Skip to main content

Matt Bors

(click to enlarge.)

Follow Daily Kos Comics at http://comics.dailykos.com and on Twitter at @DailyKosComics

Order a signed print of this comic from the artist.

Originally posted to Comics on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Is that a bullet or a little prick in the corner? (6+ / 0-)

    Not much surprises me anymore - especially with these NRA  and Tea Party extremists.

    Gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. - Einstein

    by moose67 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:11:35 AM PDT

  •  Ahh... (12+ / 0-)

    homage to two great American industries: insurance and guns.

    Makes me proud. < sniff, dab >

    I've always wanted to be somebody, but I see now I should have been more specific. -- Lily Tomlin

    by leolabeth on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:13:11 AM PDT

  •  Is it just me? (11+ / 0-)

    I hear the little bullet speaking in Phil Hartmann's Troy McClure voice.

    "Sorry, Tyrone, but you have a preexisting skin condition!"

    It's just me, isn't it?

    "It's not enough to bash in heads; you've got to bash in minds!"

    by Twilight Jack on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:14:31 AM PDT

  •  Even The Onion can't keep up with these (11+ / 0-)

    God-Fearing Traditional Family Values™ types anymore.  

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:16:45 AM PDT

  •  That's only 45 cents a day! (8+ / 0-)

    Woohoo!

    Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:17:51 AM PDT

    •  Nearly same cost as a 9mm or.45 caliber bullet! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boran2, cosette, PSzymeczek, zinger99

      Or a 1st class postage stamp or a mood-altering Snickers candy bar!  And it's cheaper than term-life insurance!  And if you're "insured" you don't have fear or worry about any liberals, the ACLU or civil rights lawyers. And NO Deductible!

      Seriously fellas, you know you can't even get 15 minutes of face-to-face professional licensed legal defense services for $165 so this is an amazing bargain--which can only work like this through the power of your NRA. Now you too can join a fully-insured, All-American NRA 50-State Righteous Death Panel and Stand Your Ground with confident flag-waving pride while putting someone in the ground (or several), on a daily basis if need be!  And hey guys, that's far cheaper than even generic Viagra!  Or a full set of James Bond 007 DVDs! (Not that you guys would be caught dead using a wimpy .32 cal Walther pistol instead of a righteous .9mm or .45)

      And, if you act today, the insurance will also cover any knifings, pepper sprayings, and beatings with baseball bats which you might have to hand out while executing your Stand Your Selfish-White Male Ground rights, all without fear of incurring the costs of petty and unfair prosecution.  The NRA lobbyists are also working with law makers and vehicle and property insurance companies to ensure you'll have the necessary insurance to run down any scary strangers with your pickup truck, SUV, small plane or power boat and be 100% legally protected, as well as on civil suit tort reform.  Buy in the next 24 hours and you'll also get this great baseball hat, studded with stars and broad stripes, with the bill clearly marked "Fully Insured by NRA".

      I don't think this insurance will cover slandering your life-threatening opponents when witnesses are present, so shut up, take aim and relax before pulling that trigger, knowing you have the full backing of the NRA for each 'good' kill.  Merely maiming may not be fully covered, so do what you have to do.

      Now, I'm guessing this is an 'introductory' rate, subject to change depending on real life, er, death, 'experience'.  I do see an interesting shooting solution here.  Make it national policy to require this insurance purchased--with every box of ammo!  And we might want to use the ACA model of requiring every state to have a public exchange for this critical service to preserve righteous lives.

      It did inspire one more potentially useful idea in light of other recent events in MI, and it'll probably good for exploding a few R/W heads without firing a single shot. Suppose that women could use Stand Your Ground insurance to have the confidence to protect their vaginas and uteruses from cranky GOP representatives who want to tie them down, control them, holding them hostage even if it threatens their lives and those of medical providers--including those GOP leaders who just want them to shut their pie-holes and stop shooting off their obscene mouths and offending public decorum.  Clearly these guys are threatening women's lives, verbally assaulting and intimidating them, and so now women can finally understand the moral imperative to Stand Your Ground, and surely would benefit from having some of that NRA-style swagger that comes from buying fully insured confidence.  

      We'll have to run some actuarial reviews, but I think we could come up with an equally viable product.  Stand Your Vagina insurance may end up costing 3 times Stand Your Ground, but, hey, that's how it always works for women, right? Unless perhaps women formed a National Vagina Association...hmm.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:41:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Soon: Congress to demand this coverage be extended (8+ / 0-)

    to all employees covered under a work health plan, while still denying contraceptive coverage.

