The NRA and the Wisconsin Carry folks oppose live-fire training and feel four hours in the classroom is too much. Is that incredible, or what?The NRA was upset at rumors that Wisconsin’s Department of Justice would require live-fire training and mandate at least four hours of safety instruction overall. Meanwhile, critics feared that online video courses might be deemed enough to get a permit.
Some of those rumors were unfounded -- permit applicants need not fire a gun (as in Minnesota), and training must be face-to-face with a certified instructor. The four-hour length was approved, though, in the emergency rulesissued by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen.
Nevertheless, despite the specific rules that drew criticism from gun advocates, Wisconsin’s overall law is still in the Top 10 for ease of access to permits, according to Nik Clark, head of Wisconsin Carry Inc., a nonprofit gun-rights organization.
If these gun-rights people had any sense they'd be the ones crying for more qualifying requirements not less. The laxity of concealed carry laws are directly related to the frequency of incidents involving CCW permit holders. They say they're too few to worry about, we say they're too many, but the fact is whatever the true percentage, they are largely preventable.
The counter-intuitive thinking which leads most gun-rights people to fight against common sense regulations is always surprising, but I think I understand where it comes from. Years ago the NRA began a campaign which basically said any and all gun control laws were evil because they violate the 2nd Amendment Rights of American citizens. The real reason for their campaign of propaganda was the "slippery slope theory" and a good bit of paranoia.
This was picked up by the mindless masses, NRA members and other gun owners, and repeated over and over again with reference to gun registration and gun-owner licensing, with regards to eliminating private sales of guns, about the AWB of course, magazine capacity, and every other restriction or regulation you can think of.
The irony is that through the years of practicing this united effort against the "gun controllers," they've lost sight of reality. Case in point, Wisconsin Concealed Carry. The requirements are so lax that Wisconsin went from one of only two states to not allow it to among the top ten most lenient. This will guarantee blowback which will be used by their critics against them.
The real problem is this is not an academic exercise or an argument over the dinner table. Lives are at stake. There will be more incidents of domestic violence against women, there will be more incidents of disgruntled employees going berserk, there will be more trouble in bars. Then the proponents of the legislation will cherry pick stats and manipulate the facts in order to appease their critics and please their followers. And meanwhile, people will have unnecessarily suffered and died.
What's your opinion? Is this a good day in Wisconsin or a bad one?
Please leave a comment.
Your prediction is that there will be "incidents," now that this bill is in effect. The problem is that the incidents that you describe--domestic violence, employee going berserk, and so on--have nothing to do with licensing or no licensing. A person who decides to commit murder--the top level felony--isn't going to be deterred by the fact that illegally carrying a handgun is a misdemeanor. The people who are going to commit those crimes won't be issued licenses anyway.
ReplyDeleteNow a training requirement is a compromise that I'm willing to accept, although I understand the arguments against it. Those classes are expensive, which means that the poor will be much less able to afford them than will the wealthy who are already well protected. That being said, King Edward III did pass a law forbidding any sport that wasted time that could be better used for gaining skill at arms. . .
Edward III did pass a law forbidding any sport that wasted time that could be better used for gaining skill at arms.
ReplyDeleteOf course, skill at arms was necessary for national defence. These guns are being used for personal defence--if they are used at all.
In fact, if we're getting into it, a pistol is a pretty lousy weapon as far as accuracy at a distance goes. What's the effective range of a pistol v. a rifle?
I think skill at arms would also include military drill as well since just having a weapon isn't very useful unless you can use it with others in combat.
ReplyDeleteI should also note that King Edward III was King of England from 1327 until his death in 1377. He was noted for his military success. He led a campaign against Scotland in 1333. He started what would become known as the Hundred Years' War when he declared himself rightful heir to the French throne in 1337.
ReplyDeleteSo, he had a reason for wanting people to be skilled in arms.
It was for national defence, not personal defence.
"Lives are at stake. There will be more incidents of domestic violence against women, there will be more incidents of disgruntled employees going berserk, there will be more trouble in bars."
ReplyDeleteOMG! There will be blood flowing in the streets and wild-west shootouts! Just like in the other 48 states.
No, not blood flowing in the streets, but there will be SOME unnecessary incidents.
