKBA but the NRA gave her i think a D or F rating because she was a female democrat."
I've met Maine Mary in person...and really who is surprised at any idiotic crap the RKBA crowd pulls?

"I was getting tired of trying to debate a subject and only getting a one liner"
One line is all most of this deserved.

[1a2b3c]

60. So

At the height of the civil rights movements with groups like the black panthers forming and leaders like Malcolm X you dont find it a bit coincidental that a nationwide ban on the import of guns that would be affordable to the blacks (a take it we can agree that blacks were disproportionately poor in the 60's) was enacted? Even after considering that the very first bans on affordable firearms was put in place to stop blacks from obtaining guns after the civil war?

Could you explain why the majority of Californians with a CCW permit are white, even in counties that are a majority of minorities?

[MrBenchley]

65. Who are you trying to kid?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a direct response to the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy, Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King. Trying to pretend that it had anything to do with the Black Panthers is ludicrous.

"Could you explain why the majority of Californians with a CCW permit are white"
Perhaps for the same reason that white supremacist literature and Nazi memorabilia is peddled at so many gun shows...

[1a2b3c]

96. really

What did the import ban do indirect with those assassinations? What firearms killed Bob Kennedy, Medgar Evers, and MLK? Answer that and then cross reference it with which guns the 68 ban stopped importing and you will shall see where your answer is heading.

How many gun shows do you attend? I guess Kansas might be different but i dont see white supremist or Nazi literature. I have seen Nazi firearms. So there are more white CCW holders in Fresno county California because there are more KKK and skinheads there? Is that what you meant?

[MrBenchley]

100. Really

"he assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assasinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage. License requirements were expanded to include more dealers, and more detailed record keeping was expected of them; handgun sales over state lines were restricted; the list of persons dealers could not sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies (with some exceptions), those found mentally incompetent, drug users and more. The act also defined persons who were banned from possessing firearms.
The key element of this bill outlawed mail order sales of rifles and shotguns; Up until this law, mail order consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over 21 years of age for a handgun (18 for rifle or shotgun); it also detailed more persons who were banned from possessing certain guns, including drug users, and further restricted shotgun and rifles sales. "

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html

"In the U.S., the major federal gun control legislation is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed shortly after the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. The act required that guns carry serial numbers and implemented a tracking system to determine the purchaser of a gun whose make, model, and serial number are known. It also prohibited gun ownership by convicted felons and certain other individuals."

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

"The Gun Control Act, 1968: Following the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Congress rushed to ban the sale of mail-order guns and place minimum safety standards on imported guns to raise their purchase price. No standards were adopted for U.S.-manufactured guns, however, and the law helped spawn a huge domestic gun industry that turns out cheap handguns now known as "junk guns" and "Saturday Night Specials." "

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_laws.html

Tell you what, bunky...YOU pretend racist trash doesn't go to gun shows all by your lonesome.

[1a2b3c]

107. Whats this???

Links and material to debate??? Now youre throwing me a crurveball.

First you didnt mention JFK, who was killed by a mail order gun....if you really believe that a cheap mail order gun killed him with 3 shots in 7 seconds in a moving vehicle with a direct headshot. Now if i was a nutcase, like you seem to like to think, i would say that Kennedy was killed and they framed Oswald with a cheap mail order gun in order to ban cheap guns therefore making them unavailable to blacks and the poor. But im not really that freaky.

It also prohibited gun ownership by convicted felons and certain other individuals."