    Thanks for the comic.

    Please Vote for the Democratic nominee for President in 2012.

    by mungley on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:18:37 AM PDT

  •  Gun profits are killing us (9+ / 0-)

    The gun industry makes a profit with every gun and bullet sold.

    These profits are used to lobby congress to pass laws to make gun buying and gun shooting faster and easier.  This so that the gun industry can continue to make good profits.

    (As an aside, while constitutional rights such as freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to defend yourself in a court of law, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment are being restricted and cut back, the freedom to bear arms is being strengthened and broadened.  Your civil rights now depend on whether a corporation can make a profit from those rights.)

    The "Stand Your Ground" laws provide a means by which gun owners can now kill people without consequence.  Say you are a gun-owner and there is someone you want to kill.  Simply grab you gun, go pick a fight with that someone, and when they fight back, shoot them dead and claim that you were feeling threatened.  Your victim is dead and can't refute your claim, and the police won't even file charges because you invoked "stand your ground".

    These laws were passed with the urging of the gun industry.  The gun industry wants people to buy lots of guns and bullets, and if those gun buyers can also shoot their neighbors without consequence, that's an added value to the gun buyers.

    You non-gun owners are out of luck: if you are attacked by a gun-owner, you will have a difficult time defending yourself with only a knife or a baseball bat against a gun, and the law is on the side of the one still alive when the fighting stops.

    So non-gun owners better go buy a gun.

    And that is why the gun industry supports "stand your ground" laws.  Killing people is profitable business.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:29:48 AM PDT

    •  Yet, violent crime is dropping. (17+ / 0-)

      More and more places are allowing concealed carry.
      More and more places are allowing concealed carry in more places.
      More and more places are allowing for concealed carry without a permit.
      More and more places are liberalizing their firearm laws.
      Yet, violent crime is dropping. Take a look at the last 25 years.

      Now, I'm not saying more guns = less crime. But it certainly looks like more guns != more crime.

      I wish we had a lobby as effective as the NRA/GOA when it comes to rights enshrined in the 1st and 5th amendments (just to name 2).  

      The "Stand Your Ground" laws provide a means by which gun owners can now kill people without consequence.
      People can defend themselves (using lethal force) in certain circumstances. It's hardly the license to kill that you seem to think it is.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:35:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lobbying, Rights, and Guns (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, OrdinaryIowan

        you have brought up multiple issues in your comment, and I will only address the one about lobbying.

        I too wish that there were stronger efforts to support the First and Fifth Amendments (and our other civil rights as well).  We may see that, but the gun industry will always have a strong financial motivation to get people to buy more guns and bullets, and supporting and broadening the Second amendment is a core part of that effort to facilitate gun buying on the part of the public.

        Unfortunately, there is no industry that makes a lot of money off of press freedom, or the right to a trial and not incriminating oneself.  You will notice that the press is currently a diminishing industry as technologies change, with newspapers closing, TV doing less news and more fluff (TMZ, Nancy Grace, etc).  Think about Wikileaks - they get a major scoop about government secrets, but are forced to operate in an almost underground way, and can make no money from the story.  Wilileaks could certainly benefit from greater press freedoms, but are in no position to lobby the US government.

        With the Fifth Amendment, the situation is even worse.  For-profit prisons are a growth industry in the US.  They make profits off having more people in prison, not less, and are involved in lobby state and federal governments for stricter laws and longer sentences.  Who makes money from a civil right that says that a criminal charge must come from a grand jury, that everyone accused of a crime should get a trial, and that a defendant should not be forced to incriminate themselves?  Public defenders are not going to start lobbying for broadening the Fifth amendment.

        Sadly, today when the government is by the corporation, of the corporation, and for the corporation, the only civil rights that get supported are those that make a profit for corporations.  Which is why we see the Second amendment getting supported when all other rights are being restricted.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:11:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good luck. I'm so sorry that (4+ / 0-)

          the Second Amendment has so many eloquent and effective supporters compared to the chattering classes' concerns with the First and Fifth Amendments. Give it up - guns and gun rights aren't going anywhere.

          •  "The Second Amendment Has So Many Eloquent And (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OrdinaryIowan

            effective supporters"? More like the second amendment has its own lobbying industry -  ALEC, the gun manufacturers and the NRA. And stop telling me to "give it up." I have just as much right as the gun lobby that pushes "kill at will" bills down Americans throats, and I intend to exercise my rights as a citizen to get rid of the idiotic "stand your ground" laws.  

