• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Gun owners headed the way of smokers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Gun owners headed the way of smokers
JOE SOUCHERAY
Pioneer Press Columnist

Turns out this is more fun than you can shake a stick at, all this bang-bang hysteria. The other day, as I deleted about 300 e-mails, I'll bet half of them were from people, some of them right here in this newsroom, who believe that guns will up and develop their own two legs and a mind of their own to boot.

Look out! There's a gun coming down the street!

I can save everybody in Minnesota the trouble of any additional worry about guns. I'm not saying that this is the last word on the subject — not when it's turned out to be this much fun — but it will be the last word for a while.

OK. This is Minnesota, right? The State Where Absolutely Nothing is Allowed? Everybody just take a deep breath and you can see where all this is headed. It is headed in exactly the same direction as the anti-cigarette hysteria.

In fact, with the anti-smoking hysteria as a precedent, the anti-gun hysteria already skipped a few of the phases. For example, we have already skipped ahead to the "no guns allowed on these premises'' stage. It took years for the anti-smoking crowd to get that far. Why, I remember when I was allowed to hack away at the typewriter in the newsroom with a Marlboro hanging from my lip. When they outlawed that, they still set aside a room in the building, and right in the middle of a sentence, if you got a real bad jones, you could head up to what was euphemistically called a lounge and smoke your brains out. It was still in the building.

In the meantime, they started devoting about half the school day to brainwashing the kids against tobacco and they wiped the ads off TV and they passed restrictive measures to make it so that cigarette machines had to be elevated 22 feet off the floor and then could be accessed only with a secret password. They even demonized poor old Joe Camel and said it was his fault that kids smoked and that turned the kids around, all right, because pretty soon the kids were taking to the streets and blaming evil manufacturers for causing them to smoke.

Well, the upshot of all that was that smokers were forced outside the building, as in shunned, turned against, rejected. You see them to this day, smokers, huddled in the doorways of businesses in 22-below weather, still trying to convince themselves that it is a habit, not an addiction.

It probably took years to get to the outdoor stage because every once and a while you will get a 103-year-old guy who says the key to long life is a little whiskey and his Lucky Strikes, but with guns there is no doubt that one bullet will do the job. You really don't need any scientific studies.

Thus, with guns, we're already at the shunned, turned against and rejected part. The new "shall issue'' law went into effect Wednesday. When I arrived at the Pioneer Press on Friday morning the signs were already at the doors — No guns. Damn, I had to go back to the parking ramp, open my trunk, and empty my pockets of all my bullets and guns and scopes and my canteen, too.

Next winter, when you see people huddled in the doorways of buildings, they could be smokers or they could be gun owners. Or, they could be smokers who are gun owners. We won't be able to tell.

Think of all the places you can't smoke and you pretty much see the future of carrying a gun in Minnesota. Not much of a future. In all the places you can't smoke you won't be able to carry a gun. Oh, there will be lawsuit or two, as well, but even Mike Ciresi will have a tough time proving that gun manufacturers carefully hid their data that shows that guns kill people. Like I said, you don't really need a scientific study for that.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em, and I guess carry 'em if you got 'em, but not here, there or thither.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Soucheray can be reached at [email protected].


http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/5981869.htm
 
If this weren't such a serious subject, it would be downright laughable. Smokers and gunowners huddled together in some dank outdoor area both wondering what went wrong. What happened to their rights?

I am not a fan of allowing Smoking in restaurants, work areas where second hand smoke could adversely affect non-smokers, or in other agendas where a smokers indulgence in his or her habit could interfere with a non-smokers right not to breathe noxious vapors caused by same.

Gun owners now find themselves faced with more and more instances where by posted ordinance or law, they may not enter with their legally concealed firearms. Retail outlets are quick to jump on the band wagon and post their premises as gun free zones.

Thw way I see it, a CCW permittee has 2 choices, he can either blindly follow the crowd and leave his weapon in his vehicle, or remember what his permit says. "CONCEALED" means just that. Unless the premises entered is equipped with metal detectors, a properly concealed handgun will be undetectable and the whole question of whether to carry is moot.