Certain other individuals? I am freaky enough to elaborate on this one. Those other individuals were and still are pot smokers, the proof is in the yellow form 4473 you fill out when you buy a gun. http://www.governmentguide.com/govsite.adp?bread=*Main&url=http%3A//www.governmentguide.com/ams/clickThruRedirect.adp%3F55080291%2C19255685%2Chttp%3A//www.atf.treas.gov/ (see section C part E)

Now in the 60s who smoke marijuana? Hippies. Dont want them to own a gun. Why was marijuana made illegal? To have a reason to deport the Mexican migrant workers back to mexico, or imprison them. Who else smoked the majority of marijuana in the 30's? Jazz musicians. What racial background did they come from? So it looks like from my looney possition that the others the 68 GCA was aimed at stopping from obtaining arms were, and still are, 1)the poor 2)hippies, pot smokers, african american jazz musican, and mexican migrant workers.

I noticed in your first link they have MILESTONES in gun control history. It starts with the 2nd amendment. Then it jumps to the NRA being founded. Then it jumps clear into the 20th century. They seem to have left out all the racist laws i found with a simple search engine before the 2nd and before the 1934 MGA.

The GCA of 68 said in section 101: The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title. Its purpose was not to place undue burdens on law-abiding citizens for the use of firearms for self defense. Yet it banned the affordable handguns from importation. No problem, american gun makers will provide a low cost alternative for those who cannot afford a Smith and Wesson. Well now thats illegal in most states as well.

[MrBenchley]

113. Go debate with the encyclopedia

I really don't care to start even pretending your rubbish is anything but....I just showed it was.

[Shanty Oilish]

67. "poor MrBenchly"

"Your debating skills are obsolete. I see nothing but trolling flame-bait from every post ive read of yours. Please, someone show me a post of MrBenchlys with some substance. The saddest part of all of this is that its accepted by the mods and administrators. Why is that?"

Maybe they're pro-RKBA? :P

[MrBenchley]

73. Or maybe

it's just more RKBA hooey

[LastDemInIdaho]

81. I hung up my RKBA defense hat against nonsense on the hatrack

That's where it's staying an I'm not biting.

[MrBenchley]

85. Did it have tinfoil in the lining?

[-..__...]

115. It's only role playing...

"The saddest part of all of this is that its accepted by the mods and administrators. Why is that?"

Just ask Bob Boudelang... or is it Mary Rosh?... whatever.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forum_archive_html/DCForumID38/1583.html

[iverglas]

68. you bin gone, aincha?

I could dredge up a few of the many, many, many posts in which my own attempts to engage in serious discussion, to slog through the straw people and non sequiturs and red herrings and disingenuousness and misrepresentation and gross flat-out lies about what I have said, just for starters ... only to be met by more straw people and non sequiturs and red herrings and disingenuousness and misrepresentation and gross flat-out lies about what I said (and all and sundry will kindly note that I have accused no poster here of lying or being a liar) ... but somehow I think you might not find it all that surprising ... having been here before and all.

You might note that I have responded with on-point and straightforward comments to things you have said and refrained from portraying anything you've said as something it wasn't. I figure civil gets as civil gives ... or let's say that I live by that rule, even if it doesn't work as a description of reality quite as well as it would if the prescriptive aspect of it were actually followed. I've been unsuccessful at getting much civil around here in return.

And I haven't been here nearly so long as MrB.

.

[MrBenchley]

74. Serious discussion is probably wasted

on anyone who thinks that "we must all be armed, for civilization is about to fail."

[1a2b3c]

97. See, again, i never said that

I dont think you should be armed. You probably dont have a basic understanding of gun safety. What i did say is that those who do want to be armed in a chimp ran regime should do so.

[MrBenchley]

101. The hell you didn't....

Your extremely silly words from post 29 in this thread: "If there was an extended break in communications and electricity from a terrorist attack our civilization would be broken down considerably. We seen something close to this with the east coast blackouts and the UK blackouts.
Now i ask, if this was to happen would you want to be the guy thats unarmed or the guy thats armed?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=8916&mesg_id=9102&page=

[CO Liberal]

102. Ya Know, Every Time We Have a Blackout Here in Colorado...

...my phone has always worked. How else do you think I've been able to call the electric company to let them know they have a problem???

Yet another bogus pro-gun arguement.

