NY Times Really Upset Over Concealed Carry Laws

The anonymous NY Times editorial board has been running editorial after editorial in their drumbeat to take guns away from law abiding citizens (no word from the editorial board as to whether they are going to do away with the armed security guards in their lobby), turning citizens into gazelle in a sea of lions. Here comes another

The Scourge of Concealed Weapons

As the nation’s leaders devise new gun control strategies following the Connecticut shooting, they should look for ways to strengthen state laws that govern the possession and use of firearms. In too many states, these laws are weak and, in some cases, seem almost designed to encourage violence.

Over the years, states have made it increasingly possible for almost any adult to carry a concealed handgun in public, including on college campuses, in churches and in state parks — places where people tend to congregate in large numbers and where, in a rational world, guns should be strictly prohibited.

In the real world, those places where people tend to congregate are typically gun free zones, and exactly where crazy people bent upon committing mass murder before suicide target. More often, college campuses, churches, state parks, malls, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, and so many other places are off limits for those with concealed carry permits, either through state restrictions, federal restrictions, or business restrictions. In North Carolina, the restrictions are:

Any location prohibited by federal law.

A law enforcement of correctional facility.

A building housing only state, federal or government offices.

A financial institution.

Any public or private school building or bus, campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic fields or other property used or owned by an educational institution.

Any assembly where a fee had been charged for admission or where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.

Any other premises where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises.

It shall be unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any public place owned or under the control of the state or any of its political subdivisions to willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any firearm.

It is further against the law to carry while under the effects of alcohol or drugs, except in cases of certain legally obtained drugs (like flu medicine) as long as the drugs do not cause impairment. Most States’ concealed carry laws are similar. And where do most of these mass killings tend to occur? In places where there are lots of gazelles. Or, perhaps we should say where there are lots of sheep, and sheep dogs are not allowed.

A more likely cause for this shift are the very forces that have undercut efforts to enact strong and sensible national laws, namely, the incredible power of the pro-gun lobby and its profitable allies in the gun manufacturing industry. The assertion on Friday by Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the National Rifle Association, that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” was as much a sales pitch as it was a restatement of the organization’s perverse philosophy.

Well, if the NY Times and liberals don’t like that, perhaps they could tell us what a good guy could use when a bad guy comes after him/her with an illegal gun in a gun free zone. Harsh words? Dirty looks? Asking them to stop?

President Obama has promised to unveil a new gun control strategy soon (once he’s back from his long vacation). It is likely to include a renewed effort to ban the sale of assault weapons like the one used in the Connecticut massacre, as well as other familiar measures. But the strategy will be incomplete unless Washington becomes actively engaged in making sure that the states stop allowing guns to get into the wrong hands.

In Times Land, that means everyone (else) should be disarmed, and somehow, magically, criminals will give up their own guns.

BTW, under federal law people are not allowed to bring guns within 1000 feet of a school (k-12). That did not stop the Newtown shooter. Nor did he have a concealed carry permit. So, why the effort to roll back concealed carry? A disarmed population is a sheepish population.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

6 Comments

Comment by Dana
2012-12-23 09:50:24

Oddly enough, where Adam Lanza unleashed death and destruction was precisely what the Editors say everyplace should be, a gun-free zone. For some unexplained reason, the weapons did not automatically fly from Mr Lanza’s hands, as if rejected by some science fiction force field, when he crossed into that gun-free zone.

I must say, I’m at something of a loss to explain why that didn’t happen.

 
Comment by john
2012-12-23 12:06:07

Ronald Regan wanted to ban assault weapons. And I don’t think I would be safer in a bar if untrained people had guns. Teach do you take your gun with you at all times. Although i might be more inclined to watch Jersey Shore . Would you pack heat on a first date

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2012-12-23 12:37:16

Ronald Regan wanted to ban assault weapons.

No he didn’t. This is another factually incorrect statement from you. Reagan supported the assault weapons ban of 1994 which did not ban any assault weapons at all – just weapons that people think looked “scary.” It did not ban any type of assault weapon.

And I don’t think I would be safer in a bar if untrained people had guns.

To carry a weapon on your person you need a permit which requires training. Therefore your premise is false to start with. But here are two facts which matter to reasonable people. In the last 50 years, only the Gabby Giffords shooting happened in a area that was designated as “gun free.” The people in so called “gun free” zones are known as “targets” and “victims.” How much of a victim? In mass shootings were a person other than the shooter has a weapon on them, on average 2.5 people are killed. If the police are the only responders, that number rises to 14 people killed.

This proves the adage that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

Tell us John, do you lock your doors at night when you go to bed? If that is the case, why? Are you worried about someone breaking in? Why is it that you feel the need to defend yourself from attacks and break ins but want to deny others their rights to defend themselves?

 
Comment by William Teach
2012-12-23 12:59:18

John, people with CCPs usually have to go through classes. Stringent classes. In easy areas, i would recommend more stringent certification

 
Comment by Gumball_Brains Subscribed to comments via email
2012-12-23 14:04:17

At least silly antisemitic no-name troll allows us to keep information flowing.

[obama's plan(if any)] is likely to include a renewed effort to ban the sale of assault weapons like the one used in the Connecticut massacre, as well as other familiar measures.

yeah, that worked out real well in Newtown CN didn’t it!? So, making it a federal law won’t really stop people from ignoring no-murder-laws and killing others to get their guns and then ignoring the no-guns-on-campus-laws and walking on campus to kill people who are sheeple.

As the nation’s leaders devise new gun control strategies following the Connecticut shooting, they should look for ways to strengthen state laws that govern the possession and use of firearms. In too many states, these laws are weak and, in some cases, seem almost designed to encourage violence.

As the nation’s leaders devise new gun control strategies following the Connecticut shooting, they should look for ways to strengthen state laws that govern the possession and use of firearms. In too many states, these laws are weak and, in some cases, seem almost designed to encourage violence.

Oh, do please tell us how. How does providing protection to women in a battered home encourages violence? How does providing a means of protection for a small homeowner from a big neighbor bully encourage violence? HOw does protection you and your family from raging mass-murder lunatics in public encourage violence?

Your liberal no-balls give-in-to-fear policies are more violent to the average citizen than another average certified citizen with a gun.

Oh dear, how did we ever survive the “wild west”?

 
Comment by CWP Holder
2013-01-02 16:15:56

I love that, “The Scourge of Concealed Weapons.” Just ridiculous. What they fail to tell people is that crime goes down as concealed carry permit numbers go up. Don’t they realize that it’s not the legal permit holders doing the damage and that the criminals and mentally imbalanced are going to get their weapons any way they can? They don’t necessarily have to use guns, either.

My dad was a cop and I’ve been around guns all my life. A few well-placed concealed carry permit holding teachers might be a good idea. I’d sure rather have my kids protected by responsible citizens than to ever have what happened in CT happen again.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 15345 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE