Those of us who’ve been paying attention since Florida liberalized its gun laws – a move that signaled an end to gun control regimes throughout the nation – have heard it all before. Restore Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms [paraphrasing] and the streets will run red with the blood of innocents! And every time it happens, nothing happens. We recently reported on the non-events not happening in Mississippi since that The Hospitality State removed legal restrictions on open carry – despite the antis’ dire predictions of ballistic mayhem. And now that Missouri has over-ridden the Governor’s veto to deep-six its unconstitutional gun control laws, Vice News is predicting bad, bad things. In Ferguson . . .
On Thursday, Missouri lawmakers addressed this concern by overriding an earlier veto from Governor Jay Nixon and voting into place a law that massively expands gun rights in the state: it lowers the legal age to obtain a concealed weapons permit from 21 to 19, allows residents with such a permit to openly carry guns, and teachers to bring them to school. The new open carry policy will apply even in cities and towns that have laws against it.
Technically, that means that when the new gun regulations take effect next month, anyone with a concealed weapons permit could legally show up at the next Missouri protest with a gun displayed on their hip.
“The last thing we need is more guns, especially for those of us out there who struggle every day to make our community safe in neighborhoods where there’s so much gun violence,” Antonio French, a city alderman and community leader who has been a regular presence at the Ferguson protests, told VICE News. “It really seems like the state legislature is working against us, not with us.”
Wait. What? You’d think that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens – even ones on display! – would do a great deal to make “gun violence”-plagued communities safer. But that’s you. Someone who understands the whole good guy with a gun thing. And you, yes you, might even wonder if armed, peacefully assembling citizens would help stay the hand of let’s-call-them-over-zealous police. Apparently not.
“Police have already been very frustrated,” [Ferguson alderman French] said. “Under current Missouri law, you can drive around with guns. So they pull over cars with young people, and frequently they do have guns, which is completely legal under Missouri law, which makes these encounters even more tense and potentially dangerous for both parties. It works to make the relationship between police and the community even more volatile.”
So if you prevent Americans from exercising their gun rights, it improves their relationship with police. I don’t think so. At least not how I think of “improvement.” Strangely, Speri doesn’t come right out and say what she clearly wants to say: openly armed protestors will trigger a shootout with armed police when the Michael Brown case explodes. A blood bath.
Instead, Speri offers the video above and disguises her fear with ominous connect-the-dots pronouncements like “To those favoring more gun control rather than more access to guns, the combination of looser policies and heightened tensions seems an obvious recipe for disaster.” And “Here’s the thing with guns though: if you have a gun, you’re more likely to use it – and if you’re scared and have a gun, you’re that much more likely to use it.”
Of course, the same could be said for the police facing the protestors, no? Anyway, Speri ends the article by changing the subject, highlighting business owners tooling up for trouble. And what’s the problem with that? Why, nothing of course. Just as there’s nothing wrong with firearms freedom, save the problems created by those who misuse it – or curtail it.
“if you have a gun, you’re more likely to use it”
more likely than what? more likely than if i dont have a gun?
““if you have a gun, you’re more likely to use it””
.
Liber-Logic!
.
Well, I probably was less likely to use it before I had it.
This was, no doubt, a quiz item in a Probability Theory class.
My brain hurts now. Thank you.
I thought the same thing. How about this one: If you have a vehicle you are more likely to drive intoxicated.
One may have the tools needed to commit a crime but until it’s committed there’s nothing.
“if you have a car, you’re more likely to drive to work”
“If you have a credit card, you are more likely to charge a purchase”
“if you have legs, you’re more likely to walk”
She is absolutely correct. In other breaking news…
If you have lungs, you’re more likely to breathe. If you have eyes, you’re more likely to see.
The article suggests that your last point isn’t correct…
First off having been attacked before myself and badly beaten , I will say with absolute certainty
that if I had a gun I would have used it and removed a dirtbag from continuing to be a drain on society,
when someone has the potential to kill you or in my case do permanent damage you should be able
to use lethal force without fearing further attack. Until you or someone close to you has been attacked
you can not understand , and alot of these thugs have no value for human life anyway .
No matter their skin color , so it seems the anti gun thug advocates are ok with having permanent
injury and their assailants getting only a misdemeanor only to in many cases to reoffend.
The ones complaining about the cops will be the first to complain when something happens to them
but you cant have it both ways , maybe they need to protect themselves for a while from the criminals
looting , robbing , carjacking , raping , assaulting etc…. I bet you would wish you had a gun.