[MrBenchley]

104. Meanwhile...

unless these mythical terrorists bring vast herds of buffalo and other game with them, gun owners are going to have to stick up the Taco Bell for food during this catastrophe....

[1a2b3c]

110. CO think here

The blackout in the east lasted how long? 3 days? Take that times 100 and do you really think that the world will go about the way it does when a thunderstorm takes out your power?

[CO Liberal]

112. Back in 1997......

....we had a blizzard that knocked out power for four days. And the world kept going on the way it does.

[RoeBear]

120. And back when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida...

...armed residents protected their neighborhoods from looters. There was no police protection for several days.

[MrBenchley]

121. Actually after Andrew cops were shot at

and the National Guard was called in....and for the record, the National Guasrd was armed with guns owned and bought collectively by the people of Florida...

"Police Chief Curt Ivey said two officers were fired upon on Monday: "We could have arrested 300 easily. We warded them off instead."
In South Dade, where some shopping centers looked as though a bomb had hit, looters swiped what the hurricane didn't blow away.
"Probably all of the stores have been hit at one time or another," said Metro-Dade Lt. Cindy Buchholz. "It's very difficult to control."
By midafternoon, members of the National Guard were stationed at most South Dade stores along Dixie Highway. Florida State troopers and agents of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission also patrolled stores."

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/andrew/3848483.htm

"In Florida the National Guard performed its mission in a SAD status following Hurricane Andrew. A plan was in place, and units were trained and tested during previous emergencies. This preparation and training enabled the National Guard to provide immediate response and assistance to law enforcement agencies and other civil authorities throughout the disaster area.
As the storm approached the southeast coast of Florida, the Adjutant General activated units in its forecasted path. Other units throughout the state were placed on alert. Soldiers living in the path of the storm were assembled at armories north of the storm to provide a ready response force. Early activation worked well considering the uncertainties of the hurricane's path.
As the hurricane passed through Homestead, Florida City, and Southern Dade County, National Guard forces moved from the Miami armory into devastated areas. By this time, the civilian population, which had evacuated Homestead and Florida City areas, were now returning to their homes. The combination of military and civilian traffic caused a tremendous traffic problem and prevented military forces from arriving in the disaster area in a timely manner. During the first few days of relief operations, the National Guard provided security to prevent looting and rioting, provided medical treatment, cleared streets and highways, transported and distributed food, water, and medical supplies, and assisted in providing food and temporary shelter facilities for displaced families. "

http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/93-6/chap9.htm

[1a2b3c]

108. ANd i still didnt say that

Everyone should be armed incase the world comes to an end. I asked that if it did happen would you want to be armed or unarmed? This is why there is a right to keep and bear arms. Its called protection, and not just from a burglar.

[MrBenchley]

109. Yeah, ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

[1a2b3c]

57. Dirk the question still stands.

Although we got a little sidetracked.

[MrBenchley]

59. So public policy whould be made

on the contingency civilization might break down utterly at any minute?

Hell, why not mandate fortress walls around every municipality and a caldron of pitch kept boiling atop a tower, just in case?

[1a2b3c]

61. This question was for Dirk.

[MrBenchley]

66. Public forum

[Terran]

75. You have a point

That would, in effect, be turning back the clock to 1830, or earlier, from a social point of view; in which case, yes, I'd probably go get me a gun. But I'm hoping that doesn't happen, ya know? I'm a native Californian, we're used to betting that the next Big One won't get us. :)

[MrBenchley]

76. Yes but....

Even if terrorists "turn back the clock to 1830" or so by cutting the electricity blowing up the TV station or suchlike....they're not likely to bring back herds of buffalo and other game that roamed Missouri in 1830...which means that the way permit holders get food with a gun is sticking up McDonalds or the A&P.

I'm also unclear how you get shelter with a gun except by stealing someone else's....do you shoot down trees with your pistol to build a log cabin?

