Obama's Stance on Concealed Carry?

Epicurus said:
Okay moron, since you asked, let's look at the first and last ranked for crime rates.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Washington DC has a ban on handguns and ranks first in the nation for violent crime.

New Hampshire has some of the fewest regulations on concealed carry permits of any state, and is in last place for total crime rate and 49th place for violent crime.

There. Now let your tapdance of denial begin... NOW.
Click to expand...

Washington DC is poor and urban and New Hampshire is rich and rural. Of course there would be crime differences.
 
Again, you have to show casual relationship.

New Hampshire has better marmalade than DC. I think that accounts for the lower crime rate - people are happier and their mouthes are stickier.
 
Ky has very easy CC permits and is in the middle ranking....
heck even a liberal like me has a CC permit.

Simple little 2 hr class, stupit test that even dixie could pass and then shoot a few rounds into a large target and hit most of them.

$75 as I recall and good to go. As long as you pass the criminal background test. Heck in most places you can carry exposed without any permit.
Carrying exposed is even more intimidating.
A Colt .45 hanging on your waist lets them know how it is. Much more macho than carrying a pissy little .380 in your pocket.
 
Last edited:
Note that gun control advocates will spout statistics until our ears bleed about lower crime rates in countries with strict gun control - and claim a cause effect relationship? (Of course they have to ignore all the countries with lower gun control than the U.S. yet have low crime rates to do so.....)

Fact is Obama has no problem with very strict gun control laws. In 2001 as an Illinois state senator Obama voted against a bill permitting gun owners to claim self-defense when using a gun in their homes if the local community bans the use of handguns.

His rhetoric on the one hand about not wishing to ban handguns is contradicted by his strong support of the DC handgun ban. That campaign rhetoric is also contradicted bythe fact that he sat for eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation. During that time, the foundation funded 2.7 million dollars worth of research aimed at proving the worth of strict gun control laws.
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9722.html)

Among the achievements of the Joyce Foundation was a grant which provided the funding for publishing a book by the title: "Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns" (http://www.banhandgunsnow.org/everyhandgun/index.html)

The Obama campaign claims the Joyce Foundation was funding research for the reduction of gun violence. But when examined, ALL funding was aimed at researching gun control and the possible effectiveness of banning handguns.
 
"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents."

The fact of this statement had nothing to do with a bill about allowing law enforcement to carry concealed. It was an answer to a Chicago Tribune questionnaire whose focus was the candidates' stand on the death penalty.

The full context of Obama's statement was made in contradiction of another candidate's statement that states should decide about concealed carry laws. Obama disagreed with those candidates, and stated he backed federal legislation that would ban any citizen who is not in law enforcement from concealed carry. He cited a study (coinicidentally funded by the Joyce Foundation) that showed Texas CC laws were flawed and were allowing people to carry who had prior convictions. And that is when he said "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents."

http://www.icadp.org/page236.html
 
Epicurus said:
BB isn't as cool a cop as you are Diuretic.

In fact I have yet to meet a cool American cop who isn't shamelessly dirty or absurdly closeminded or both.
Click to expand...

I'm not all that cool Epicurus, I'm just a bit of a maverick (always have been). I don't know BB personally but I can tell you his online persona is very reasonable. I've had a few discussions with American cops online which were simply flame-fests (over politics). Funnily enough every American cop I've ever met face to face - and I've met a few - has been okay (they can't drink though) :clink:
 
Battleborne said:
I disagree...one case does not change the obligation of LE...like I said response time and priorities are more likely what the court decision in this case was addressing!
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find the case I'm referring to - not out of one-upmanship but just out of interest. Personally I am very unhappy with the idea that police don't have a legal responsibility to their community. And I say that as a citizen rather than as a serving cop.
 
I think the question is moot now, Socrtease explained it.

Anyway, about gun control and crime. I know I'm down here and you're up there but my common sense tells me there's no link between gun control and crime, either way. I argue for "reasonable" (slippery but very useful word) gun control on the basis of the control of firearms in (my) society. I also argue that crime is a separate matter. It's oft said but true that crooks don't give a flying eff about the law regarding gun control, for them it's a minor barrier. But gun control does have an impact in reducing the more deleterious effects of gun ownership (eg reduce the number of non-criminals that should never be permitted to lawfully own/use a firearm).