Gun grabbers are not pulling in their horns. They know there are too many of us to beat today. Tomorrow is another day and they are waiting for it. Don’t let them lull you into a sense of complacency!
Don’t forget the UN agreement that Obama and Kerry signed off on. It still fits in their strategy!
Bloomberg has moved out of the limelight to give his side more wins is all.
You are right. The anti’s will never give up. Right now they are dealing with that pesky 2A, some Supreme Court rulings, well organized and intelligent legal strategy by the NRA and strong citizen support of gun rights. Get one more liberal judge in the Court of Supremacy and the anti wagon will roll at full speed again. We need to start screening SCOTUS nominees for a verbal commitment to support individual gun rights just as the libs did to guarantee Roe v Wade would not be overturned.
A good friend of mine’s father is very anti gun, and he also happens to be black. When my friend graduated college, his father flew in for the ceremony. At the celebration banquet, I was seated near him, and he happened to bring up guns and gun control. I was truly glad he did, because now I would finally get a chance to talk to an educated, successful anti gun person and hopefully hear some good arguments against gun ownership that would really make me think.
The argument I got was this:
1. White people own guns to oppress black people.
2. The police cannot be trusted to protect black people, and are a tool of white oppression.
How those two arguments do not logically lead to more private gun ownership rather than less, I genuinely cannot comprehend. I keep seeing this argument presented by the black community as some proof that black people should have a harder time getting guns than the white cops they claim are abusing them.
What your friend’s dad is really saying is “guns are icky and therefore no one should have them”.
That argument is very common. If you can get through by dismantling that argument then there is hope. I’ve had some success but it has taken years in most cases. BTW: I’ve heard the same type of argument (replace race with anything), to varying degrees, again and again regardless of ethnicity/nationality/genetics/political affiliation. IMHO, statism is at the root of it.
White people and police officers don’t use guns to oppress black people. They use guns and force to oppress criminals. If a criminal breaks into my house when I am home they get shot!
Antonio French is just mind numbingly dumb. He has no concept nor personal responsibility to educate himself on the legal use of lethal force to stop the threat of grave bodily harm, crippling injury or death.
I mean moronic dumb, Antonio.
Open your mouth to remove all doubt to just how
stupid
you
really
are
“The last thing we need is more guns”
Weird, here I thought it was an invasion of spaceborne undead Rastafarian marxist scientoligist bronies
If this site had upvotes yours would get one!
I think I’ll have a lie down, now.
So would all these undead invaders have cutie marks? Curious minds want to know.
Ferguson? Isn’t that like, so over…? That video is a month old. VICE News is an example of the out-of-town drama manufacturers who blew this out of proportion, and depend on more drama for page views, at the expense of the poor people in Ferguson, and the black community in general, nationwide.
How about a local update- Google is my friend:
Stevie Wonder is on it: Saying the mayor “just isnt seeing it”, “has blinders on”…
You cant make this stuff up: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/stevie-challenges-ferguson-mayor-25416033
Frankly, I prefer local blogger Gateway Pundit to the anarcho-nitwit-huffpo Kos Kids predictable nonsense.
Jim Hoft is def NOT politically correct, and unfortunately attracts some seriously deranged KKK types/ trolls in his comments –
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/
He has broken more real “facts” than the StateRunMedia ever will, in Ferguson, and elsewhere.
Bookmarked for the latest on the ground in MO.
Oh, you mean like the comments of these upstanding citizens of Fergusen (or maybe other places):
Background atmosphere quotes at the City Council meeting last week. You really can’t make stuff like this up.
“So they pull over cars with young people, and frequently they do have guns, which is completely legal under Missouri law, which makes these encounters even more tense and potentially dangerous for both parties. It works to make the relationship between police and the community even more volatile.”
Well then stop pulling over cars for stupid stuff!!!!!!
More importantly, I am getting really tired of politicians and bureaucrats telling us that we have to give up our rights to make policemen/women’s jobs easier or safer (in their opinion). I don’t get to infringe on someone else’s rights because it makes my job easier or safer. Neither do they.
Open carry just isn’t popular with some people:
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/column/gassen/sarah-garrecht-gassen-it-s-hard-to-trust-gun-toters/article_e631789a-7b30-580a-bf20-68eda9329f2e.html
Headline: Professional Busybody Checks in at Tucson Waffle House. Secondary: “Fears everybody because her feelings are the only ones that matter.”
Right above the notice for the monthly Flat Earth Society meeting.
I’ll top that and rewrite that article in one sentence: “I ate out for breakfast with an open carrier and nothing happened.”
I’m convincing myself more and more that we should be thinking of gun rights like the gay lobby. Open carriers are our “out” folks. Just do it well, folks.
Being “out” sure does feel good. It’s quite liberating. I couldn’t live otherwise. 🙂
I love Vice News, love that she got into the store by speaking Arabic to the owner. Arabic store owners take no shit, in my experience. As a grandson of immigrants I think the “protect what you have” mentality is just a common theme in all circles of immigrants.
are you saying that you love this shite article?
The blood bath did not happen before the law and it will not happen after this law. When Ferguson happened gun stores were swamped with customers. None of those guns started shooting at the police or protesters.
It is all emotional projections by people with an agenda.
You know, when I was in high school, half the kids had hunting rifles in their cars in the school parking lot during hunting season, and no one cared. Keep in mind this is post-GFSA, and everyone up to the principal knew about it and just ignored it. Because it didn’t matter.
Regardless of what laws they enact or repeal, the fact of the matter is that criminals, by their very nature, don’t obey/follow laws, something the leftists/liberals seem to ALWAYS forget…
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislating-ignorance/
Looks like you had some fun in there. Damn some of the commenters there are dense as rocks. They are obviously not fans of liberty and self determination. Their comments scream someone please come tell me how to live my life for me.
If the people (citizens) present at a peaceful public demonstration have guns, you can bet the police will be polite and follow the law to a T. Everyone evil be safer.
An armed society is a polite society.
.
Oct. 4th – I think a little march in St. Louis is in order. . . . open carry style
Why Oct. 4? The open carry law takes effect on Oct. 11.
If my Indiana CCW is in by then (just finished a move home from Ohio), I’ll join you. I’ll be in STL that weekend. Let me know when and where.
If the guns are legal and the folks holding them are legal to own them and law abiding folk how does this make the cops or anybody less safe?
In my youth there was a misunderstanding about my right to hunt on a fenceline that was just outside of the city limits. A city cop, a game warden and 2 deputy sheriffs from the county were standing on one side of the fence while myself and my buddy stood on the other side.
At no time did the gov reps pull or point a firearm at us. At no time did they ask us to disarm. During the entire encounter we had 12 gauge shotguns loaded in our hands. We made no threatening moves and were polite during the entire incident.
After much discussion amongst themselves and talking on the motorolas(this was before the computer era) it was decided that indeed we had the right to hunt there and any city folk bothered by seeing us walking the line and shooting at innocents animals would just have to suck it up and learn to deal.
All the officers left and we continued with our hunt.
Obviously that was during the short period (most of recorded history) when common sense and mutual respect were the underpinnings of society.
When my dad was a kid back in the 50s, his dad told him to go “take care of pigeons at his church(my grandfather was an episcopal priest). My dad climbed up on the roof of the church with a pellet rifle, and went to work. He was later brought home by the local sheriff, because people started to wonder why a 10 year old was on the roof with what looked like a rifle. Turns out he wasn’t supposed to be on the roof.
Point is, people didn’t automatically freak out. These days he would probably be in jail as a domestic terrorist for being a “sniper” or some BS.
If you have a gun, you’re more likely to use it
Apparently the same “logic” doesn’t apply to having a brain.
“If you have a gun, you’re more likely to use it”
.
Those who spew this line use “Liber-Logic”. The logic system of the brain-dead.
.
Post should be “Fargo Inciting A Riot.”
It’s sad when TTAG goes this low,
The situation in St. Louis/Ferguson is fluid at this point waiting on the grand jury….
It should not be exploited though it seems TTAG is in this for the exploitation.
BTW, I live close. Do business there. Know at least a dozen good folks of all ‘colors’ that just want this to go away.
Really? In what way is this post inflammatory or exploitive? Specifically.
Really? Almost EVERYBODY wants this to go away. But just like the elephant in the corner, it’s here and we all have to deal with it in one way or another. So deal with it.
‘Cause nothing inflames racial tension like a critique of a Vice article on a gun blog. I’m sure it’s the talk of Ferguson right now.
[Concern Troll Alert]
I’m posting a comment I made on Vice here as well since as of late, it seems anytime I comment on the antis home turf, my comments disappear. And I’m usually proud of my prose…
Vice and it’s younger millenial readership just need to drop the pretense and come out with what they really want already, and that is to institute full-on confiscation and bans of firearms in civilian hands. Thankfully, the millenial generation is the most politically unmotivated generation there is, and those of us who value our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, have little to fear from a bunch of Facebook-addicted, Adderall-munching, uneducated buffoons. However, even uneducated buffoons can be a threat, in great numbers. It sickens me how many times I hear a young person call for violations of essential civil rights, just because their feelings are hurt.
