Thune’s gun amendment fails in Senate vote.
By on Jul 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Thune’s gun amendment fails in Senate vote.
In a vote just moments ago, Sen. John Thune’s (R-SD) “concealed carry” gun amendment failed to receive the 60 votes it needed to pass. The vote was 58-39. The AP calls it “a rare win for gun control advocates.”
Update Michelle Malkin reports that GOP Sens. Lugar and Voinovich voted “nay.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Are these idiots in Congress gonna be happy when every single LUNATIC in the United States carries a gun?
Is this what ‘they’ want?
Why does ‘one’ need a semi-automatic gun to protect their home?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 pmWhere is the logic in equating gun ownership with freedom?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm58 idiots in the Senate.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pmAww.. Poor Thune, He took a political gamble and lost (maybe not). But you know he will be a hero to all the gun nuts out there. And the Rrpugs will use this come election time. This was political theater to satisfy the ‘Base’.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pmNow those that voted “yea” on the bill are now going to conspire with the “crazies” that Obama took away their 2nd amendment right.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pmI sure as shit hope Harry was certain of the outcome before allowing this bull to come to the Senate floor for a vote!
All Harry did by allowing this bill out of committee was to give the NRA and the gun hoarders more reason to be a-scared of them thar Dems!
PEACE
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pmIt seems like a no-brainer to me, that when you go to a different state you must obey the laws of that state. Why do gun nuts think they are so special?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pmThune’s gun amendment fails in Senate vote.
– - Wayne LaPierre will now begin frothing at the mouth in public.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm…
gop,
all for guns
nothing for health care.
:|
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pmI’m not against concealed carry on principle…but you can be damn sure that the concealed carry laws in a thinly populated rural state (like…South Dakota, where violent crime rates are a fraction of what they are in heavily populated urban areas) are waaaay more lax than they are in CA, NY, NJ…states with heavily urban or suburban populations.
There such a thing as sensible gun rights (letting sane, stable people own a firearm or two for protection or for sport). Right wing whackjobs like Thune seem more interested in letting meth heads, terrorists, and seperatists “exercise their 2nd amendment rights” than letting the people at large feel safe.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pmBadmoodman, have you heard me tell how Wayne lies about where he went to college to hide his left-wing politics and drug use?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pmCue the NRA to start screaming that all Americans are less safe than they were 10 minutes ago…
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm58 idiots in the Senate.
Yeah, at least 18 of them Democrats. Someone tell me again how great it is to have a filibuster-proof majority…?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pmennui@11, I am one of those sane people who has a weapon and a gun permit to carry, and I thought this was insanely stupid. States get the final say. I thOught these Repugs thought the ‘Government’ was a evil entity that couldn’t be trusted?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pmP.D.
My point exactly. You can’t trust certain issues to the federal gov’t at large. This being one of them.
(and, in response to any troll that might bring up same-sex marriage…there’s a difference between equality under the 14th amendment and whining because you can’t bring your gun into a bar in Manhattan, even though you could do that in Phoenix)
Also..what gives with Voinovich? He’s been voting with the Dems a shocking percent of the time this year. I know he’s retiring, but still…what a transformation.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pmThe reason why the bill was introduced and forced to a vote was to put votes on the record so the NRA can find out which Senators they need to work against.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pmGuns are dangerous. I don’t care what anybody says to the contrary. Guns are dangerous. If they weren’t dangerous, then why don’t we let kids have them?
It is an insane myth to say that having a concealed gun will make you safer. If it is supposed to be a deterrent to anyone who might try to rob you, then having it concealed will deter no one. They would have to see it to be deterred by it.
Hand guns, like the ones Sen Thune wants everyone to be allowed to carry across state lines, were designed to kill people, and nothing more.
Guns are dangerous for the same reason nuclear weapons are dangerous. Because they allow you to kill someone far away from you without putting yourself in close enough proximity to your victim to be harmed by them. Someone who has a gun is far more likely to kill someone than someone without a gun. And it’s having the gun that makes the situation far more dangerous. Guns are dangerous.
I am happy that this amendment failed.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pmThe guys at StormFront are in tears over this.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pmAt least the wingnuts are getting nailed for a change by their cherished “60 votes to pass” strategy.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pmFinally, a loss for the knuckledraggers.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pmThank goodness! Less opportunities for the lunatic fringe to have guns.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 pmCrap. Now I can’t mount my RPG swivel cannon on top of my car.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pmHow in the world did a proposal like this get 58 votes in the Senate? The amendment wasn’t even clearly written. I presume that if somebody lived in a carry concealed State and his destination was a carry concealed State but then he had to travel through a non-carry concealed State to get there it would impose a temporary carry concealed priviledge in the non-carry concealed State. And that was probably the sole purpose of this amendement. I also noticed that Republicans had no problem with rushing this to a vote either, contrary to their complaints on the health care bill currently in Congress.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 pmFailing the gun vote, Senate Republicans introduced a bill to eliminate state lines and incorporate the entire nation into the state of Texas.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pmY’know, I’d have thought that all the State’s Rights folks would have had a big problem with this.
Sigh.