I'm not anti-gun but I live in a society that has very few firearms and frankly I like it that way.

I am not going to pronounce on the US context. Indi will be happy. :clink:
 
blackascoal said:
Common sense.

Americans kill more people than in war zones.

Common sense.
Click to expand...
Then use the ability to change the constitution through the amendment process rather than ignoring what you have sworn to uphold. I get tired of the same people who keep repeating a rumor that Bush said it was a "piece of paper" in faux outrage treating it like that is really all it is.

Common sense.
 
Damocles said:
Then use the ability to change the constitution through the amendment process rather than ignoring what you have sworn to uphold. I get tired of the same people who keep repeating a rumor that Bush said it was a "piece of paper" in faux outrage treating it like that is really all it is.

Common sense.
Click to expand...

This isn't about Bush and I made no mention of him. I call the Constitution a piece of paper, who cares what Bush calls it or anything else.

I'm the resident socialist, so feel free to ignore me .. I recognize that Americans are mindlessly in love with guns, drugs, and death.

If the wish of the American people is to keep blasting each other to death in ASTRONOMICAL numbers and call it "freedom" .. then so be it.

But there is no common sense to it whatso-fucking-ever.
 
blackascoal said:
This isn't about Bush and I made no mention of him. I call the Constitution a piece of paper, who cares what Bush calls it or anything else.

I'm the resident socialist, so feel free to ignore me .. I recognize that Americans are mindlessly in love with guns, drugs, and death.

If the wish of the American people is to keep blasting each other to death in ASTRONOMICAL numbers and call it "freedom" .. then so be it.

But there is no common sense to it whatso-fucking-ever.
Click to expand...
Again, then change the document you swear to uphold when you get the power to make those kind of changes.

It isn't that hard to comprehend, in fact it is common sense. If you don't like the restrictions on the government from the "piece of paper" you swear to uphold then change them in the fashion it is made to be changed.
 
Damocles said:
Again, then change the document you swear to uphold when you get the power to make those kind of changes.

It isn't that hard to comprehend, in fact it is common sense. If you don't like the restrictions on the government from the "piece of paper" you swear to uphold then change them in the fashion it is made to be changed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's what Obama proposes to do sometime during his terms.

Personally, Americans can keep blasting away like children playing a video game in the name of "freedom" if they wish.

As resources get tighter, the blasting will get greater.

"Freedom"?

I call it stupid.

But again, I'm the socialist and being so, the greater good of the whole of society is far more important than the individual.
 
blackascoal said:
Perhaps that's what Obama proposes to do sometime during his terms.

Personally, Americans can keep blasting away like children playing a video game in the name of "freedom" if they wish.

As resources get tighter, the blasting will get greater.

"Freedom"?

I call it stupid.

But again, I'm the socialist and being so, the greater good of the whole of society is far more important than the individual.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is what he plans. And I would respect him more for it were it so. I would lose more respect if the document was ignored.

You being socialist has nothing to do with the constitution and its restrictions.
 
Damocles said:
Perhaps it is what he plans. And I would respect him more for it were it so. I would lose more respect if the document was ignored.

You being socialist has nothing to do with the constitution and its restrictions.
Click to expand...

Not so oh wise and intelligent sir.

I believe in a living Constitution. I respect its foundation, but I see it as dynamic and its orginalist ideas as an impediment to todays society.

Nor do I believe in "individualism" over what's best for the whole of society.

In fact, I believe in mixed economies, mixed society, and mixed ideologies of democracy and socialism .. which is not prescribed by the Constitution.
 
blackascoal said:
Not so oh wise and intelligent sir.

I believe in a living Constitution. I respect its foundation, but I see it as dynamic and its orginalist ideas as an impediment to todays society.

Nor do I believe in "individualism" over what's best for the whole of society.

In fact, I believe in mixed economies, mixed society, and mixed ideologies of democracy and socialism .. which is not prescribed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Of course it is "living" in the respect that there was a process added to it to change those portions which were set and Amendment 9 for those that were not.

This is one of those set ones. Pretending that set rights are removable at will is preposterous and ignores the actual document itself. If your version of it were in effect all it would take is a "leader" who convinces himself that your right to speak would be better denied because it would be "better for society as a whole" to get rid of one of the more popular rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top