What a liberal really thinks of your right to conceal carry

FireMax

New member
In Georgia, our legislature just passed a bill (HB89) which will allow us the additional right to carry concealed in a restaurant which serves alcohol, to conceal carry on public transportation such as busses and subways, and in State parks. The anti-gunners are so angry that they were defeated in the legislature that they are frothing at the mouth.

The following blog article is an example of the kind of outrageous attacks we have to defend against here in our media while waiting for the Governor to sign the bill into law. They use untruths and scare tactics peppered in with some name calling against legal permit holders.

If you have time, make a comment at the following link after you read the article.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sh...ntalk/entries/2008/04/10/locked_and_load.html
Locked and loaded in Rambo fantasy

By JAY BOOKMAN | Thursday, April 10, 2008, 07:35 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Georgia’s most famous son, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the Georgia Legislature approved a bill allowing permit holders to carry concealed firearms in public places such as restaurants that serve liquor, state parks and transit systems such as MARTA.

The bill also made it legal for any nonfelon — including those without a permit — to carry a loaded firearm beneath a car seat or other easily accessible hiding place in a vehicle.

As a practical matter, those changes won’t matter much. The folks who want to drive around with a loaded pistol beneath their front seat are going to indulge in that foolishness regardless of what the law says. And armed permit holders won’t suddenly start using their weapons to either save or take lives in restaurants or parks.

Nonetheless, the law does testify to the enduring power and political appeal of what you might call the Rambo fantasy. And it reveals once again how easily that delusion can frustrate passage of common-sense gun-safety laws that might save lives.

We all know how that fantasy goes, because it has become a stock story in American pop culture: Bad Guy pulls a gun and starts blowing innocent people away; Good Guy pulls his own gun and kills Bad Guy, saving lives and becoming a hero.

In real life that rarely if ever happens. But we pass laws like this anyway, almost as a way to pay homage to that cultural fantasy and to placate the dreamers who insist that the law recognize their right, however far-fetched, to someday be that hero.

You know who those folks are. They’re the ones who like to claim that if they had been carrying that tragic day at Virginia Tech, a lot of those kids would still be alive today. They believe that the problem with today’s society is not too many guns in too many places, but rather too few, and they see themselves as potential white knights, just waiting for a dragon to come along.

But those dragons rarely do. In 2006, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, guns were used in a total of 10,177 homicides. Of that enormous total, just 195 homicides were categorized as justifiable, defined by the bureau as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.”

In percentage terms, 98.1 percent of the time a private citizen kills someone with a firearm, the killing is not justified. Yet because of the power of the Rambo fantasy, we write laws as if that remaining 1.9 percent of gun killings were the majority.

And even that 1.9 percent figure is a vast exaggeration of how many times the fantasy comes true. The FBI doesn’t break the numbers down further, but I’d bet that almost all those 195 cases involved a private citizen who legally used a gun to stop a burglary or home invasion, not a crime conducted in a public place.

Having followed and participated in the gun debate, and having used guns myself for a time in my life, I’d also bet that rather than being brave souls ready to protect the rest of us, most Rambo fantasists are intimidated by the world around them.

That conclusion was crystallized for me years ago when a state legislator from suburban Atlanta announced in a gun debate that he would never dare to dine in an Atlanta restaurant unless he was carrying a firearm.

Now, frail little old ladies with walkers ate in those restaurants regularly without apparent fear, but this guy — a young man well over 6 feet tall — thought it was too dangerous unless he could carry a gun with him.

Apparently, the heft of 2 pounds of steel in a shoulder holster gives some of those people the courage they need to go out into a world that otherwise terrifies them. It gives them the bravery that nature failed to provide.

That’s a big part of the reason that lax gun laws are so important to them.
 
So he admits that this law won't really affect anything either way (and statistically it probably won't) but is against it ... why? So if it has no effect and passing this law "pays homage to a rambo mentality," then does resisting it pay a homage to the "but guns are just evil because I don't like them mentality?"

And we know from many, many public and published stories that for some percentage of people, however small, having a firearm at the right time nad right place HAS saved their life.

So if there are no negatives to the law, and it allows even a few people to be empowered to at least have a chance to save their lives or those of others, why fight it?

I just don't get the anti-mentality.
 
Guy does make some valid points that are borne out by some posts on this Board...although frankly, I have seen a slow retreat of the Rambo mentality here.