Just goes to show how fungible their core values are when it comes down to it. Ah, governance by Pissing-Off-The-Hippies. Brilliant!
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pmI really think that this is just another example of WHO really runs America.
Fear of the NRA forced our brave Senators to cower in the corner, just like many of them are backing off from supporting Health Care reform because of the money they could lose from the Insurance industry.
I don’t know which emotion I feel more these days…anger or sadness!
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pmFear runs America.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pmWhen Obama got into some hot water about making a statement about folks clinging to their guns and religion, all I could think of was how true. This is case in point.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pmPoliticians voting for concealed carry do so for their own asses and the votes of the NRA — if they cared about the people of the nation, they would have all voted no to Thune’s ridiculous amendment.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 pmLet’s give credit to Lugar and Voinovich. It is nice to see that they’ve decided not to let the wingnuts control them.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:35 pmSeems that this would have been causing some cognitive dissonance with the wingnuts all along—them having “states rights” as a mantra, and all.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pmWell, when you realize that “State’s Rights” is just a euphemism for racism and/or capitalistic free-for-all, the it kinda makes sense that the “states’ rights” people wouldn’t bat an eye.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pmHad it passed, I reckon it would’ve been struck down by the
Supreme Court anyway.
Perhaps this is the reason the right was so concerned about
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:47 pmSotomayor’s views on gun rights.
The sad thing is that this amendment wouldn’t really make that much difference to the people who are already driving around with a handgun in their glovebox, under the floor mat, or elsewhere in their vehicle. While I have no statistical data on the issue (and it’s probably difficult to collect), I would imagine these gun travelers are already crossing state lines with their firearms (I’d also be willing to bet that not all of them have legal concealed-carry permits).
Does anybody really think these people stop at the state line and turn around because they are concerned about entering another state with their gun? The “cold dead fingers” crowd has very little respect for the law and more than a few of them pack heat because they’re convinced the government is out to get them anyway.
But this amendment would have taken away any teeth a state might have to go after out-of-state gun carriers before they hurt someone.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pmTwo Hundred years from now the world will look back and wonder how in the world did such a sick and violent nation last as long as it did.
And they will be very glad that the entire world banned together to stop our imperialist military government.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pmThe NY Times has the vote. Notables:
Feingold (Wis)
Bayh (Ind)
Webb (Vir)
Warner (Virg)
Hagan (NC)
All voted Yes. Other than that, it was Dems that we would expect to vote yes on this.
The vote of Bayh is particularly galling since Lugar had the guts to vote No. When you have GOP cover in your home state, you have no excuse at all.
Voinovich and Lugar were the only two in the GOP to vote yes.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pmYAY!!
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pmi know its unpopular here, but I do support concealed carry for certifiably RESPONSIBLE and EDUCATED owners…
bills that screw with tenets of the constitution (states individual sovereignties) scares me even more than concealed carry. this bill sure came out of nowhere, glad it’s gone for now.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pmYEAs —58
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —39
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting – 3
Byrd (D-WV)
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pmKennedy (D-MA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
spencers mom says:
——————————————————————————–
I sure as shit hope Harry was certain of the outcome before allowing this bull to come to the Senate floor for a vote!
All Harry did by allowing this bill out of committee was to give the NRA and the gun hoarders more reason to be a-scared of them thar Dems!
PEACE
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
mom
Nutless Harry voted IN FAVOR of this idiotic bill…….
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pmYou liberals just quashed the GOP health care plan!
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pmEver since they took away the right of the state of Florida to count their votes in the 2000 election, I haven’t heard the Republicans talk much about state’s rights.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:05 pmThune will be one of the GOP’s frontrunners for president in 2012 that hasn’t been caught shagging someone other than his wife – so far.
Don’t expect him to remember anything or legislate with any kind of consistentcy until the nominees are chosen.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pmFeingold? Huh?
Surprise save for Bill Nelson and Lieberman, I guess.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pmI want to hear Feingold expain why he voted for this.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pmI know there are some rabid, right-wing, gun-nuts in his state, but this needs an explanation.
This was clearly a political move. Laws for interstate travel(via the interstate) are already clearly established. Regardless of the State law any body can transport their guns across State lines. As for concealed carry goes any one who has done his home work know that by getting certified in three particular States will cover you in the 48 Sates that allow conceal carry. Like most gun laws(for or against) it was strictly for show.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pmI agree with the above post, strange that this ridiculous issue can come up for a vote but serious issues shouldn’t be “rushed”. How about no vacation until all issues are cleared that are now pending. Bet we would see some action.
People carry legal and illegal guns across state lines with or without laws. Laws do not protect from nutjobs.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pmAll you anti-gun idiots can’t think for yourselves, and just buy into the government’s and the media’s irrational statements that guns are dangerous. Ever hear of a shooting massacre at a shooting range where everyone has guns? No, they only happen at gun free zones where the criminal knows that they have the only gun. People who have concealed weapons permits are law abiding citizens who have undergone a criminal background check and do not misuse their weapons. Criminals who have concealed weapons obey no laws and carry their weapons anywhere they please. The failure of this bill at the hands of gun grabbing politicians simply puts more people at the mercy of criminals.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:52 pmWhen Hitler came to power, he made it illegal for private citizens to own guns, and confiscated most of these guns, the reason he gave for doing this; for the public’s SAFETY and PROTECTION (sound familiar?). Then with no guns in the citizens hands to defend themselves he proceded to easily murder several million jews.
This liberal govermment now would like to disarm America, for the public’s protection?, or is it just a ruse to ensure that citizens won’t some day be able to defend themselves against a tyranical government? Rarely have politicians ever done anything for the good of the citizens, instead, rather everything they do is to ensure that they and their party stay in power as long as possible, ITS ALL ABOUT STAYING IN POWER!
FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUNS… SHEEPLE!
Exactly. Thank you.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:51 pmIt is a shame that the Congress seeks to continually impede a fundamental right (not privilege) such as this. All of you sheep deserve what you get. In my opinion, all people should be required to learn about the safe use of firearms (for their own defense) and further, be required to carry them. It would not be long before there were a lot fewer criminals taking advantage of sheep.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pmThis is only a states rights issue if the Second Amendment is not incorporated to the states, like all the other amendments are. Then if you read Article VI, Section 1, the bill/amendment is constitutional.
States rights advocates are not necessarily anti-Constitution (although some are). They just want Congress to follow Article I, Section 8 and the 10th amendment.
Personally, I only favor states rights when I’m in favor of the state law (like some states legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana) and I favor federal power when when I see that it is suitable to restrict state power, like in the case of segregation. I think it’s silly when people have their principles tied up in what government has the most power over them.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pmDamn, MilShooter. You want to force people to carry firearms? Well, I guess it’s all about freedom, huh?
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pmListening to you libs makes me laugh! If you would do just a little research you would know that, to obtain a concealed carry permit, you have to go through a background check and training in the laws pertaining to the use of a firearm. Do you feel better now that a criminal won’t be able to carry his weapon into your “safe” little state; oh wait, criminals don’t obey laws! So I guess you would rather depend on the cop on the corner (maybe 3 blocks away) than your own abilities to defend yourselves? Oh yeah, this is a liberal website. That’s what you do; depend on society and the government for your well being. Sorry, I forgot where I was.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pmbusa,
That’s not the case.
Each state has a different requirement.
What the proposal did was to make the state with the lowest requirement the one that governs (i.e. if you live in Alaska with almost no restrictions, you can conceal carry in NY which requires fire arms training).
One more note: Before you suggest that people do “just a little research” try to do some yourself. Otherwise you play into all the perceptions here of right wingers being dumb as rocks.
Of course, if you think you are going to defend yourself from bad guys using your gun, you are, in fact, dumb as a rock.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pmThen why do police carry guns? They must be dumb as rocks (well, maybe).
Why is it very unlikely that someone is going to mug/rob/rape a cop? Are they afraid of the nifty uniforms and the funny hats?
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:43 pmWe’re not dumb as rocks, we’d just prefer not to have to throw them at the bad guys! How would you suggest “defending yourself from bad guys”, Skeeter? Or is self defense against your principles?
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pmYou in the anti gun crowd are sheep. Hoping the police protect you from the bogey man. Maybe you should realize that the police usually investigate murders, not prevent them. Same goes for most violent crimes. They happen, police investigate and sometimes catch the offender. Good for the general public, not so good for the victim. Guns provide a way to defend ourselves against those bad guys.
If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pmbusa,
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:16 pmYou claim not to be dumb as a rock, but as I pointed out, your post was completely wrong.
Busa, does each state have a different requirement?
Busa, what does Alaska require? How about NY?
Try this Busa, do some reseach and then type away here. Until you do so, you are making yourself look like a dimwit.
Also, various court cases and one in the supreme court say that the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
Look up:
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pmWarren v. District of Columbia
Pinder v. Johnson
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Alesandro,
I didn’t realize that Busa was a PO. Is he? Because unless he is, tnen your comments makes no sense at all. My comment specifically referenced “you” (i.e. the person the comment was directed at).
That being said, I used to defend POs involved in shooting cases. I’ve seen what even highly trained POs do under stress.
If ANY OF YOU think that you are going to respond better than they do under stress, then you all really are too stupid to own a gun.
I do love the gun freaks comments here. Not one has responded to the merits of Sen. Thune’s proposal. All these people can do is recite “We like guns.” BFD. This was a discussion about a specific piece of legislation. Respond to it, or go back in your bedroom and fondle that long hard thing, which you all seem to enjoy so much.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:23 pmAlesandro,
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pmSo what? How does that impact Thune’s bill?
Really, try to stay on topic.
Google found me a nice rundown of it all:
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 pmhttp://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection
Skeeter1, you were the one that went off topic. I responded to that.
I don’t care who you were talking to. I responded to what you wrote.
If you want me to comment on this legislation, fine.
It seems to be an attempt to enforce the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the constitution.
If you are a citizen of one state and you have some sort of license within that state, other states have to honor it. I see no problem with this.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 pmI love the fact that, rather than respond on the merits, the gun nuts just use that vote button.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pmIt is about the limit of their wit and intelligence.
What a bunch of cowards.
