Quantcast

NRA a beast, according to NY Times.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by hillbilly, Sep 5, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hillbilly

    hillbilly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,165
    Location:
    Iowa
    I know it's really vogue for some "No Compromise!!" gunnies to whine and moan about the NRA, even call the NRA a "gun control organzation."

    I suppose, then, that the NY Times is also just in on the plot to fool every one and make them just think that the NRA is actually a "gun rights" organization?

    Oh, and just to prevent confusion, Verlyn is a "he" not a "she."

    hillbilly

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/opinion/05tue4.html?_r=1&oref=login


    Once a Progressive State, Minnesota Is Now a Fief of the N.R.A.
    E-MailPrint Save

    By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
    Published: September 5, 2006
    A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.

    Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you.

    I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked.

    There are some other twists to these laws. A person carrying a concealed weapon cannot be banned from a public building, even if it’s a library full of kids. Churches have succeeded in keeping guns out of the pews, but they’re having to fight another court battle to keep them out of the parking lot. The application for a concealed-weapon permit appears to have been created by people who believe the real threat in carrying a gun is the loss of privacy entailed in filling out the form. Yet it isn’t possible for a member of the public to find out who has received a permit and may, in fact, be packing heat.

    This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know.

    I grew up hunting and shooting, and I still own two rifles (a .22 and a .270) and two shotguns (a 20-gauge and a 12-gauge, to be specific). When I was young, I expected that I would own guns when I grew up because I enjoyed hunting and I liked the good hunters I knew — as I still do.

    But to me, owning guns and knowing how to use them properly was part of a civic bargain. I would leave the police work to the police, and they would leave the squirrel hunting to me. The notion that 38 states would have “concealed carry” laws in 2006 would have seemed insane, a regression to a more primitive idea of who we are.

    The N.R.A. would argue that society has changed since those innocent days. But society hasn’t changed nearly as much as the N.R.A. has — or our ideas about the balance of individual and collective rights.

    Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

    But there’s a bigger problem. By focusing so obsessively on an individual’s rights — in this case, the purported individual right to bear arms in the library — all other rights are shoved aside. Police departments are forced to grant concealed-weapon permits to individuals who have almost none of the training and certainly none of the restrictions that police officers have.

    What’s worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot. The police are trained to handle guns. The criminals know they’re not supposed to have them but find them easy to get, thanks to the N.R.A. Let them fight it out. No one is safer if gun-carrying civilians believe their rights entitle them to pretend they’re cops.

    Sometimes I think the N.R.A. isn’t really about guns at all. It’s about making certain that the public — our political and civil society, in other words — has no ability to limit the rights of an individual. That is really what the logic of the “concealed carry” and “shall require” and “shoot first” laws says.

    Guns make a perfect test case, because the end result is an armed cohort that is very prickly about its personal rights. The N.R.A. has armed the thousands of Minnesotans who applied for a permit once the “concealed carry” law passed. But it has disarmed the public by making sure that legislators will no longer vote for gun laws that protect the rest of us.
     
  2. crazed_ss

    crazed_ss Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,651
    Location:
    Sunny San Diego
    Same old thing they always say about CCW.. people dont have enough training.. everyone is in danger in someone has a gun at the library.. bla bla bla

    I always ask the anti's this question.. If shall-issue CCW was so harmful and dangerous to society, how come we dont constantly hear about law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits going crazy and using their guns illegally?
     
  3. Marshall

    Marshall Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    5,569
    Location:
    Oklahoma, Green Country
    It's hilarious to see a NYT writer spout his ignorance to prove beyond any doubt, that he knows nothing of what he writes. The problem is, too may will believe him. Oh yea, I believe it's shall issue. Only a left winged idiot would say shall require, only to make a point.
     
  4. modifiedbrowning

    modifiedbrowning Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,223
    Location:
    Bozeman, MT
    "What’s worse, by granting this right to individuals, the law strips the public of its right to occupy public spaces without the threat of being shot."

    I wasn't aware that this was a constitutionally protected right.
     
  5. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    8,067
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    If the ACLU was also a "beast" according to the NY Times, the diatribe might be worth considering.
     
  6. rev214

    rev214 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    "Land of Landfills",New Jersey
    oh boy!:what:
    is this article part of his "creative writing" he taught at Fordham, St. Olaf College, Bennington College and Harvard U.???:neener:
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2006
  7. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Notice that the writer - form New York City of course - uses words to describe Minnesota as being "socially progressive" (translation: left-wing, Democrat, Socialist) and the D.F.L (which is far-left to the point of almost being Socialist) as being representative of "common sense." Of course he believes that firearms should be restricted (except for the kind he likes) and that the police should have absolute control over who can or can't carry a concealed weapon. No mention of course that the gun control system he advocates hasn't worked too well in his own hometown. Of course he doesn't enlighten his readers with any evidence of massive abuse of public safety by legally licensed gun carriers in states that have "shall issue" systems, and have had for years. Notice the slam toward Florida, again with no evidence of any problems there.

