Thursday, March 27, 2014

Push Back Twice as Hard

Surfing around on the internets today and found this article on Bloomberg's Business Week.

I sure hope this idiot doesn't get paid to write. I took me forever to read this piece; Bloomberg's site is glitchier than Obamacare's. So, in case you can't get to the link, I have taken the unusual step of including the entire article after my comments.

Apparently Georgia is about to enact a 'Guns Everywhere' ordinance (with bi-partisan support) that will allow concealed carry in bars, churches, stores and airports, provided the proprietor hasn't hung out a 'No Guns Allowed' sign. Okay, so?

Well our alleged author has Four Blunt Points to make against the law. His points?

1. The Newtown school massacre led to “guns everywhere.”(sic)

2. Georgia illustrates the NRA’s structural advantage on gun control.  

3. Skeptics of expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently.   

4. The best response to gun-rights extremism is a focus on fighting crime.

And he says it like this is NEWS!

Let's bust a few balloons, shall we?

First, it wasn't the Newton shootings that lead to these laws, but the Left's insistence that a nutcase with a stolen gun be used to limit gun rights. So yes, the natural response is to fight back. Smart people know that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. NO MASS SHOOTING HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN A GUN PERMITTED ZONE. It is only when a shooter knows he will have the only gun does he try something like this. Or may be I'm wrong, and the people have decided that they need to remove gun restricted zones, to end problems like Newton. Bu either way, this autor is wrong.

Number Two; Strange wording, isn't it? almost as if the author doesn't want to realize that the majority of folks in this country SUPPORT gun rights and the Second Amendment. After all, nobody he knows owns a gun right? A direct quote:

"At present (and maybe always), the intensity of pro-gun passion exceeds that of anti-gun passion."

Care to guess why? Maybe because gun rights advocates believe in their position, and haven't been ginned up by some rabble-rouser?

Number three had me figuratively rolling on the floor laughing.  I have never, or maybe very seldom, with a few very notable exceptions, seen ANYONE on the left argue a point intelligently, particularly in the media. More specifically on guns. Their reaction is usually based on an indoctrinated fear; one so ingrained through 16 years of education that the mention of the private ownership and carrying of a weapon reduces them to a sputtering rage. Because they have never been given any FACTS, just emotions, and emotional arguments are always destructed by facts.

FACT- Florida has had a Shall Issue Law for 20 years, and Florida has not become Dodge City, as predicted. None of the Shall Issue States has. Yet that is always the first scenario raised. Hasn't it been discredited enough?

Number 4 is a howler too; why is someone who defends a Constitutionally protected right an extremist, yet the 'No such thing as a good gun' crowd are not?

Go ahead; read the article. see who you agree with.