I believe the bill simply attempted to mandate the 2nd amendment. Sort of like the civil rights bill. You don’t have the right to discriminate in employment just because you are in Alabama. You shouldn’t have to guess about your right to carry a firearm in any state either. I believe strongly in states rights but the state can’t trump the Constitution.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 pmAlesandro,
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 pmActually I wasn’t. I was responding to your dumb as a rock pal, before you went off on some bizarre digression.
Really, try to follow the argument.
lowetom65 says:
You in the anti gun crowd are sheep……..
If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words.
Misspellings with pencils are not fatal or cause severe injury.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 pmLow.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 pmSo if a doctor has a license in one state, should he practice in all of them? How about attorneys? How about recognizing all marriages?
Your argument just does not work.
Alesandro actually wrote:
If you are a citizen of one state and you have some sort of license within that state, other states have to honor it. I see no problem with this.
Really, Alesandro, it is time for you to quit.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 pmIn fact, the opposite is true. You are 100% wrong.
Just stop. There are some rational NRA people there, but people like you make them all look like a bunch of nitwits.
Skeeter,
then how do you interpret Article IV, Section 1 of the constitution?
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
pags2,
Ok a gun more dangerous than a pencil. The point is the gun is just an object, like a pencil. The people with the gun are the ones that do the shooting. Those individuals who pursue a CCW simply want to take individual responsibility for protecting themselves and their families. Not, stupidly, think law enforcement will do it. NO ONE, not even law enforcement, will argue the police stop crime. They simply investigate it and arrest the criminal. The victim is still screwed.
I spent 20 years in the Army and saw combat in Iraq. I have seen what happens to those unable to protect themselves. It isn’t pretty.
A little history lesson from 1930’s Germany will also support gun ownership and carrying. What if the Jews had guns? They didn’t because of strict gun laws enacted by the Germans. How did that work out for them??????
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 pmOh gosh, where to begin?
How about here.
stewarjt says:
Where is the logic in equating gun ownership with freedom?
Does the revolution mean anything to you?
Next:
The “Notables” as put in an earlier comment. Well, I know for fact that Feingold is up for reelection, I would be willing to bet that others on that list are as well. Do you guys honestly think that the Dems would have allowed this to pass? No, but they can get free money in ways by having a ‘Yea’ vote for something concerning guns on their record.
Skeeter:
Merits of this proposal. One, instant law abiding citizen created criminal. For instance: Lets say a trucker travels along random routes as an individual contract trucker. The trucker obtains a CCW permit because he feels it is necessary (for a moment let’s not make it an issue of the necessity, just the legality). So, in say, Fresno CA he is issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Now, this trucker is an independent and takes a contract to bring a big beautiful windmill blade all the way to WI because they’re putting up a fancy windmill farm there. While on the way he passes through several states, and ends in WI. He has become a criminal simply because he is carrying a concealed weapon, even though the journey began in the issuing state. That is one of the several merits of this bill.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pmLugar and Voinovich are RINO’s and should be ashamed of themselves.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 pmI think it’s great irony that my Indiana reps voted “opposite” of their party lines. Bayh should just become a Republican, and Lugar Democratic.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 pmlowetom65 says:
pags2,
Ok a gun more dangerous than a pencil. The point is the gun is just an object, like a pencil. The people with the gun are the ones that do the shooting……….
I spent 20 years in the Army and saw combat in Iraq. I have seen what happens to those unable to protect themselves. It isn’t pretty.
A little history lesson from 1930’s Germany will also support gun ownership and carrying. What if the Jews had guns?….
A pencil and a gun are merely tools for humans to use. Just because a person holds a pencil does not mean they are going to write a blockbuster novel. It is the human being behind the pencil that decides the outcome. A gun has only one purpose, to kill, and we still have the same problem with the human element. Because humans are unpredictable, we need some gun laws. I live in a large urban city and our gun laws are strict because of the numbers of deaths and injuries. Other areas have lax gun laws. The guns sold in such areas are ending up in the city and not the other local area. The law tends to weed out some of the people who should not own a gun. But these legal and illegal guns are coming in to cities from other areas and overseas. It is impossible for police to respond to a shooting after the fact.
Germany, Nazis=Godwin
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 pmpags 2,
Guns have many purposes. Killing is one. I remember holding a gun on an Iraqi whom I didn’t kill. Actually there were two of them and they were taken prisoner. You never see a mass murder at a gun range. Instead you see mass shootings in gun free zones. This assures the killer has no opposition. Guns are a tool. A necessary tool. Not being armed is simply being naive.
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pmalweldr says:
——————————————————————————–
All you anti-gun idiots can’t think for yourselves, and just buy into the government’s and the media’s irrational statements that guns are dangerous. Ever hear of a shooting massacre at a shooting range where everyone has guns? No, they only happen at gun free zones where the criminal knows that they have the only gun. People who have concealed weapons permits are law abiding citizens who have undergone a criminal background check and do not misuse their weapons. Criminals who have concealed weapons obey no laws and carry their weapons anywhere they please. The failure of this bill at the hands of gun grabbing politicians simply puts more people at the mercy of criminals.