[iverglas]

91. oops, great minds

I was just askin' the same thing, about what universe these people using firearms to meet their needs for shelter and clothing (in a manner that we actually wouldn't frown on and really not be under an obligation to facilitate) would be living in ...

.

[MrBenchley]

93. I think some people here

are suffering from Fess Parker complex...either that or they DO plan to shoot up the TGI Friday's and dress in the blood-spattered waiter outfits after civilization falls

[1a2b3c]

99. buckskin

That is what a Tee Pee is made out of isnt it?

[MrBenchley]

105. Osama's Going To Make You Live In a Tee Pee

and so that's why you need a pistol permit....ho kay.

This just keeps getting BETTER AND BETTER.

[CO Liberal]

106. And You'll Go Outside the Tee Pee to Pee Pee

:-)

[MrBenchley]

111. Stop! I'll Get All Wee Pee!

Have you met my little friend Fifi?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

78. Dont worry

If you stay in MO, the next big one WILL get you. It will get St Louis, it will get Memphis, and anything inbetween, and within that diameter.

And it is overdue.

It will probably be bigger than anything that puny ass thing called the 'San Andreas Fault' puts out.

[MrBenchley]

88. Yeah, but at least

a few neurotics will have a handgun to clutch as the earth splits open and the lava swallows them up...

[Terran]

122. I know

I've read up a bit about New Madrid. It's going to be very bad. I'm about 150 miles west of St. Louis, so, I'm hoping the effects are going to be more east of me. They say the geography of this region is conducive to spreading the effects of a major quake far more widely than is typical in California; difference between limestone and granite, I believe. And I was in the 1989 Loma Prieta quake...that was awful.

[1a2b3c]

98. Youre also use to

buying electricity surplus from Washington. But one day the state of Washington might not have surplus electricity to sell. Cali needs to fix their electric problems. If they dont its going to cripple the entire west coast some day.

[leetrisck]

52. I feel this violates

the "equal protection under the law" guarantee of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that a poll tax violated the 14th Amendment and this "Concealed Carry" law is no different.

[iverglas]

63. whoa

"I feel this violates
the 'equal protection under the law' guarantee of the 14th Amendment
of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has previously ruled that
a poll tax violated the 14th Amendment and this 'Concealed Carry' law
is no different."

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that one to me.

I know what "equal protection of the laws" (14th amendment) means.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

I'm not yet persuaded that you do.

I'm a big fan of equal protection guarantees. (Canada guarantees not just equal protection, but also equal benefit; not just equality before the law, but also equality under the law.) So I'm curious about this argument. Anybody who can enlighten me is invited.

.

[leetrisck]

84. The words "Separation of Church & State" are

not in the Constitution; however, many Court decisions have been based on the interpretation of that idea. Even though the words "Equal Protection of the Law" are in the Constitution, interpretation again, is the key to understanding. The 14th Amendment has been used to frame many Court decisions (Equal Protection), one example being the poll tax, where the Courts ruled that a State cannot tax a citizen who is exercising a Federal right to vote in a Federal election. A reasonable extension is that a State cannot tax a citizen who exercises a Federal right to Keep & Bear Arms. These "fees" and training requirement costs invalidate the new Missouri law.

[iverglas]

89. join us

here -- "How bout we try the classist/racist thread one more time."

for the "equal protection" topic.

My own thoughts begin with my post "not quite", #13, and the rest of the discussion mainly starts from my post "apples and oranges", #26.

"A reasonable extension is that a State cannot tax a citizen who exercises a Federal right to Keep & Bear Arms. These 'fees' and training requirement costs invalidate the new Missouri law."

Certainly I see the point about "equal protection" when it comes to licence fees/taxes etc. I wasn't connecting your point to the costs associated with the training requirement imposed by legislation, but I do see that now too. Since the discussion is already engaged in the other thread, though, wanna continue it there?

.