ReplyDeleteGreg, the easy licensing for concealed carry means there will be more guns in more hands more of the time.
That's bad news for women and children as well as for the misguided men who think they're better off like that. Some of them are not.
"The people who are going to commit those crimes won't be issued licenses anyway."
ReplyDeleteThere's certainly more than enough evidence to demonstrate your assertion is false.
The argument you're making is that each murder is meticulously planned and plotted well in advance. While that's true in a very few cases, most acts of violence are the result of impromptu conflicts that escalate. When you introduce a gun into an escalating conflict--it's a recipe for disaster.
There will also be incidents of people who can now *save* their own lives because they have access to a gun. The media won't report them, the available stats about them will be almost as bad as stats about gun violence, but most of all, good people will be alive that would otherwise be dead. Deal with it.
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000,
ReplyDelete"Greg, the easy licensing for concealed carry means there will be more guns in more hands more of the time."
Just so. That's what we want to be possible. I don't see a problem there.
JadeGold,
"When you introduce a gun into an escalating conflict--it's a recipe for disaster."
That's been the prediction in every state that has adopted a shall issue system, and it doesn't happen.
Laci The Dog,
My comment about Edward III was in humor, but it does make a point. People who train with their weapons are able to defend themselves. If necessary, they can defend their country as well. In answer to one of your questions, though, a handgun can do wonders even at a distance in the hands of someone who trains with it. When I practice regularly, I can put a .45 round into a two-liter soda bottle at sixty yards. It is true to say that a handgun is primarily a short-range defensive weapon, just as historian and small-arms trainer Jeff Cooper said.
Greg Camp wrote:
ReplyDelete"Your prediction is that there will be "incidents," now that this bill is in effect. The problem is that the incidents that you describe--domestic violence, employee going berserk, and so on--have nothing to do with licensing or no licensing. A person who decides to commit murder--the top level felony--isn't going to be deterred by the fact that illegally carrying a handgun is a misdemeanor. The people who are going to commit those crimes won't be issued licenses anyway."
Plenty of people who commit crimes do so with legal guns, particularly domestic violence. Pleanty of people who threaten and intimidate do so with legal guns. Plenty of people who are licensed and legally purchase guns commit suicide, or have accidents with them that result in death or injury.
We have proposed here repeatedly that a gun license and/or gun purchase for that matter, should include a psychological profile to determine their mental health. I'm particularly in favor of the MMPI for that purpose.
We do not have a means to determine the mental health of those purchasing weapons, or being licensed, and then we are suprised when some of the turn out to be nut jobs like Jared Loughner.
"That's been the prediction in every state that has adopted a shall issue system, and it doesn't happen."
ReplyDeleteActually, it does. I know you believe statistics are magic but the simple stats are that lax gun control law states have more violent crime than states that have tougher laws. There simply is no evidence for what you claim.
Also, Greg, Jeff Cooper was not a historian.
ReplyDeleteHe was a white supremacist and gun-nut who was a lousy businessman.
Jade your statement "Actually, it does. I know you believe statistics are magic but the simple stats are that lax gun control law states have more violent crime than states that have tougher laws. There simply is no evidence for what you claim." clearly does not hold true seen as VA has a lower violent crime rate that MD. secondly Mike did not say violent crime goes down just that it does not increase after ccp laws are enacted.
ReplyDeleteDAG; You're engaging in cherry-picking by comparing just 2 states. DC (not a state0 gets a lot of flak for violent crime but it's crime rate is far lower than NOLA's.
ReplyDeleteYou have to ask why states like SC and TN are 1 and 2 in terms of violent crime.
Here are the rankings:
1. SC
2. TN
3. NV
4. FL
5. AZ
6. DE
7. MD
8. NM
9. MI
10. AR
As you can see, of the top 10 states, 8 are shall issue states.
Someone mentioned that DGUs will go up. I agree they probably would, but they are so far outnumbered by gun MISuse that that's no argument. Of course our commenter already threw in the old justification that the media doesn't report them. You see, the media is against the gun-rights movement, it's a type of conspiracy against them, poor fellows.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe MMPI for a gun license? This is exactly what scares gun owners about your position. You want psychologists to decide who gets a license. Psychology is not a hard science. It's more of a philosophy, one that I don't trust. As I've said before, I want a transparent due process to make the decision, not a secret tribunal.