FIRST RULE OF GUNFIGHTING, HAVE A GUN!!!
 
"I am not a fan of allowing Smoking in restaurants, work areas where second hand smoke could adversely affect non-smokers, or in other agendas where a smokers indulgence in his or her habit could interfere with a non-smokers right not to breathe noxious vapors caused by same."


Same thought process, different PC target.
 
Lets Ban Everything Someone Dislikes

2nd Study Confirms 2nd Hand Smoke Harmless

May 16, 2003
From Limbaughs website FWIW

My friends, there's now a second medical study which confirms that
secondhand smoke doesn't kill. Not only does it not kill, it doesn't do much
damage. It causes discomfort, but there's no great health consequence to it.

The World Health Organization first made this known, and it's on our
website ever since. Rush 24/7 members, can access it each and every day, and
read it. We've made it free for all right now just so people can once again
access it, because it's just classic. They suppressed it because it came up
exactly opposite of what they thought what they wanted. And it's a huge
survey of a lot of people. This whole secondhand smoke business is an
absolute lie, a myth, and now there's another study that basically confirms
it! The media today is acting like this is the first one they've ever seen.
Well, we have both of them, right at the bottom of this page.

The New York Post, earlier this week, ran a survey of local bars and
restaurants in New YorkCity to find out how they're being affected by the
smoking ban, and quite a few of them say businesses is way, way down. Mayor
Bloomberg dismissed this, because he says restaurants close every day in New
York, but fortunately new ones open every day, too.

John Podhoretz has responded in a column that the problem is that when
restaurants close and open due to the ebb and flow of the free market,
that's fine, but businesses closing because they're hurt by a law - that's a
different matter. That's what's happened in New York City. We have a nanny
state mayor who has decided that secondhand smoke will kill and people must
not be forced to be around it. So he's outlawed smoking and as a result, a
lot of businesses, bars and restaurants are hurting. Podhoretz's point is:
here we have a billionaire saying, "Well, so what if these little
small-fries go out of business, they'll be replaced." It's total
insensitivity. It's about time this guy came out of the clouds and started
realizing that his own self-preferences affect real people.

Claim that passive smoking does no harm lights up tobacco row

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday May 16, 2003
The Guardian

Passive smoking will not kill you, give you heart disease or lung cancer,
according to a study which will inflame the controversy over tobacco bans in
restaurants and the pariah status of smokers at work.

The findings from a California study, published as the lead paper and cover
story of the highly-regarded British Medical Journal, provoked anguish and
anger from campaigners, public health officials and the cancer society whose
data it analysed.

The findings also fly in the face of a pronouncement by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organisation, that
inhaling second hand cigarette smoke causes a number of forms of cancer,
including lung cancer.

There were also claims that the authors had failed to declare the extent of
their involvement with the tobacco industry.

The WHO and anti-smoking lobbyists, including ironically the British Medical
Association which publishes the Journal, feared the industry had pulled off
a coup in their fight to resist curbs on smoking in public places.

The two authors, James Enstrom of the school of public health at the
University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventive
medicine at the State University of New York, analysed data from more than
100,000 Californian adults who enrolled in the American Cancer Society
prevention study in 1959 and were followed until 1998.

The study focused on the 35,561 people who had never smoked, but who lived
with a spouse who did. They found that passive smoking was not linked to
death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer, no matter how much or how
often the spouse smoked.

The authors say it is not possible that passive smoking causes a 30%
increased risk of heart disease, although a small increase cannot be ruled
out.

The complete study in the British Medical Journal will be released on
Saturday May 17th.
 
Campfires are deadly due to second-hand smoke! (or would that be first-hand?)

People with halitosis can damage your health due to second-hand odor!

Ad nauseum...
 
Well, not exactly the same thing ...

Do the smokers have to leave their cigaretes locked in their car?

Or can they carry them (concealed, of course!) in their pockets or purses so that they will have them ready to smoke when they go out in the 22 below weather.

Worse, yet these businesses don't even provide a shooting section, where you can go out and shoot your gun to relieve work tension - not even if you go out in the 22 below weather.

What's the difference between "Don't smoke in here" and "Don't shoot in here" ...? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top