      •  how does that drop break out? (0+ / 0-)

        my impression was that the peak of violence in the late 1980s or so was due to drug gangs shooting each other. For whatever reason this has slowed way down. No more crack

        Are there stats with that taken out?

        Thanks.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:59:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Drop In Crime Has Little To Do With Rates Of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OrdinaryIowan

        gun ownership. Crime rates tend to follow the number of young adult males in the population. This is the demographic most likely to commit crimes. Most categories of crimes peaked in 1990 and have been dropping since then.  Even though crime has dropped, US homicide rates are among the highest in the industrialized world. US homicide rates are 6 times higher than Germany and 3 times higher than Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  Wellllllll...... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      Except for the FACT that the law doesn't actually work that way...

      Whatever.

  •  muscling-in on the Church's gig (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foresterbob

    Forgiving sins for money, (yes even the ones you've yet to commit), is the church's business.   They're a wee-bit less overt about it since that whole 95 theses on a door in Wittenburg thing, but it's still their major cash cow.   hey, maybe the NRA should establish a church! tax exemption... Jesus packing...   guns as proper devotion...  bullets for the poorer parishioners,  it could open up a whole new market for them.

    •  Guns in church (6+ / 0-)

      When Texas passed their version of conceal-carry law, they included a few places where licensed gun-owners could not bring their concealed guns: bars, sporting events, courts, and churches.

      Recently, the Texas legislature added some special changes to these restrictions.  Members of the Texas legislature were getting worried because of the increase in gun-buying among their constituents, and increases in threats made to the legislators themselves.  The members of the Texas legislators did not want to be caught in public without a gun (hey, look what happened to Rep. Giffords), so they passed some special exceptions to the Texas gun laws.  Now, members of the Texas legislature are ALLOWED to have their concealed guns when they go to bars, sporting events, courts, and churches.  

      Texas gun owners who are not members of the Texas legislature are stilled barred from bringing their guns to bars, sporting events, courts and churches.

      So next time you're in a Texas bar and you see someone packin' heat and getting drunk, you'll know two things: 1) you've just met a member of the Texas legislature, and 2) it's time to leave the bar because those guys are not very stable even when sober!  

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:07:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They legalized drinking and carrying? nt (12+ / 0-)

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:13:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When I was a student at UT-Austin in the 80's, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zinger99

          it was still legal to drive with an open container in the car... "just not in the driver's hand."

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Special exception for legislators ONLY (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          antirove, mightymouse

          As the law in Texas stands today, citizens with conceal-carry permits are not allowed to bring their guns into bars, sporting events, courtrooms, and churches.  ONLY members of the Texas legislature are allowed to bring ther guns to bars, sporting events, courtrooms, and churches.

          Notice the reason why members of the Texas legislature carved out this exception for themselves: they were increasingly getting worried that they might get shot by all the citizens carrying guns around.

          Members of the Texas judiciary were hip to the dangers of having too many guns around from the very start.  They had the original conceal-carry law ban guns from court-rooms from the start.  Judges knew that allowing people to bring guns into court-rooms would mean judges would get shot!!

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See, and I'm a fan of *no* pistol free zones (10+ / 0-)

            for anyone except those barred from owning firearms.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:54:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you're going to commit a crime with a gun (7+ / 0-)

              a law prohibiting you from taking it into a specified venue's not going to stop you; certainly venues that don't have metal detectors at all entrances.

              If you're not likely to commit a crime with it, then there's no need to prohibit carry.

              I can see some argument for some "no possession zones", like courts and airports - but only those venues with active security checkpoints does the prohibition make any sense whatsoever. Prohibited venues without the security checkpoint rely on the conscience of the carrier, and screens the exact opposite people it's meant to screen.

              Moerover, a legal carrier who is forced to leave the gun in an unsupervised, lightly-secured vehicle is, because of the ease of theft, producing a greater danger than keeping the firearm on his person.

              These "prohibited places" laws have more with taboos and emotional responses than actual risk analysis.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:30:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assuming all crimes are pre-meditated (0+ / 0-)

                You are correct that if one intends to commit a crime, prohibitions against bringing guns to a given venue won't stop that person.

                But that assumes all crimes are pre-meditated.  Which everyone knows is not the case.