JadeGold,
Jeff Cooper was a historian. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't change his credentials. He was not a white supremicist. Yes, he was a Marine officer in the Second World War, and he acknowledged that his experiences affected his view of the Japanese, but he also said that he worked to overcome that.
"The MMPI for a gun license? This is exactly what scares gun owners about your position. You want psychologists to decide who gets a license. Psychology is not a hard science. "
ReplyDeleteActually, the MMPI is very much a hard science, entirely statistically based.
And I'm not suggesting 'a scientist decides who gets a license', only that those who are clearly schizophrenic, or otherwise clearly dangerous - like Jarrod Loughner be screened. Do you know anything about the MMPI, or how it is used? Do you recognize for example how useful this might be, for example, in preventing guns being used in suicides where someone is dangerously depressed? Or where someone is dangerous, like Loughner who appears to be schizophrenic?
Taking the MMPI is not that big a deal, particularly the shorter versions. It has withstood the test of time, being more than 50 years old, and it is already recognized in court cases as a forensic tool and it is used for some employment purposes.
"The MMPI-2 is most commonly used by mental health professionals to assess and diagnose mental illness. The MMPI-2 has been utilized in other fields outside of clinical psychology. The test is often used in legal cases, including criminal defense and custody disputes. The test has also been used as screening instrument for certain professions, especially high risk jobs, although the use of the MMPI in this manner has been controversial. The test is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment programs, including substance abuse programs. "
Given the mass shootings with legally obtained guns by undiagnosed crazy people, Loughner comes to mind, but also possibly Breivik in Norway, there seems to be a fair and reasonable justification for this kind of testing, or an equivalent.
Loughner has been diagnosed schizophrenic, Breivik so far has been diagnosed with 'strong narcissistic tendencies" at the very least, and some of the people associated with his prosecution are clearly convinced he is full blown crazy. I'm sure we could add to the list of people who are clinically depressed and either shoot themselves, or shoot a lot of other people - like the hair salon shootings out in CA, where the shooter appears to have wigged out, or the other shooting in CA where the apparently otherwise nice man blew away a bunch of his co-workers for no apparent reason other than a supervisor changed his shift assignment.
If we agree that weapons kill people, that they are an inherently dangerous tool in people's hands, then it makes perfect sense to be proactive in not allowing them into the hands of dangerously unhinged people.
That can be done with discretion and full respect for privacy; it is not physically invasive; and the cost is a reasonable one to improve the safety of who is allowed to get a gun or guns.
Greg Camp calls Cooper an historian.
ReplyDeleteHe is not. He studied history in college and he is considered an expert in the use and history of small arms; that doesn't make him an historian. He is not a chronicler or scholar of any specific period of history; his speciality is too narrow to qualify him for the designation of historian. He is a gun guy, a very highly qualified and regarded gun guy, but not an historian in the widely accepted use of the term.
from dictionary.com
his·to·ri·an
[hi-stawr-ee-uhn, -stohr-]
noun
1.
an expert in history; authority on history.
2.
a writer of history; chronicler.
Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English. See history, -an
I have been accepted for the purposes of a court case as a dog expert. I know probably as much about the history of dogs, including the identification of certain kinds of archeology that unearthed dogs along with human remains, and the science of canine DNA, as well as their use and evolution of breeds.
But it doesn't make me a canine historian; it is just one of the many things which makes me a dog expert.
Dog Gone the issue with personality tests even scientifically designed tests are only as good as the examiner giving it one example is the over use and under training on the PCL-R test which is often used in criminal sentencing. the creator of the test is so concerned with how the test is implemented he no longer wants it used for criminal sentencing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/436/the-psychopath-test
and from reading through this blog it seems to imply that the MMPI-XX series of tests are far more subjective than you may think. http://www.mmpi-info.com/blog/
So, DAG, propose something else.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm suggesting is that we try to find some reasonable, objective screening to keep people who are certifiably nuts - like Jared Loughner, like Anders Breivik,like far too many others, from getting guns - consistent with the current federal prohibiion about such people getting firearms.
Instead, depending on where they live, LIKE Arizona, they appear to get them all too easily with no effective barriers.
For these purposes, we could easily make the threshold sufficiently high as to be less subjective. OR, have failure to get a qualifying score mean you need to have some further professional assessment to backstop the MMPI result. If you don't pass the MMPI with an acceptable score, then you need a statement from a psychiatrist - AFTER having some kind of exam -that in his professional opinion the MMPI score should not prohibit person X from safely owning firearms.
If you can come up with a better test for this, one which has been through the court system and through academic examination as well, for a long enough time to 'get the bugs out' of it, great. The MMPI dates back to the 1930s..........let me know.
Given the frequency of the ooops! with people getting legal firearms and then blowing away significant numbers of people when they go off their nut, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to ask for assurance that gun owners and gun carriers are safe.
If those didn't happen, this might -MIGHT - be an unreasonable request. But they do happen, over and over, and I'm trying to brainstorm some way to separate those people out from those who are not undetected dangerously mentally ill people attracted to firearms from the rest of us.
Doesn't seem to me too much to ask.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteHere's my better system for you: Due process and the presumption of innocence. You are trying to deny a right (or a privilege, in your view) without any bad act having been committed. Can you not see the danger in that? I refuse to accept a "no-buy" list that is based on what someone is anticipated to do in the future, based on what a test predicts. Despite your faith in the MMPI, it does not stand without its critics. But even if it were beyond doubt, it is a statistical assessment of what a person who answers a given way is likely to do.
Human beings aren't particles or billiard balls. We have choice, and it's a principle of our laws that we aren't to be convicted or sentenced without a trial and certainly without having done anything.
there are some issues with the system highlighted actually by the VTech shooting which VA has worked to balance cost to the individual and safety of the public, I do not know if it will be enough for what you are asking but it is a start. in VA if you are put in a psych ward for any reason meaning 24 hour hold or any other reason regardless of age, or have been ordered to go see a psychiatrist you are disqualified till you can prove that you are mental competent with out the need for medication.
ReplyDeleteon top of that i would add that if the military rejects some one for questions of mental health or hygiene like they did with Laughner, they should be disqualified and a NICS flag should be raised.
my personal opinion on Psychopathy and and fire arms is that there are more hints and tells that truly mentally ill need help before they go on a shooting spree and its much more our collective failure as a society to get the ill the help they need. at what does a student that is threatening a professor not for imaginary issues not warrant police attention yet the community college he went to kicked him out but refused to bring the problem of a mentally unstable person to the police. or how about the military who refused him because he wasn't mentally stable shouldn't they have told someone? or how about his parents?
"The NRA and the Wisconsin Carry folks oppose live-fire training and feel four hours in the classroom is too much. Is that incredible, or what?"
ReplyDeleteActually what they objected to was the bureaucracy unlawfully imposing rules which had been rejected by legislators when they wrote the law.
Sec. 175.60(2)(b): (b) The department [of justice] may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.
Shame on the legislators for failing to make reasonable and necessary provisions for sufficient hours and sufficient training.
ReplyDeleteWisconsin has a bunch of right wing lunatics that were elected in 2010 getting the boot. Some are now gone, others are on their way out. Even the sane Republicans are unhappy with the results of that election purchased by the Koch Brothers.
So far the latest recall petitions are going even better than expected; puppet governor Walker is on his way out. Could there be a better condemnation of his failed policies than throwing him out after one year - only because they couldn't do so sooner?
"First, thinking they could slow down signature gathering enough to make it impossible to force recall elections, Wisconsin Republicans introduced legislation requiring that all recall petitions be notarized. However, even if this bill passes, Wisconsin Democrats said over the weekend that hundreds of notaries had volunteered to support the recall of Scott Walker.
Next, Wisconsin Republicans tried to pass legislation requiring that any future recall elections against state senators be held under new district maps which Republicans drew to protect themselves. However, with Democrats gaining two seats in the August recalls, and Republican Dale Schultz refusing to vote for the new legislation, Republicans simply don't have the votes to pass this bill."
Wisconsin has a bunch of right wing lunatics that were elected in 2010 getting the boot.
ReplyDeleteWhy is asking people to pay a percentage of their wages towards their own health and well being crazy?