When Hitler came to power, he made it illegal for private citizens to own guns, and confiscated most of these guns, the reason he gave for doing this; for the public’s SAFETY and PROTECTION (sound familiar?). Then with no guns in the citizens hands to defend themselves he proceded to easily murder several million jews.
This liberal govermment now would like to disarm America, for the public’s protection?, or is it just a ruse to ensure that citizens won’t some day be able to defend themselves against a tyranical government? Rarely have politicians ever done anything for the good of the citizens, instead, rather everything they do is to ensure that they and their party stay in power as long as possible, ITS ALL ABOUT STAYING IN POWER!
FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUNS… SHEEPLE!
Uhhhhh….whatever, dude. No one wants to disarm America. We just want to make sure the guns only end up in responsible hands, and that there’s no overkill. I see no reason why if State A has said “no” to someone, they should be allowed to go to State B in order to circumvent the decision. I also see no reason why citizens need access to AK47s when rifles and Glocks do the same job just as well.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 pmIn 1982 the town or Kennesaw, GA (~ 30,000 residents today)passed a law requiring all the town’s residents who could legally own a firearm to own a firearm and ammunition and keep it in their home. For the past 27 years now crime has been on the decline here, despite an increasing population. Violent crime and buglaries are ~ 4 times lower here than the state and national average. Little chance of breaking into a home where the residents can’t protect themselves, much easier to go to a community where guns are not allowed and the residents can’t protect themselves. Go find a nice liberal community and take what you want from some gun hating unarmed liberal. Kennesaw isn’t some isolated rural out of the way community either, its a surburb of Atlanta, where crime is virtually out of control.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm@77 says
. I also see no reason why citizens need access to AK47s when rifles and Glocks do the same job just as well.
If the rifle and glock do the same job as the AK then what is the difference if he has the AK?? pssst! just so you know an AK is a rifle.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pmStagoculus says:
——————————————————————————–
@77 says
If the rifle and glock do the same job as the AK then what is the difference if he has the AK?? pssst! just so you know an AK is a rifle.
An AK is not the same as a shotgun. And the difference is, you don’t need the AK47. Anyone who needs a gun that fires multiple rounds at once not caring where the target is, is *not* a responsible gun owner. A responsible gun owner knows how to shoot, period.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:03 pmSkeeter, Skeeter, Skeeter,
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:12 pmDo you really think some big, bad boogy man from Alaska with a concealed carry permit is going to come to your little “safe” state and shoot you? Nah, like I said before, it’s the guy who doesn’t care about laws in the first place who might do that. If you’re threatened, I hope a police officer is handy; or at least an armed, responsible citizen! PS- You really shouldn’t start assuming people are “dumb as a rock” because they disagree with you. People might start thinking you’re a rabid democrat! Back under my rock, now!
you said rifle @77. and a shotgun is not a rifle but an AK is a rifle. And you let me know where it is exactly that I can buy that AK that fires multiple rounds with the single pull of a trigger. I have been looking for one but since they are illegal for citizens to own I am finding it very difficult to find here in The United State of America. I already have a semi auto AK though, so just point me to where I can find that full Auto or three round burst version.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 pmWhatever, Stragoculus. I’m not the one arguing I need the new 3 lb hamburger at McDonalds when I’m A) already willing to spend money frivously on overkill and things I don’t need; and B) grossly overweight to begin with.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 pmthen get the three pounder then its your body. and if you want a porsche that does 180mph then get it too. That is the beauty of America the pursuit of happiness and all if you want you can have it. who cares if you need it? Think I will firee up the charcoal grill and cook me a big fat juicy t-bone I know I don’t need it but I am really going to enjoy it. BTW where can I get that full auto AK????
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 pmlowetom65 says:
pags 2,
Guns have many purposes. Killing is one.
Name another purpose that you can use a gun for killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure.
alweldr says:
In 1982 the town or Kennesaw, GA (~ 30,000 residents today)passed a law requiring all the town’s residents who could legally own a firearm to own a firearm and ammunition and keep it in their home. For the past 27 years now crime has been on the decline here, despite an increasing population. Violent crime and buglaries are ~ 4 times lower here than the state and national average. Little chance of breaking into a home where the residents can’t protect themselves, much easier to go to a community where guns are not allowed and the residents can’t protect themselves.
I live in Chicago and there are a lot of handguns, legal and illegal. You are not any safer here with or without the gun. In fact, you are more likely to get killed with your own gun if you look at the statistics. When a gun is available, a domestic disturbance takes on a whole new dimension. Police are very wary when answering these calls. Children are more likely to get hurt or killed with handguns. Your argument fails when the community reaches a certain size and even then, a domestic disturbance in Kennesaw could escalate with a killing.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 amcorrection:
Name another purpose that you can use a gun other than for killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 amAs I, your boss, coworkers, and public at large get to pay for your health problems, Stragoculus. Suuure. That’s like saying I should have to breath your second-hand smoke too, because it’s your right to give yourself cancer. No prob.
Like I said, whatever.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:37 amHow many congressmen are carrying concealed weapons on the floors of the House and Senate?
Can Americans pack concealed weapons into the Supreme Court?
There is appropriate places and times for weapons.
We can see by the Dupreme Court’s policy on people entering the court will not be armed.