    This sort of writing is typical of the New York Times, and Socialist/Democrat thinking that predominates where this country's left-wing rules. It is pure bull, and should be taken as such.
     
  8. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    the NRA is a brute

    Dumb but not entirely dumb. Yes, we are concerned, rightly, about individual rights. And will continue to be.
     
  9. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Location:
    Texas
    No! but people keep insisting the leftwing communists in the demorat party are seeing the light and reversing their erroneous ways.

    :neener:

    The republicans may not be perfect but at least they don't spew that kind of garbage on a daily basis.
     
  10. Danus ex

    Danus ex Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    335
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    I've lived my entire life (except the last week) as a Minnesotan. Minnesota IS socially progressive--that's why we HAVE CCW. The once politically similar states in our area (WI, IL, IA) have not "progressed" this far quite yet. Did this guy ever consider that living a day in Minnesota is no different after shall-issue CCW than it was before we had shall-issue? Good citizens carrying concealed firearms hasn't changed a thing in Minnesota or in the majority of the United States.
     
  11. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    The obligatory lip service to "sportsmen" and hunters. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Because interchanging Democrat with Socialist isn't at all toxic in a manner that drives possible 2A supporters away.

    Gotcha.
     
  13. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,256
    Location:
    Central Texas
    The entire editorial is filled with distortions, half-truths, and outright lies.
    Called that by WHO? There is NO law permitting Floridians to shoot people just because they ring their doorbell.
    Having escaped the People's Republic of Minnesota some 10 years ago, I thought DFL stood for "Deviants, Flakes, and Leftists" . . . after all, that's what most of their constituency consists of.
    So self-reliance is "insane" and "primitive" . . . the implication is that civilized and rational people want to be utterly dependent on the State for their own safety.
    A lie - concealed weapons in the hands of law abiding have NOT been shown to be dangerous to the public at large; evidence points quite compellingly in the opposite direction.
    AMEN!
    He says this as if it were a bad thing . . .
     
  14. jrou111

    jrou111 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Do these guys all follow the same form?

    Is there a wizard in MS Word for anti-gun drivel?



    I can see the paperclip saying "What propaganda would you like to spew today?"
     
  15. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    I think the description is accurate, and it's unlikely that folks that think in that vain are likely to become 2nd amendment supporters. If that was true, NYC wouldn't be what NYC is. :(
     
  16. orangelo

    orangelo member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Location:
    Texas
    I can think of many other less glamorous but 100% truthful things to call the typical demorat. They should be glad socialist is what he used.
     
  17. Phetro

    Phetro Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Indiana
    Yes. If the average person thinks the NRA is a gun rights group, they will, by extension, think the GOA is a "nutcase extremist group," and will accept the new "gun control" laws the NRA lets slide right through. This is what the NY Times is encouraging: incremental defeat of the RKBA.
     
  18. S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

    S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    244
    Uh oh! We tipped our hand here. Obviously, Verlyn supports limiting the rights of individuals so that "civil society" can decide everything for us and take care of us.

    This type of person sickens me and reveals to all of us what we're up against. We have 38 CCW states in spite of these people, which is amazing.
     
  19. zoom6zoom

    zoom6zoom Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Virginia
    180 degrees off! It guarantees our right occupy public spaces without fear.

    And did he make up the bit about the Avon lady? I've never heard that one before. There's only one ding-dong here - it's the writer.
     
  20. cosine

    cosine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Suburb of Milwaukee, WI
    Sadly, it almost seems like there is.
     
  21. roo_ster

    roo_ster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    USA
    Uh, methinks you might want to learn a bit about FLP history before unleashing the snark.

    But, hey, Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate.

    Maybe the following will help dispel doubts:
    On second thought, you might be right. The more apt interchange might be marxist/Democrat, given the DFLP's history.
     
  22. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,283
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    I don't know where to begin.....sigh.
     
  23. sturmruger

    sturmruger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Messages:
    3,055
    Location:
    NW, WI
    I love it that he thinks the NRA is a "beast" that is exactly what we want!!
     
  24. Creeping Incrementalism

    Creeping Incrementalism Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    S.F. Bay Area
    This writer is especially hypocritical when referring to the public having a right to safety at the expense of a person's right to bear arms. Someone could say that the public was a right to safety from the chaos or other dangers created by erroneuous news reporting, so the government should have the ability to censor the press before they make their reports.

    I also wonder if the writer is aware that the NRA became politically active because of the actions of antis, and through a grassroots, bottom-up method--not top-down.
     
  25. Eightball

    Eightball Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Since when was this an enumerated "right"? There's always a threat of being shot....by the people so commonly known as Criminals. This law only allows the law-abiding citizens to shoot back......when will they realize that criminals don't follow the law, and the only way to fight back is protection?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice