A Liberal Case for CCW

[CrufflerSteve]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...gle_page=true#

I don't think this article is that useful for members here and I didn't like a few of his points. I doubt if there's much opposition to CCW here.

This is good to pass along to liberal co-workers, family & such.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a fairly amusing writer for this mag. Early in his life he moved to Israel and served in the IDF. Using souvenirs of his extensive Mid East travels he had fun seeing if there was any intelligence in TSA. His conclusion was not.

Great quote from Dave Kopel: ' he made the plausible assertion that Boulder is home to “the largest population of armed vegans in America.”'

He discusses the stupidity of gun free zones much more politely than most of us could manage. He visited Colorado a few months after the movie massacre so he met with local LEO's and others. He also managed to bring out that so much of the anti-gun arguments is based on emotion alone.

[jgang]

Great quote from Dave Kopel: ' he made the plausible assertion that Boulder is home to “the largest population of armed vegans in America.”'

Well, they don't hunt, so they're either criminals or, theoreitcally and more likely, law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. What a concept! 20,000 vegans can't be wrong.

[TFOGGER]

What a concept! 20,000 vegans can't be wrong.

At least about being armed.

About what constitutes "food" however...

[brutal]

Like the video, haven't yet had time to read through the whole article.

However, I don't like the way this passage was written, "The National Rifle Association and other anti-gun-control groups worked diligently to defend the loophole—misnamed, because while loophole suggests a small opening not easily negotiated, about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks." as it implies that Internet sales are not subject to background checks. As we all know, nothing could be further from the truth.

[CrufflerSteve]

Like the video, haven't yet had time to read through the whole article.

However, I don't like the way this passage was written, "The National Rifle Association and other anti-gun-control groups worked diligently to defend the loophole—misnamed, because while loophole suggests a small opening not easily negotiated, about 40 percent of all legal gun sales take place at gun shows, on the Internet, or through more-informal sales between private sellers and buyers, where buyers are not subject to federal background checks." as it implies that Internet sales are not subject to background checks. As we all know, nothing could be further from the truth.

He is completely off in a some places like this. First off, a word like loohole, is a loaded term. Colorado banned private sales at gun shows years ago but many other states still allow it. Personally, I think it was a mistake to allow dealers into gunshows. They were more fun long ago.

I wish he had fact checked this a bit better but these sort of things would make it through a NYC based magazine. David Kopel wouldn't make such a statement but he wouldn't get a chance to write a mainstream article like this.

I'm pointed out this article as a something that could explain CCW to someone who doesn't like guns, not anything to persuade anybody here. The video got into the 'free rider' argument. which to me is quite persuasive. Even if you don't carry, you can benefit from this by being in a place where lots of law abiding people do. He then spent time explaining that CCW people are extremely law abiding, more than LEO's. That idea is not at all present in most MSM media and he discussed massacres that were prevented or stopped by armed citizens.

[nynco]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the gun show loop hole closed a long time ago? Because pretty much my understand is if you are on the premise of a gun show, and you as a private seller try to sell something, that they are breaking the law by not doing a back ground check. I know that is the case for all fire arm sales through all dealers regardless of location.

I think part of the problem is many of the left just do not understand the current state of the laws.

[clublights]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the gun show loop hole closed a long time ago? Because pretty much my understand is if you are on the premise of a gun show, and you as a private seller try to sell something, that they are breaking the law by not doing a back ground check. I know that is the case for all fire arm sales through all dealers regardless of location.

I think part of the problem is many of the left just do not understand the current state of the laws.

It is "closed" in Our state of colorado... other states do not have that law on the books ...

I think the Anti's harp on it because they want it on a federal level .

[brutal]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the gun show loop hole closed a long time ago? Because pretty much my understand is if you are on the premise of a gun show, and you as a private seller try to sell something, that they are breaking the law by not doing a back ground check. I know that is the case for all fire arm sales through all dealers regardless of location.

I think part of the problem is many of the left just do not understand the current state of the laws.

As evidenced by your own lack of understanding.

[merl]

the 'gun show loophole' was closed in CO. Check are required at gun shows (3 more more vendors). the term is just used for any sale that does not involve a FFL and a background check.

[nynco]

I don't think that is to much of an extreme to have on a national level what is working fine in Co. But it's not an issue that I worry about personally.

And Brutal, its not a fail to show humility while asking a question. Failing would be never asking or learning the truth.