Should visitors to the White House on tours be allowed to carry concealed weapons?
Packing on airline travel? As a American we should have a right to carry concealed weapons when visiting the Vatican to see the Pope.
Where and when will these fringers meet reasonable borders?
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 am> They didn’t because of strict gun laws
> enacted by the Germans.
> How did that work out for them??????
The Branch Davidians down in Waco were armed to the teeth. How did that work out for them? When saddam ruled Iraq, the country was awash in guns and almost every household had an AK-47. How did that work with protecting them from an opppressive government.
Your an idiot if you think your and your buddies AK-47’s are going to protect you from the government. How exactly are you going to match thier air support, advanced communication logistics and military technology, and sheer weight of numbers? The idea that somehow some ragtag band of hicks with handheld weaponry is going to defend against an army with accesss to superior firepower, logistics, and technology is absurd. Its laugable. You’ve definitely been watching too much “Red Dawn”… The most effective weapon against tyranny is an informed populace who is smart enough to not elect morons for lawmakers. There are plenty of arguments for possession of guns but “they’ll protect me from the evil government” is not one of them.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 amIf a gun is merely a tool, it most certainly should be regulated.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 amIt is the gun-advocates who want to exempt gun-ownership from regulation by using the 2nd amendment to make it something other than “just a tool.”
skeetermanAW,
With regard to that trucker:
NY and other states require firearms training before a person can get a CC permit. Alaska and other states do not. NY requires background checks that Alaska and other states do not.
I don’t want truckers without firearms training and who might be felons carrying concealed weapons into states. So no, the idea of that trucker does not bother me in the slighest.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:25 amAlejandro wrote the following. Seriously. This is what the person wrote. I’m not making this up:
No, Alejandro, it is not.
For instance, each state licenses attorneys. If you have a license in one state, you cannot practice in another until the state specifically grants you permission. So, as a general rule, “licenses” are not reciprocal.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:28 am#72 – skeetermanAW says:
———————————————————
“Merits of this proposal. While on the way he passes through several states, and ends in WI. He has become a criminal simply because he is carrying a concealed weapon, even though the journey began in the issuing state. That is one of the several merits of this bill.”
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
The problem that you seem to be overlooking is that this bill eliminates the right of one state to regulate something another state doesn’t.
Another example: what if the bill stated that same-sex marriages performed in one state would be legal in any other state, no matter what laws they’ve passed? (Ignoring DOMA for theis example.)
Seems to me that “states rights” is thrown out with legislation of this nature.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 amReading the comments it is quite clear to me that a lot of the people
commenting on this know nothing of how the bill was worded or what the
bill would do. It may come to a surprise to a lot of you but guess what I
am willing to bet that the vast majority of you live in states that allow
CCW’s, CHP’s, etc. I would also bet that you would be surprised that your
state actually has reciprocity with other states as far as the ability
to carry a firearm. I know firsthand the complicated process that is
required to get a CHP and I live in a rural state that has relaxed gun laws and I would not have it any other way. This amendment would have allowed people who have CHP’s to carry in other states that already allow people to get CHP’s or the like. While in the state they would have had to follow what the states laws are, like they do now with the current reciprocity system. It is like a drivers license each state issues their own, each states tests for getting that license is different but yet you can drive in every other state in this country but you have to follow the laws of that state. By the way if you were worried about deaths you should ban cars, they kill more people per year than guns. 16,692 people murdered in 2005 according to the FBI and that is not all by guns that includes every form of murder( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html ) compare that with 30,000+ deaths per year in automotive accidents .
There are other very illogical arguments on this board that are some of
the most ignorant I have ever seen and to actually believe that people
think this way makes me worried. People who say ‘if you have a gun you are
more likely to kill someone without a gun’ aside from this being untrue, that is like saying if you
have a car you are more likely to kill someone without a car.
“Really, Alesandro, it is time for you to quit.
In fact, the opposite is true. You are 100% wrong.
Just stop…”
If you are going to make an asinine assertion like this at least have the
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 amdecency to give some kind of facts as to allow a rational debate just
saying someone is 100% wrong does not make it true no matter how much you
would like it to be. I will promise you that you cannot find any facts to
back up your assertion that the person is wrong. For one in your quote the
person is presenting an opinion.
CB,
You really need to look at the proposed law.
In fact, it overrides current state laws to the effect that the lowest standard prevails. It is a change from the current system. As I noted, the person from the state with limited restrictions would be able to cc into a state with reasonable restrictions.
Also, your note attacked me competely out of context. What exactly about Alejando’s post(s) are you claiming was/were accurate?
So, what we have from CB is nothing more than a vain attempt to seem rational, when a real review of CB’s note reveals the opposite.
If you have facts, CB, then provide specific support. You haven’t done that.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 amIt wasn’t out of context. What you quoted from the other person and your response was in context. You are telling him he is 100% wrong for his opinion and you cannot be wrong about an opinion. You may disagree with what his opinion is but that does not mean his is wrong.
To address your statement that the law would “overrides current state laws to the effect that the lowest standard prevails.” The amendment does not specify what the application or training process for each state will be, it does not say that the lowest standards will be used in all states for the application process. Each state would still have been allowed to make its own rules regarding where a person with a current permit to carry and where they can’t. Each state would still also be in charge of the application process.