[DoNotRefill]

116. Separation of church and state....

comes from the First Amendment prohibition on the State recognizing and endorsing a religion.

The problem is that the Second Amendment has never had a definitive ruling made on it. The closest thing to a definitive ruling is the Miller decision, which was and is FUBAR from it's inception, because it says that only guns that are useful militarily are protected, when the act that it was ruling on clearly affected militarily useful firearms in other parts of it. If the gun in question was a machinegun instead of a sawed-off shotgun (both of which are covered by the same law), the Supreme Court certainly couldn't have ruled the way it did. As the saying goes: "Bad facts make bad law."

[1a2b3c]

21. What exactly would the 24 hour waiting period do?

Is this like a cooling off period like when you buy a gun?

[slackmaster]

24. It gives you a chance to see the error of your ways and change your mind

Like I said earlier, a right delayed is a right denied.

[demsrule4life]

69. Senate votes and overrides the veto

Now MO can join the rest of freedom states.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/6748041.htm

[CO Liberal]

70. But How Many Missourians Will Join The Ranks Of The Dead???

Hmmmmmm???

[demsrule4life]

71. Oh I remember, every state

that adopts a ccw law ends up "with the streets running with blood", has it happened in your state? I really doubt the crime in your state has changed much either way. You are a much better person to make such a stupid remark.

[CO Liberal]

92. Just Because It Hasn't Happened Yet.....

...doesn't mean it can't happen. Remember, the numbers of people with CCW permits are still relatively small, compared with the general population. My concern is that if more and more people are packing heat, there WILL be blood in the streets. And no way to stop it.

And I don't consider my remark "stupid". It's merely my opinion of a possible consequence of more guns on the streets.

[slackmaster]

94. CO, the number of people with permits always levels off

After an initial rush of people who get permits "just 'cause" and some who really felt they had a valid reason but couldn't under the old system, every state has reached a level where no more than 1% of the population has a permit.

Most people don't want a concealed-weapons permit and never bother to apply for one. Permits cost money, take time, and carry enormous responsibility. Most people simply don't want to carry a gun.

Not everyone who has a concealed-weapons permit carries a gun all the time.

Permits expire, and not every one that expires gets renewed.

A few permits get revoked and never renewed.

The availability of permits does not lead to an ever-increasing percentage of the population carrying weapons.

[DoNotRefill]

118. Want to place a bet...

on if violent crime goes up or down in MO in the next 5 years? ;-)

[Terran]

123. My bet is no change, to be honest

I doubt a whole bunch of urbanites will rush out to get permits. And rural folks already go armed at will anyway, those that perceive a need. This is a conservative state, culturally, if not politically. I don't see this causing a big change, really.

[RoeBear]

72. More original than "The streets will run with blood" but...

...just as knee jerk.

[MrBenchley]

86. A Grim Reminder

of the actual cost of this RKBA horseshit...and of its totalll y fraudulent basis.

"John Lott's name, meanwhile, has been summoned in statehouses across the land this year as still more legislatures have passed the concealed-carry laws that Lott says are good for society -- despite the mounting evidence that they are nothing of the sort. As Stanford Law School professor John J. Donohue and Yale Law School professor Ian Ayres have shown in an exhaustive analysis of concealed-carry laws, for instance, there is now more evidence to suggest that these laws increase crime than to reduce it.

Donohue and Ayres, of course, have faced their own version of orchestrated attack from the pro-gunners, including the following passage that appeared on the Internet last September, when their work first appeared: "The Ayres and Donohue piece is a joke."

The author? Mary Rosh. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,566717,00.html

[Terran]

79. Huh! They barely made it.

Thought it would go down. From the article:

"This is a complete disregard of the citizens of the state of Missouri," said Senate Minority Floor Leader Ken Jacob, a Democrat, as the Republican-led Senate overrode Holden's veto.