I would note that the general maturity level shown by the posters here, and the lack of overall enthusiasm for Ramboness has made this, IMHO, the most respected general gun forum on the net.

WildgratuitousobservationAlaska ™
 
Apparently, the heft of 2 pounds of steel in a shoulder holster gives some of those people the courage they need to go out into a world that otherwise terrifies them. It gives them the bravery that nature failed to provide.

That’s a big part of the reason that lax gun laws are so important to them.

Please....

While I can't argue that "Rambo" types don't exist, I think he is referring to a stereo type that rarely exists. Most CCW holders, and a majority of the people who post here, are mature and law abiding people. Most of us don't look at guns as a way to feel safe or secure or powerful.
 
He notes that of the 10,177 gun homicides only 195 of them were justified (aka self defense). Thats roughly 1.9%. I imagine that also happens to be roughly the same percentage of people who have a CCP.

Naturally because this number is so low and insignificant, we should just reduce it to zero and make all 10,177 deaths that of innocent people. Makes perfect sense. :barf:
 
Apparently, the heft of 2 pounds of steel in a shoulder holster gives some of those people the courage they need to go out into a world that otherwise terrifies them. It gives them the bravery that nature failed to provide.

Again, he basically admits the new law want change much. So, the whole point of his article is to dig at those who support the right to conceal carry and who do conceal carry.

IMO, "Digging" at the opposing side is what liberals do best. This article is simply an example of an unhappy liberal striking out like a pissed off high-school girl who didn't get her way.
 
Apparently, the heft of 2 pounds of steel in a shoulder holster gives some of those people the courage they need to go out into a world that otherwise terrifies them. It gives them the bravery that nature failed to provide.

This is perhaps the argument I'm most sick of. My wife used to against me when I first got my CCW.

Do I CCW because I'm scared?

You might as well ask ...

Do I put my kids in child seats because I expect to have an accident?

Do I have smoke detectors because I expect a fire?

Do I have life insurance because I expect to die?

Of course ... I have all of those things because of the unthinkable does happen, I want to have the best tools available to protect my family.

I know that has a white suburbanite living and working where I do that chance of EVER getting assaulted is very, very low. But not zero. So why would I prepare for those other threats but not this one?

I didn't CCW for the first 40 years of my life, and still don't all the time by any means. But if it doesn't hurt anyone and I want to do it ... why is he against me?
 
I didn't CCW for the first 40 years of my life, and still don't all the time by any means. But if it doesn't hurt anyone and I want to do it ... why is he against me?

Maybe it's the Rambo mentality he has seen...you've seen it...and you are a gun owner...doesn't it bother you a bit?

WilditdoesmeAlaska ™
 
wildalaska
Maybe it's the Rambo mentality he has seen...you've seen it...and you are a gun owner...doesn't it bother you a bit?

In relation to conceal carry, I haven't seen it. I've never once seen a person pull a gun out in public. I doubt the author has seen it either. He lives in a liberal bubble where facts are not necessarily "concrete" things. His intent was to "strike out" at those who conceal carry. Some people will buy into his message, just not people I care to know.
 
In relation to conceal carry, I haven't seen it.

Guess you haven't been reading firearms Boards enough.

He lives in a liberal bubble where facts are not necessarily "concrete" things.

How would you know? Know anything about him?

Some people will buy into his message, just not people I care to know.

So you confine your circle of knowledge to those tiny minority of folks who think exactly like you do?

WildsoundsliketheradsoveratmoveonAlaska ™
 
I'd say there is a BIG difference From reading all the TRUTH off a forum and in real life! Geesh. He also does not say how many people were saved from harm without having to kill someone or even fire a shot!!
 
wildalaska:

I've seen it. I see it from the same guys who have 25lb AR-15s complete with nightvision radar powerd rocket launching tampon dispensors...


If it wasn't for private citizens with firearms, he wouldn't have the freedom to write that. I think many antis forget things like that.

Oh and why is he a liberal just because he is an anti? You know he could be conservative and hate guns, or you could be liberal and love guns. I don't know, but that lib vs con stuff annoys the crap out of me.
 
Guys like Jay have never been on the sharp end and presume they understand everything. I understand very well the limits of police protection in response to the death threats I got for most of a year: exactly zip.

When I went river rafting in NM, the guides did a safety brief. If you got dumped from the raft, you were expected "to take an active part in your own rescue" to maximise the chances you could be pulled back in. They had never lost anyone, didn't want to start, but unless you helped, you might be the first one. I guess Jay would just drift along yelling "help".

