Monday, March 7, 2011

The Battle of Alliteration

What some call Constitutional Carry, others call a Troublesome Trend.

Reuters reports:

Wyoming's Republican Governor Matt Mead on Wednesday signed the permit-free gun bill into law. Beginning July 1, residents who want to pack handguns will no longer have to undergo a criminal background check or show proficiency with a firearm.

"We feel it's a very troublesome trend," said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The law brings to four the number of states, including Alaska, Arizona and Vermont, that don't require permits for concealed weapons.
To me this is one of the most asinine trends in the gun rights movement. It can only be justified by denying the fact that some gun owners are irresponsible and unfit. This is the great lie, or one of them anyway, of the gun rights folks. Every day in the news we read about people who were among the law-abiding right up until the moment they pulled the trigger.

Some gun owners, slightly more honest, admit these people exist but insist they're statistically inconsequential and we must accept their doings as a sort of collateral damage. I accuse those guys of simply not wanting to be inconvenienced.

Allowing people to carry guns, openly or concealed, should be severely controlled and regulated. Otherwise, they'll do more harm than good.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. It can only be justified by denying the fact that some gun owners are irresponsible and unfit.

    And the fact that a government-issued permission slip is not required in order to have children can only be justified by denying that some parents are irresponsible and unfit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you claming Zorroy that children equate to weapons?

    That is stupid on the face of it.

    But the assertion that there are unfit parents is not an adequate argument for unlmited guns.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No what he is saying that crappy parenting skills cause a lot more harm to people than legal gun ownership.

    If you want to restrict rights, we might as well look at a cost benefit analysis and figure which causes more grief and pain. Let's start by restrictng peoples right to breed then.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zorroy, You are not authorized to make inane comparisons on this blog any longer. I have had enough.

    Troublesome trend has a much better ring to it than the overblown, grandiose, Constitutional Carry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. P described my position exactly as I would, if not for the fact that I sorely lack his eloquence.

    Thank you , sir.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you can come up with a way to select who will be good parents in advance, I'd like to see it, Zorroy or P.

    Some parents are irresponsible and still turn out great kids; others do everything right, and their kids are hellions. Most are somewhere in the middle. The problem is not just finding a means to evaluate parents (in advance) but that children are in no way standardized and consistent beings. Unlike GUNS.

    It is far easier to determine who will be a responsible gun owner, for the sake of the larger public, and unlike children who have strong attachments, the guns don't care one way or the other.

    You make an utterly failed analogy, but hey, so long as you are happy with superficial comparisons.......I doubt you care.

    It's all fun for me, poking holes and pointing out your flawed thinking. I look on it as free entertainment, a little light mental exercise, and a chance to hang out with new friends!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zorroy and P and anonymous and the rest.....they DO know that guns don't actually HAVE feelings, right?

    With fetishist thinking, sometimes it is hard to tell, especially the anthropomorphizing...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fundamental human rights are fundamental human rights--whether the decision is about reproduction, or self-preservation (and preservation of one's liberty) by force of arms.

    Excuse the fuck out of me for so grossly overestimating the intelligence of some here, with my assumption that this rather basic point wouldn't need explaining.

    You have a wonderful day now, ya' hear?

    ReplyDelete
  9. " It can only be justified by denying the fact that some gun owners are irresponsible and unfit."

    Has a permitting system ever stopped the irresponsible and unfit from carrying a gun?

    The truth is carry permits exist for only one reason: to generate money for the government.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zorroy, You're going too far when you say, "reproduction, or self-preservation (and preservation of one's liberty) by force of arms."

    Who said the preservation of one's liberty or their life requires guns? And don't tell me the Supremes in Heller and McDonald because you were claiming this foolishness long before that.

    This is the point which we disagree on. Right to life translates into right to self-defense BUT DOES NOT translate into right to have guns.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Right to life translates into right to self-defense BUT DOES NOT translate into right to have guns.

    The right to self-defense is meaningless without the right to effective means of its exercise. Nothing comes close to firearms in effectiveness for self-defense. Nothing comes close to firearms for offsetting disparities in size, strength (such disparities perhaps being related to gender, age, etc.), and number.

    ReplyDelete