By the way “reasonable restrictions” is a relative term. Your reasonable is different from mine and vice a versa same with millions of people in the US.
Which facts would you like to see? Anything that I provided specific information about is either backed up by links and number, is in the bill itself, or is my opinion.
My post may seem vain to you but there may be other people who can take the information and learn from it or allow them to have a rational debate.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 amC Behop.
Actually, I was ripping his facts. Seriously, read the the whole thing.
Now what does the law state? It states that if you have a valid CC in one state, you can conceal carry into another state. Am I missing something here? Doesn’t the proposal say exactly that?
What is the result? The result is that a person from a state that does not require much in the way of background checks can cc into a state that does.
The simple solution would be for a person who wants to cc into another state do what a lawyer who wants to use his license in another state must do: Go to that state, prove you can meet the requirements of that state, and then you get to praotice. That seems like a reasonable system to me.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 amSkeeter1
I would disagree that does not seem like a reasonable system to me. I guess we just have different views on that.
You are right to a point, the proposal says that if you have a CCW or CHP in one state then you can carry concealed within another state. However it says that you can only carry in that other state if the said state itself allows for its own residence to carry concealed.
The background check process is long and drawn out process. The two states I have mine in not only did I have to pass the state background check I had to pass the FBI background check along with completing a class that covered rules, and shoot no shoot situations. On top of that it takes 90 days in my state from the day I submitted the application to the day they have to accept or reject it. What if someone has an emergency in another state and they do not have 90 days to get a permit? Are you fine with them being unable to defend themselves and their family with the method they see fit?
Why is it then that we do not ask you to get a drivers license in each state that you want to drive in? The test to get a license are different in each state and the laws can vary from state to state. Seems only logical that we should have to get a license in each state. That last sentence is sarcastic by the way I do not want that. I would like to see all states have natural right to carry laws like Vermont but that is my opinion.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 amCB,
What you are missing is that the regulations vary by state.
The process is not necessarily “long and drawn out.” I’ve used the NY/Alaska examples repeatedly because they show the contrast. In NY, the background check and the requirements are far more stringent than in Alaska. But yet, under Thune’s proposal, the person with a limited background check and no weapons training would be able to cc into NY.
With regard to driver’s license: When used properly, cars don’t kill. Moreover, state driving regulations are pretty consistent across state lines.
A far better example is lawyers. If you want to practice in another state, you need to show that other state that you know what you are doing and can do it taking into consideration the safety of the residents of the state in question. That seems to apply equally well as to gun use.
You raised other points about this great need to defend yourself. Those arguments do not direclty go to Thune’s proposal, but I will respond anyway. If you feel that you must have a gun and the state in question will not allow it, then the reasonable thing to do would be to avoid that state, if, as you say, your very safety is on the line.
But speaking from experience, I do find that assertion laughable. As I noted above, I’ve seen what highly trained police officers (my clients) have done under stressful situations and if many of them are unable to handle a firearm safely, I highly doubt that some guy from Alaska who has never attended a firearms safety course would be able to handle a weapon safely in crisis.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am“With regard to driver’s license: When used properly, cars don’t kill. Moreover, state driving regulations are pretty consistent across state lines.”
When used properly guns don’t kill people either. In a above post I give numbers that show that cars kill more people than all of the murders in the US combined, per year. A car is more dangerous than a gun. The only difference is that cars are not protected by a specific amendment to the constitution. Nowhere in that constitution does it say that government can keep people from carrying concealed, open, pistol, or long gun.
When it comes to defending yourself tell me when has a rapist, murderer, robber ever made and appointment. When you hear stories in the news about killings a lot of them you hear people say “this was such a nice place” or “things like this don’t happen here”. A woman once asked someone who was carrying a handgun on his hip if he was expecting trouble he responded “no, if I was expecting trouble I would have brought my riffle”. You probably wear a seatbelt in your car and you do because that off chance that something happens you want to try to save your life. Same thing applies to a gun. I don’t go to “5 points” but if there was an emergency and I had to go there I want to defend myself. What gives you the right to take my right to defend myself away?
From my experience the police officers are no more experienced with guns then the all the people I know who just use them for defense. You make the assertion about the guy from Alaska not being able to handle the pistol safely without giving any sort of proof. You know why because there is no evidence either way.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 amYour last argument boils down to nothing more than “conceal carry everywhere” and as such, does not address Thune’s amendment.
I think it is pretty clear that what CB is advocating in that last post is that the US abolish all gun restrictions, and doing it on a national level. That’s pretty extreme.
With regard to expecting it: Again, I find that laughable. Somebody sticks a gun in your ribs, and you are going to go Wyatt Earp on the guy, spinning, pulling your gun, and then firing? The impact would be at least one dead crime victim and depending on who else was around, possibly some dead bystanders.
CB, I’ve defended POs who have really faced a gun. What happens? A bad guy stabs a PO. The PO puts a gun in bad guys ribs and pulls the trigger. The result? It takes three more shots before bad guy finally stops stabbling the PO.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pmBut some idiot who has never taken a firearms safety course is going to respond rationally in that situation? CB, we both know that is ridiculous.