The article is full of hideous inaccuracies. A shopkeeper would not have a functional automatic weapon on display in his or her business. While M-16s manufactured before May 19th 1986 are legal for civilian ownership in most states (with a plethora of paperwork and about $20,000) due to these conditions, it isn’t something you would keep on display at your store. And if your M-16 was “post-86” and illegal for you to have, you wouldn’t have it on display. I’m sure what the writer saw was a commonly-available semi-automatic AR-variant rifle, which can be had for about $500-$1000 at any gun shop in 39 states in the US, with a background check. Yes, there are background checks for gun purchases in the US. The $1000 semi-automatic rifle in the shop window is a far different animal than what the writer presumes it to be.
And I can’t believe the tone of the article with regards to self-defense. Are we not supposed to defend ourselves? Ferguson is a perfect example of what happens when there is a civil disturbance. Let’s leave the LEO bashing out of it for a second. The police forces are immediately overwhelmed. I don’t care if you have ten cops on duty or a thousand, when things go south, the police are simply all booked up. A lot of police, on and off the record, will say that “you are your own first responder”. And part of that response should include the proper and safe handling of a firearm. An intruder in your home isn’t going to wait for the police, he or she is going to do what they want, unless you do something about it. Am I a bloodthirsty maniac? No. The thought of killing someone is abhorrent to me. I really hope the only things killed by my guns are paper targets.
But if I must protect those I love, I will kill every intruder in my home to ensure their safety. My methods of protecting myself, those I love, and my property are my business, not the business of the government, Vice, Alice Speri, the millenials, or Michael Bloomberg. Alice Speri might choose to have a cell phone and a can of doggie pepper spray, Bloomberg chooses to hire armed guards, I choose to have security cameras and several precision-engineered firearms. No one’s business but our own how we do it.
Vice, if you are going to play in the opinion piece game, that’s fine. One of the civil liberties in this country that so offends your readers (freedom of speech) allows you to do so. But please clearly notate that the article is an opinion piece, and not a journalistic piece. Otherwise you risk further confusing your already confused readers, and alienating anyone in your potential audience pool with a modicum of education. If you are going to play in the big-boy journalism world, you either have to have an insane amount of money,which you don’t, or respect, which you were striving towards (I’ll bite, there’s some good pieces on this site) but articles like this do nothing to reinforce.
And Alice, dear, please leave the politics and the discussions of the finer points of civil rights and self-defense to the grown-ups. Especially since handling a firearm requires a great deal of responsibility and respect (my 16-year old cousin manages that) that you definitely lack. My idea of gun control is having control of any guns in the room, especially if you happened to be in the same room I am. Provided you didn’t faint from the sight of a black rifle, I’d be worried you’d end up hurting yourself. Part of responsible gun ownership is not letting irresponsible people near loaded weapons, and I’d just be doing my part in that regard.
“Following some of the most significant protests in recent American history, you’d think Missouri’s priorities would be rebuilding frayed ties within its communities and addressing its policing problem.”
So she thinks that out-of-control police is a uniquely Missourian problem? The mind boggles. She probably also doesn’t realize that most of the legislature doesn’t represent Ferguson, or places like Ferguson, or that Missouri has other things to think about, than one dead felon. Things like restoring our right to bear arms.
“a law that massively expands gun rights”
She must be talking about some other law.
“…voting into place a law that massively expands gun rights…”
I don’t think that the author of this quite gets it. Rights are rights. Sometimes those rights can be denied but they can never be expanded. They are what they are. This law simply restores some (not all, why should you need a permit carry either openly or concealed?) of the rights that were previously denied.
The Leftist Gun Fallacy
The basic problem is that most leftists do not differentiate between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. Honestly, some do not see any distinction. This is why they do not make any such distinctions in their writings or blogs related to the Second Amendment, firearms, criminals, or other related discussions.
Though they may see themselves as law-abiding, they can imagine that at any moment they might just get upset and decide to kill somebody for no reason. Therefore, they reason, if they had a gun, this would be more likely. Therefore, they again reason, since they themselves cannot handle the responsibility of firearms ownership, they assume that no one else in the world can possibly handle it.
Except, of course, for certain people that work for the government because obviously working for the government gives people magical powers and unquestionable judgment.
Since the government gives people magical powers, we can certainly all do with a little more of that! Which is why these loons constantly vote for more and more government intrusion into their lives and into yours.
Comments are closed.