Georgia appears poised to enact a so-called guns-everywhere law, making it easier for firearm permit holders to take their weapons into bars, churches, and even airports. Approved last week by the state legislature, the bill awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal, a strong gun-rights advocate up for reelection this fall. His opponent, Jason Carter, a Democratic state senator and grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, voted for the legislation, so enactment seems assured.
Non-gun owners doubtless find all this baffling. Here are four blunt points to sort out what’s going on and how to respond:
1. The Newtown school massacre led to “guns everywhere.” Perverse as it may sound, the horrific mass shooting in December 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary produced a burst of state-level gun control bills around the country and then triggered a much stronger pro-gun backlash. The counter-reaction has now reached its apogee in Georgia. In the past year alone, 21 states have enacted laws expanding gun rights, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Several states added piecemeal provisions allowing firearms on college campuses or in bars or churches. Georgia’s politicians, egged on by the National Rifle Association, have gone for broke.
2. Georgia illustrates the NRA’s structural advantage on gun control. As if we needed a fresh demonstration of this phenomenon, the gun-rights lobby currently enjoys a fundamental edge in the debate about regulating firearms. In an era of falling crime rates, liberal enthusiasm for gun control simply doesn’t pack much political punch outside certain blue-state environments. Yes, people get riled up, understandably, by mass shootings at schools or movie theaters. Over and over, we’ve seen those emotions fade quickly, giving way to a more sustained counter-reaction from the pro-gun side. The NRA has skillfully responded to calls for stricter gun control by portraying them as evidence that liberals’ real agenda is confiscating firearms—all firearms.
A cadre of highly motivated, well organized pro-gun voters believe the NRA scare tactics and rally behind ever-more-aggressive measures to expand gun rights. Thus, we now have concealed-carry laws in all 50 states. We have traditional self-defense laws replaced by stand-your-ground—and in Georgia, guns everywhere. Even those who deplore these developments at some point must acknowledge the pattern. At present (and maybe always), the intensity of pro-gun passion exceeds that of anti-gun passion.
3. Skeptics of expansive gun rights need to respond intelligently. The smart response is not scorn or exaggeration. For better or worse, gun ownership has come to symbolize a range of deeply felt ideas about culture and government authority. Making fun of people who view their firearms as emblems of liberty and traditional values (however they define those values) will neither change minds nor repeal legislation.
Exaggerating the practical effects of gun-rights legislation doesn’t make sense, either. The Georgia measure allows guns in bars and churches under certain circumstances. Saloon owners who don’t want weapons in their establishments would have to post a sign saying so. That doesn’t sound so onerous; a lot of bars in pro-gun precincts already have such signs. Worshipers in Georgia wouldn’t be allowed to pack heat unless their congregation affirmatively votes to “opt in” to the guns-everywhere law. Personally, I wouldn’t choose a synagogue whose congregants thought they needed Glocks to celebrate the sabbath. But that’s me. If someone else’s congregation feels safer knowing that people are armed, I say: Let them go with God. I doubt that enactment of Georgia’s law will lead to a rash of shoot-outs. If it does, Georgians can reassess.
4. The best response to gun-rights extremism is a focus on fighting crime. Rather than engage with the NRA on the cultural battlefield, where gun-rights advocates have the upper hand, liberals should focus on the most-pressing problem related to firearms—that their prevalence in American society makes our violent crime more lethal. Broadly speaking, this approach would have liberals emphasize more aggressive enforcement of existing laws against illegal gun possession, rather than obsess about situations that allow law-abiding citizens to own guns and carry them on their person. Still speaking broadly, the anti-crime approach would have liberals ask how the extraordinary successes in reducing violent crime in places like New York—where gun control laws have not changed for decades—can be replicated elsewhere.
Turning back to Georgia, this mindset would inspire guns-everywhere skeptics (and if you can’t tell by now, I am one) to focus on those provisions of the law that appear to be soft on crime and criminals. For example, the statute would provide more leeway for gun owners to escape punishment if they try to go through airport security while armed. That seems dangerous. We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want guns on airplanes. This security requirement doesn’t seem terribly difficult to remember, what with all the people in uniform at the airport and all those screening machines and long lines and having to take off your shoes, for goodness’s sake.
A further troubling aspect of the Georgia law is that its ambiguous wording might provide wiggle room for a felon to invoke the state’s separate stand-your-ground law as part of a self-defense claim. Now this would be truly preposterous. Felons, even in Georgia, aren’t supposed to have guns in the first place, so maybe this issue is more a function of poor legislative craftsmanship than malign intent. But since pro-gun activists are simultaneously lobbying all over the place to make it easier for some felons to get their right to own guns reinstated, this facet of the law seems to merit quick repeal.
The upshot: Rather than argue that guns are evil or that gun enthusiasts are nuts, liberal skeptics should push back with concrete proposals for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and children.


engelj06 said...

My one issue with Atlanta's law is the carrying guns in bar provisions . The argument by the NRA etc is that concealed carry licenses require that members don't drink if they carry in bars so they won't. Funny thing about that the dmv and state laws require that people with a divers license don't drink and drive but how often is that rule broken? I get annoyed when the NRA acts like ppl with conceal carry's would never break that rule and guns with drunk ppl is a bad idea

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

True; but two points: what does it take to get a drivers license, and how often are people caught driving without one?

How many of those drunks drink at home, where there already is no prohibition against having a gun (or a car) and booze?

Remember a background check is done before the CCR is issued. This isn't like a drivers license; they aren't issued to everybody who wants one, and are thus protected very carefully.