It will be interesting to see how the stats settle out as time goes on. So far it would seem the conclusion of the OP's article was at least premature.
==================== Good points LEAPup + Lucrum. . We had a lot of shootings @ a Tennessee school near by; but all those shootings were good because those high school students were champion skeet shooters.Would to God, the NYT would do news reporting like that So amen on concealed carry; those skeet shooters do well with counter concealed carry.Cool
Supreme Court weighs appeal to concealed-carry gun laws The Supreme Court on Friday will consider whether to wade into the escalating legal brawl over whether people have a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside of the home, as gun rights advocates push the high court to settle how far the Second Amendment goes in protecting the right to bear arms. Justices will meet in private conference to weigh whether to hear a challenge to New Jersey's mandate that citizens must show a "justifiable need" to carry a gun in public for protection. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, which has filed an amicus brief in the case, want the high court to strike down the law and go a step further by clarifying how far the Second Amendment goes in establishing an individual's right to carry a firearm outside the home. "With the split among the Courts of Appeal continuing to develop, we hope the Supreme Court will make clear what the American people already know â that the Second Amendment allows a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm in public for self-defense," said David Lehman, general counsel for the NRA's lobbying arm. The high court struck down the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban in 2008, then followed it up with a 2010 ruling that established a personal constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. But since then, states have been left trying to figure out just how far those rulings go, as the justices have declined to hear other challenges to state laws restricting gun use in specific ways. In February, the high court declined to take up two NRA-backed cases that questioned whether the federal government and the states can impose purchase or concealed-carry restrictions on people under the age of 21, and a third case that questioned a federal law that restricts non-gun dealers from making sales across state lines. This latest case involves John Drake, who runs a Sussex County business that owns and services ATMs, as well as other plaintiffs. Mr. Drake applied for a handgun permit from New Jersey in 2010 but was rejected on the grounds that he did not have a "justifiable need" to carry one. A district court and then an appeals court have sided with the state, saying the justifiable need requirement is not an undue burden within the scope of the Second Amendment. New York and Maryland laws were also upheld by appeals courts. But Illinois's concealed-carry law was struck down by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2012 as too sweeping. In the New Jersey case, the plaintiffs point to a February ruling by a panel of the 9th Circuit in California that struck down San Diego's law requiring concealed-carry permit applicants to demonstrate "good cause" as to why they need a gun for personal safety. Gun-rights advocates say the split decisions mean it's time the Supreme Court weigh in. But John J. Hoffman, acting attorney general of New Jersey, said in a brief that the San Diego law is materially different from New Jersey's and that the 3rd Circuit appeals court has already concluded "that New Jersey's justifiable need standard is a longstanding, presumptively lawful regulation that operates as an exception to the Second Amendment." Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-appeal-to-concealed-carry-gun/#ixzz2zTdmisGR Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
5 kids shot while playing in the park. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/04/20/four-children-shot-in-south-side-drive-by/ 9 dead, 32 wounded for the weekend total. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/3-Dead-10-Wounded-in-Overnight-Chicago-Violence-255868521.html Now the idiot Top Cop and Da Mayor will have us believe that the reason for all these shootings is because average Joe now can carry his already legal, licensed gun. I will bet anyone, any amount of money, that these people were not gunned down in the streets by anyone other than a thug criminal with an unlicensed, illegal weapon. Note to leftists. Criminals don't obey the law.
'Guys with Guns Dictate Policy' By Jen Kuznicki http://cnsnews.com/commentary/jen-kuznicki/guys-guns-dictate-policy Over the weekend, I spent a lot of time reading about the Bundy Ranch Saga, looking into the area in Nevada where the Bundys live, and asking Google a bunch of questions I wanted answers to. While researching, I happened upon a press release from an environmental group, and decided to call the person listed as the "contact" person. The leftist environmentalist and I had about a 45 minute conversation over the phone about the Bundy Ranch, Nevada, and the history of what has been happening there, from his perspective. It was a long time to be on the phone, and it was mainly due to him because, (and you out there who know people like this will understand,) he gave me a ton of hypotheticals to try to explain things to me, you know, because I don't "get it." His main thrust on the Bundy situation was, as all the leftists like to point out, that Mr. Bundy didn't pay the feds, so their actions against him were justified. As with all disputes, the left takes the side of their beloved government over the people. But one thing he said made me want to write about our conversation. He said of the Bundy standoff that it was, "sad that guys with guns could dictate policy." That statement meant an entirely different thing to him than it did to me, and it's one of those things that defines a person as on one side or the other. Either you believe that only the government should have guns, or you believe that we all should have guns in case the government decides to point them at us. For me, his statement that it was, "sad that guys with guns could dictate policy," gave me two initial reactions. One, that yes, it was sad that the federal government sent armed agents out against protesters, pointed the guns at the protesters, tased Bundy's son and threw his daughter to the ground. However, we are darn lucky to have a Second Amendment to defend against such tyranny. But, the leftist meant something entirely different. He was upset that the feds backed down BECAUSE the protesters had guns of their own. He was completely fine with the feds being able to have ample firepower over a bunch of people who didn't think their government was being just. The difference in thought process is constitutional versus unconstitutional, natural versus unnatural, master versus submissive, and your perception of how the government works for you. The left thinks the government works for them, because the government provides for them, and they work to use the force of government to enact policies they like. We think the government is our servant. It works for us because we provide for it, sign the paychecks, vote for our representatives. We are the government's master, at least, that is how the nation was set up in the first place. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Government is force. Government has guns, a lot of them, and not just for the military and police, but for many of their bureaucrats as well. The left loves their bureaucratic guns to keep their policy enforced, and tend to hate the police and the military. We tend to love our military and police, but are deeply distrustful of government, especially while leftists are in charge. The Second Amendment is not to be trifled with. People like Michael Bloomberg and gun control advocates in Congress are using their power in government to completely dissolve the power of the individual. Gun control measures in states never completely work, and turn millions of would-be law abiding Americans into lawbreakers only because the government broke the Constitution that we are supposed to abide by. It's entirely possible that millions of guns are going unregistered in states like Connecticut because people believe any gun control law is unjust, and are refusing to obey it. To enforce such a law, the government would have to send armed agents door-to-door, and they know better than to do that, just as they should know better than to point guns at protesters. The left's silly, childish view of the world, that the government is our boss, shows their willingness to use guns to get what they want, while our view is one of constant vigilance against a government too willing to use their weapons against us. It's striking how totalitarian the "sit-in" hippies have become. They used to protest government for being too powerful. But now, they think it'll never be quite powerful enough until guns are taken away from the people. At the end of our conversation, the leftist and I agreed that, after the feds backed down, there would be more and more of these sorts of things happening. He was clearly sad at the idea that the government was not going to be able to win against armed civilians. I was happy about it.
good point. guys with guns making rules. Its the power theory of international law taken down to the local level. He who has the power makes the rules. We on the right believe the rules should be made by the people closest to the people. The left like soros desires the rules to be made by a central international power. Which model is more likely to create inequality, injustice and eventually slavehood to the state?
That's not entirely true. Many on the right want states to make the rules, not the federal government.
lets break it down this way then. its the fascists/statists vs those who believe in liberty for the people and individual rights. the majority on the left are now fascists or pre fascists Rollerball 1975 style and so are some of the establishment Rs.