No desire to shoot anyone (okay, maybe Kim Jong Il or Robert Mugabe...). No desire for trouble. But trouble might desire me, against my will, and I don't know when or what kind of evil I might run into, despite my care and watchfulness.

So I just got my renewed carry license and don't spend much time too far from a weapon.

You only have the rights you can defend, and that is what "arms" and "keep" and "bear" have been about since the 1200's. Were evil passe, then self-defense would also. But evil surrounds us, unpredictably appearing in forms and at times we cannot control or anticipate with certainty.

You can elect to hope your encounter will come out well, or be a part of your own rescue.

If I wanted to be Rambo, I would run down to the local ghetto and find a shoot out. Since I try to avoid shoot-outs, even raised voices, what does that make me if I still carry? Still a Rambo, to this savant.

He is too ignorant to appreciate his lack of knowlege.
 
firemax
In relation to conceal carry, I haven't seen it.
wildalaska
Guess you haven't been reading firearms Boards enough.
I'm talking about real life, not a web forum.



firemax
He lives in a liberal bubble where facts are not necessarily "concrete" things.
How would you know? Know anything about him?
I read his article. Maybe you and I got two different things from his "hit piece".

firemax
Some people will buy into his message, just not people I care to know.
wildalaska
So you confine your circle of knowledge to those tiny minority of folks who think exactly like you do?
Not at all. I talk to people who think differently than I do most everyday. Take you and I for example. We don't think alike yet I converse with you on this forum. When I refer to the fact that I don't "care to know" certain types of people, I mean I don't care to know them in respect to going out and having a beer with someone like that. I've tried in the past. People with a strong liberal belief are quite different than I am. I can be polite in their company.... we just don't have a lot in common. Nothing strange about that... is there?
 
Oh and why is he a liberal just because he is an anti? You know he could be conservative and hate guns, or you could be liberal and love guns. I don't know, but that lib vs con stuff annoys the crap out of me.

Yup.

I posted a thread on here concerning a piece on NPR about the 2nd Amendment. A part of that piece that I found interesting was how Ms. Lithwick sounded upset that mostly Liberal scholars if my memory serves me, have as late been saying that yes indeed, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

Me, I'll stay an Independent Constitutionalist. I have never registered for a party, and intend to remain as such.
 
Apparently, the heft of 2 pounds of steel in a shoulder holster gives some of those people the courage they need to go out into a world that otherwise terrifies them. It gives them the bravery that nature failed to provide.
I wonder if he's so "brave" he ventures into the kitchen without a fire extinguisher, ventures into bed without smoke detectors, or ventures into his car and onto the highway without a spare tire or first-aid kit.

If you're not at least a little wary of the wide world, you're just not paying enough attention. Did you hear about the lady who got her car windows shot out because she beeped at someone who'd fallen asleep at the green light, for instance? Up in Manchester NH just a few days ago.
 
Maybe it's the Rambo mentality he has seen...you've seen it...and you are a gun owner...doesn't it bother you a bit?

Oh yeah. I could list on for awhile all the things I've seen about some gun owners that bother me ... and I know what you're saying. There are a lot of rambos out there, though that doesn't bother me as much as the quantity of stupid people who buy guns and get themselves or others killed (if some Rambo is sure he needs 2 primary pistols and a backup at all times plus a rifle and shotgun in the trunk of the car and body armor even in August ... it doesn't bother me a bit as long as he carries them safely and remains law abiding).

But I have to keep reminding myself ... unless a true gun ban is put in place (zero tolerance for gun ownership, guns confiscated, etc.) then stupid people/Rambos will always be able to get one kind of gun or another. And it doesn't matter if you ban AR-15's or handguns because a hunting rifle is no less lethal.

So anti-gun laws short of a total ban do nothing but disarm the honest people who could defend themselves or others. People who want to be Rambo and are on the edge will carry guns anyway.

Before I joined the NRA, started arguing for the 2nd amendment, etc., CCW was just being considered in Colorado. I believed then, and still believe now, that you can be anti-gun and still be pro-CCW. Because why would you want to make sure that you and your fellow law-abiding civilians can't carry a weapon when the thugs can? If you're fighting for a ban on guns because you believe that too many people have guns, until the ban takes place wouldn't you at least want a gun to defend your own family?

my .02 ...
 
Back
Top