I practice what I preach too. I do carry everywhere I go, within the law that is. I even open carry as well with the gun and extra magazines out in the open for everyone to see. Carry with me everywhere I go is exactly what the amendment addresses, the ability for anyone to carry anywhere they go no matter the state as long as they are within the law of that state.
I think there are a lot of gun restrictions out there that can be done away with because they do no one any good. I feel that way because when the states (any state) wanted to become a part of the Union they agreed to the constitution which includes the 2A which does not say the government can limit any part of keeping or bearing arms. You may see that as extreme I, and many other people like me, do not.
So you refuse to protect your life because of one example an example in which you probably could have avoided the bad situation had you been alert. Please don’t assume that everyone who owns a gun thinks they are “Wyatt Earp” or “John Wayne” that is like asserting everyone who owns a car thinks they are “Mario Andretti”. When you make comparisons like this you seem uneducated on the topic. There are a very few people who think like that yes but the vast majority do not.
The ability to stop an attacker with a gun takes in so many different factors caliber of the bullet, distance to target, muzzle and impact velocity, type of gun and type of bullet, not to mention location of where the attacker was shot. Then if the attacker is on any kind of drugs or alcohol. The situation you give the guy just starts stabbing the officer, so you would have me and everyone else on this earth just lie there and let the attacker stab me or anyone else to death. Sorry I would rather be able to shoot the guy until the twitching stopped. If you want to be a victim go ahead no one is stopping you just to trample on my rights to protect myself and my friends, family, and people around me.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 pmSorry need to add an edit
“If you want to be a victim go ahead no one is stopping you just to trample on my rights to protect myself and my friends, family, and people around me.”
change to “…just don’t trample on my rights to protect myself and my friends, family, and people around me.”
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pmCB:
1. Is there a difference in the requirements for CC between NY and Alaska? Simple question. Yes or no.
2. Under Thune’s bill, a person with a cc permit issued in Alaska, could concealed carry in NY? Simple question. Yes or no.
You might not LIKE NY’s rules on concealed carry, but there can be no doubt that under Thune’s proposal, NY would be requied to live with the lower standards of Alaska.
And with regard to your 2A argument: That argument is pointless for debate. Under your interp, I could have a full functional tank, since that is “arms.” The debate among rational people has always been about the line of reasonableness stands, and I just don’t have time to talk with anybody who believes that there is not a reasonableness inherent in the 2A.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm“the ability for anyone to carry anywhere they go no matter the state as long as they are within the law of that state.”
That’s not really true, is it CB?
If you have a cc permit from Alaska, are you going to be required to submit to testing and a background check (which the law of NY requires) before you cc in NY?
No, that’s not what Thune proposes. He proposes NO new testing or requirements. One works for all, regardless.
So let’s try and state facts here, CB. Makes the argument so much more interesting.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm1. Yes 2. Yes. Those questions are pointless because they get nowhere in the argument. All of the other “arguments” you make here you have brought up before and I have answered them you are now sounding like a broken record and it is beginning to irritate. Based on this it leads me to no other conclusion then you have no valid arguments left and have lost the debate. Right now I feel like I am arguing with a rock and really I have better things to do with my time like watch paint dry, at least then I will feel like something is being done, so this will be my last post directed at you. I sincerely hope you never find yourself in a situation where your significant other is lying on the ground dead and you could have stopped it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:30 pmCB,
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pmThose questions are not pointless.
That was the entire purpose of Sen. Thune’s bill.
Under his bill, NY could no longer decide the requirements for a concealed carry permit for NY.
What you are advocating is essentially a national CC law, based on the state that can pass something with the lowest requirement. Just as Delaware is to corporations, we could have Alaska handing out concealed weapons permits to anyone who asks.
You should at least admit to that goal, since the goal is apparent to any rational observer.
(Name another purpose that you can use a gun other than for killing or injuring or threatening to kill or injure.)
Obviously another know-nothing comment by a gun hater. There are thousands of organized shooting-family type events around
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pmthe country every year, skeet, target, cowboy, etc. All of these enjoyed and attended by law abiding citizens whose guns have never threatened anyone, except criminals.
***************
I fully believe that if the 4 planes hijacked on 9-11 had carried an armed pilot or crew member trained in the weapon’s use, then the disaster of 9-11 would never have happened. Box cutters do not stand up well to an armed person. The hijackers may have been able to kill a few hostages on the planes, but they would have been shot to death before the planes could have been taken over.
Alwedr,
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 pmWith regard to pilots: That’s nice. We have that now.
Moreoever, and how does Thune’s bill change that?
Seriously, if all you are going to do is say “I love guns” then go find someplace else where you can talk about your love for fondling long hard things until they make a poof and something shoots out the end (not that there is anything wrong with that).
But if you are going to comment here, please try to stick to the topic, i.e. Thune’s bill to nationalize CC.
please help thanks admin delete my post THANK YOU..nice article
film izle
July 26th, 2009 at 10:51 ambedava film izle
film izle
film izle
ahmet maranki
oktay usta
derya baykal
örgü modelleri
yemek tarifleri