It is wrong, when they agreed to less in wages in exchange for more in benefits as their compensation.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy when those people agree to pay more of their wages into their health care, to 'do their share', and then the rightwing nuts take away their collective bargaining rights.
It is crazy when corporations get a free tax ride, while individuals have to pay more of the burden.
And the premise for that? That Wisconsin would decrease their unemployment, which instead has gone up, not down. Meanwhile Walker talks about jobs..........and posts a bunch that are outside of Wisconsin.
THAT is crazy, and damned unpopular too.
GC wrote: Due process and the presumption of innocence. You are trying to deny a right (or a privilege, in your view) without any bad act having been committed.
ReplyDeleteDue process applies to government authorities in criminal cases where there is an arrest, and prosecution. So does presumption of innocence.
It does not apply to regulation.
That is not the same for a right, particularly when you do not correctly identify or correctly define what you are calling a right.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteFine--you want a definition? I thought that I'd been clear, but here goes: I have a natural right to own, carry, and use small arms for any legitimate purpose, including self defense. A natural right is logically prior to any nation's laws or constitution. Our Constitution does recognize many of my natural rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
By due process, I'm saying that a government agency has to treat all citizens equally. It cannot say to someone, you failed to pass our test, so you don't get to exercise your rights. Any rights that are taken away must be removed by a court of law, not by a secretive tribunal.
You seem to fear guns. What I don't understand is why you don't fear a government that is free to make decisions without review--or with such review as only an expensive fight in appeals courts can give. I want to know why you don't fear a government that gets to decide who's a good citizen and who's dangerous without any conviction of a crime. I'd rather live in a society in which the occasional Jarod Loughner slips through the cracks than one in which our lives are evaluated and decided for us. That's my assessment of competing risks.
Greg Camp wrote:
ReplyDelete"You seem to fear guns."
Not at all. I do however distrust those who are fearful correctly assessing risk, and I am factually aware of the differences in personal gun violence here compared to other countries.
I think you and those who share your views over-estimate the risks from others, and underestimate the dangers from firearms that are reported in the media daily, the misuse and abuse of firearms, both intentional and unintentional. Guns are making this country LESS safe, not more safe.
I do not rely on firearms for my safety; I rely on my intellect and resourcefulness.
Each of us here who are contributing authors / admins. are both competent and comfortable with firearms. Don't assume otherwise, especially not on the basis of gender.
As to the nature of rights and due process:
ReplyDeleteRight:
Anybody can claim anything as a right, but it is the assent of others
that makes it enforcable. That is I can claim the right to be able to
hit someone over the head--this fits all the criteria that you express for a
right. Why can't I exercise it--because you don't agree to my having
this right.
Due process:
These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels
of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and
provide fair procedures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process
and from something Laci shared with me a while ago on this topic of 'due process'
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
an analysis made by the late Judge Henry Friendly in his well-regarded article, "Some Kind of Hearing," generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:
An unbiased tribunal.
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
Again, these are simply the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance, and not a list of procedures that will in fact be required.
You can think anything you like, whether it is regarding the origin of rights, or about the moon being made of green cheese. Thinking it doesn't make it so, it just makes it your thinking, more or less unique to you, but with no weight or force of action.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI would never imagine that because you're a woman, you know nothing about firearms. I have no idea what knowledge you have. I don't even really know your sex. You show me a picture that isn't likely you, the same way that Laci The Dog does. Myeh, who cares?
I note that you ignored my point about a society that gives rights can just as easily take them away. You offered a panel that would make judgements based on a hearing. All right, at least answer me this: Why do you favor the rich?
I've seen a number of defenses of the Occupy Wall Street movement on this site. Whatever else such people are for, they are certainly against the moneyed elite being in charge. You do realize that under the system that you propose, only the wealthy would be able to afford firearms? People of modest means would never have the time or the money to go through the process. You're playing into the old system of giving privileges to the rich and screwing everyone else.
The rich will always have firearms, whether in their own possession or in that of their guards. We who support a shall-issue system believe in applying the same standard to everyone and in a system that isn't so expensive or burdensome that only a few can pass.
Dog Gone says: "... I do however distrust those who are fearful correctly assessing risk, and I am factually aware of the differences in personal gun violence here compared to other countries."