But gun-rights advocates said this year's bill was far more restrictive than the 1999 measure -- setting the highest minimum age in the nation and requiring much more extensive firearms marksmanship and safety training, among other things.

"I am absolutely convinced that it is the safest bill that we are ever going to have in this state," said Senate Majority Floor Leader Michael Gibbons, a St. Louis County Republican who voted against the bill during the regular session but switched his vote to override the veto.

Gibbons, whose district overwhelmingly opposed the 1999 measure, said he changed his mind after a careful review of laws in other states, concluding concealed guns helped deter crime without any increase in citizen shoot-outs.

He also said he was convinced that gun-rights advocates would win a veto-proof Senate majority in an upcoming special election for a vacant seat. So supporting the bill now could prevent an emboldened majority from pushing through a less restrictive concealed guns law next year.

I don't see it as the end of the world. The requirement to take safety and marksmanship lessons is, I presume, unusually stringent? We have more important matters to deal with here, as in most states--we're fucking bankrupt and Bush is doing shit to help us.

[demsrule4life]

80. What is the old saying

Close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades? :)

[Terran]

83. Well, just found that interesting

that support for the override of the bill was barely adequate. Our legislature has become very conservative, but I'll bet they had to make a few deals that will benefit Democratic bills next session to make it happen.

[DoNotRefill]

117. While it was barely adequate...

it's important to remember that it required a supermajority. If the law said it took a 95% supermajority to override a veto, would a 95% vote to override the veto be seen as "barely adequate"?

I have trouble with anything that requires the support of 2/3 of the people voting on it to vote for it being described as "barely adequate".

[Terran]

124. That's not what I meant

Of course you are correct, a 2/3 majority is very substantial. But it apprantly was a stretch, getting that majority, it wasn't easy. I just meant that it was a close thing, they almost didn't get the needed majority. They had to bring one fellow back from National Guard duty to vote; and the fact that some Dems who had originally voted against the bill changed their votes to override, suggests to me that deals were worked out, granting favors to those Dems on their future pet bills.

I work part-time at a hotel here that is very popular with legislators and lobbyists, so I see this kind of deal-making going on all the time in our lobby and bar and cafe. I'm fairly sure some compromises were made in order to make the override happen.

[Terran]

87. I am amazed

I have never, in more than two years at DU, started a thread that gathered this many replies. I rule! ;-)

[jody]

114. Good thread and the replies that do not show as "ignored" were useful.

Missouri and CCW us an excellent example of Democracy in action constrained by a political system that does not let a simple majority run roughshod over a minority.


QUOTE
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
UNQUOTE

and

QUOTE
To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.
UNQUOTE

[jody]

119. Dirk, the Missouri Senate overrode the veto so what is your reaction? eom

[Terran]

125. Jody, see #79

It ain't the end of the world. We are practical people. If the gun crime rate skyrockets, maybe people will consider changing it back; if not, then not. As I said above, we have much more urgent things to worry about (although our Republican legislators appear to be blissfully unaware of that).

I'm glad this thread maintained a largely civil tone. BTW Jody, just HOW many people ARE you ignoring?? :spank:

Dirk

[jody]

126. I have four on my list. Three for childish sarcasms and one because

I simply got tired of reading a thousand words for 10 words of content. The "Chihuahua Repellent" provided by DU, i.e. , is 100% effective.

Every month or so, I'll remove someone from my ignore list to see if they've changed their style of replying. A couple of people have stayed off because they reformed and became very effective in their exchanges. I thoroughly enjoy reading their comments and often gain a new perspective.

I agree with you re more important things to do. That's why I hope the Democrats will not let RKBA, abortion, and a couple of other issues cost us another election. The number one priority for The Democratic Party is to gain control of the executive branch and either the house or senate.

[Shanty Oilish]

127. Ignore list

Lol, jody, I've only got one on my list. And I wouldn't need even one if not for the gun issue. There's an awful lot of drivel here. :(