ReplyDeleteAre you also 'factually aware' of the differences in personal non-gun violence here compared to other countries? Much is made of the UK's and Japan's low firearm homicide rate, but their non-firearm homicide rates are also multiples lower than the US. I don't believe the proportion is the same in gun vs. non-gun, but there is still a huge difference. To me this underscores the fact that societal differences matter more than numbers of guns. Also (again looking at the UK because I am most familiar with their numbers) violent crime besides homicide is two to four times higher in the UK than it is in the US.
Bruce Kraft wrote:
ReplyDelete"To me this underscores the fact that societal differences matter more than numbers of guns."
That is an assumption that doesn't hold up when you look at other countries in other contexts. For another example, look at Australia, and specifically look at the changes when they tightened up firearm regulation.
Look at the suicide rates as well, and the choice of method.
Over and over as I read the statistical and causal analyses associated with ALL gun violence there are a couple of things which come through over and over.
Firearms have lethality at a greater distance than other weapons. The very nature of violence changes at close range. Firearms are also, repeatedly, linked to being an impulsive weapon, more so than other weapons. THAT, the very definitive characteristics of firearms appears to be more the reason for those differences than societal differences. And it is consistent with the changes in statistics from before to after stricter gun regulation.
AND one might add that instituting stricter gun regulation is itself part of any societal difference -- for the better. But more than that it appears to be about availability and access.
If you want to know what makes our nation a more violent society, you have to allow that our laws relating to access to guns IS part of that, as is our carry policies.
We are not just a violent society because bad guys have guns, we are a society where the good guys do bad things with guns. To underline that, domestic violence is multiple times higher BY law enforcement, including with firearms, or the threat of firearm violence. If these people - and it is mostly men involved with this violence - who are supposed to be the best, the most professional, don't use these weapons less violently, who will?
Greg says, "I have a natural right to own, carry, and use small arms for any legitimate purpose, including self defense."
ReplyDeleteI don't see why you think that. Couldn't I just as easily say you have no natural right to do any such thing? What makes your idea better than mine?
I'll tell you what makes mine better than yours. There are more than a few Loughners slipping through the cracks these days. The more gun proliferation there is the more gun incidents we have. Maybe your idea used to work but it doesn't any more. It's got to change.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteThe natural right that I named gives power to the individual My principle is to favor individuals over groups every time. Beyond that, the right that I described hurts no innocent person. I didn't say that I have the right to shoot people indiscriminately. I didn't say that I have the right to wave guns in everyone's face.
Why is my idea better? It values personal liberty.
Greg, NO ONE among the philosophers who posited natural rights in the era of the Founding Fathers has ever claimed there is a right to personal firearms.
ReplyDeleteNada. It doesn't exist, just as there is no religious support for a God Given Right to firearms or any other weapon.
I'm not worried about the social contract in connection with my rights. The only right I see being abrogated are the right wingers who in the name of correcting a virtually non-existent problem, but in effect are eliminating people who would not vote for right wing candidates, are disenfranchising people in the thousands by the right wing voter registration laws, like voter ID requirements, like shorter early voting,like more restrictive absentee ballot legislation.
I'm not a damn bit worried 'they're a commin' fer mah gunz'. I'm not even personally worried about having my right to vote abrogated.
But I do worry about the right wingers who abuse the social contract to wreck OTHER people's rights.
And if there was ever an example of proof that the rights we have are NOT innate, not God-given, IT IS RIGHT WING DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF LEGAL VOTERS.
I would bet that those laws are among the first that will be repealed right after the RIGHT to collective bargaining restrictions.
You, Greg, have a totally FAULTY idea of what rights are, and how they operate, and most of all - what gives them their authority.
Greg Camp wrote:
ReplyDelete"Why is my idea better? It values personal liberty."
Your idea is fantasy, not reality. You have no fundamentally valid understanding of what a right IS, or how it works.
When you DO understand what rights are, we can have a more informed and useful discussion.
Greg, Your idea of personal liberty is a bit self-serving. I wouldn't bring my kids to a place where people were carrying guns, if I could avoid it, which means my personal liberty is diminished.
ReplyDeleteWhy is yours more important than mine?
You say no innocent person is hurt, but that's not true. Every time you or one of your gun buddies has an accident or decides to go berserk, innocent people are hurt. It happens every day.