                If we consider the case of murder (we consider the case of murder because published statistics show that something like 55-60% of murders in the US are done using a gun), we recognize that only a small percent of murderers are convicted on "murder one" (i.e. pre-meditated murder).  So, the MAJORITY of murders in the US are committed using a gun, and the VAST MAJORITY of those murders are judged as NOT pre-meditated.

                The point about limiting guns at some venues is that it stops those people who are not planning on a crime from committing a crime by virtue of the fact they are carrying a gun.  

                Like places serving alcohol.  Alcohol is known to cause a person to lose their inhibitions.  So persons under the influence of alcohol sometimes do things they did not intend to do.  Mixing alcohol with carrying guns leads to easily forseeable injuries.

                As an aside, I know of no reputable statistics showing guns are more readily stolen from cars as opposed to stolen from individuals.  I'm sure we can all think of ways guns can be stolen from cars, and I'm sure we can all think of ways guns can be stolen from individuals.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:03:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What are the numbers on people *LEGALLY* (7+ / 0-)

                  carrying that firearm committing murder without premeditation?

                  Take out the criminals (and I mean those who were criminals BEFORE they shot someone) and the murder numbers drop like a lead balloon.

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:06:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wish I knew (0+ / 0-)

                    I assume you mean other than crimes committed by police (yes, it's snark)?

                    Again, that is one of those questions that no one has researched properly.

                    Take out the criminals and you would be left with "crimes of passion".  Take the guns out of crimes of passion and you would have battery instead of gunshot.  Yes, lovers and women could still get killed, but fewer of them would be killed.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:49:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  In the US, you won't take the guns out of crimes (6+ / 0-)

                      of passions because you won't be able to remove firearms from civilian hands due to multiple issues.

                      1. The Second Amendment.
                      2. Passing the legislation. With the GOP and a nice big chunk of liberals and Democrats supporting the second amendment, how are you going to pass this?
                      3. Enforcement issues, if you actually pass the legislation. How are you going to round up the firearms?

                      Let's take a look at Baltimore quickly, when it comes to homicides committed by criminals.

                      link

                      In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.

                      In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.

                      I had a link to a CDC study that showed over 50% of the firearm related non-suicide deaths in this country were criminal on criminal. I can't find it now, but I was able to find that Baltimore related item.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:09:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Not even parks and schools? /nt (0+ / 0-)

              Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
              I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
              —Spike Milligan

              by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:40:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why would I make an exception for parks (5+ / 0-)

                and schools?

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:44:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ? read the sense of your statement backwards ? (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you NOT in favor of gun-gree zones, or you ARE in favor of gun-free zones?

                  Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                  I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                  —Spike Milligan

                  by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:46:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let me 'splain. (5+ / 0-)

                    No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

                    I am not in favour of gun free zones, even for schools and parks.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:55:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Someday we'll have to grab a beer, wear Michigan (5+ / 0-)

                      colors (Go Blue!), and talk about it.

                      Truly confused, I am.

                      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                      —Spike Milligan

                      by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:57:30 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where do you live (roughly)? (7+ / 0-)

                        Are you within driving/riding distance of the Michigan/Wisconsin border?

                        Though I'd have to have a diet Coke; I don't drink.

                        Let me take one more stab at it:

                        I want no pistol free zones mandated by state or federal law. If you're a property owner, then go ahead and put up a "no guns" sign.

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:01:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  While I spent 5 years in A^2 as a student, I live (4+ / 0-)

                          in North Carolina now.

                          And I think I will put up several no guns signs on my property due to some comments you made previously.  (Thank you for the suggestion -- as my little polecats get into a certain age range I think it would be prudent.)

                          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                          —Spike Milligan

                          by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:36:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If you don't mind my asking -- why? (6+ / 0-)
                            And I think I will put up several no guns signs on my property...
                            It's absolutely your choice to do so, I would never try to convince you otherwise.

                            I'm just curious why you would choose to not allow those who legally carry firearms to do so on your property?

                            Since I'm asking you why, I feel it's only fair to share my own opinion.  Anyone that I trust enough to invite onto my property, I trust enough to allow them to carry their legally-owned and -carried firearms with them at the same time.

                            If I didn't, I wouldn't invite them onto my property in the first place -- and anyone who is not invited is either trespassing, and therefore likely to break other laws, such as those prohibiting the carrying of firearms where they are not allowed, or are already legally allowed to carry whether I allow it or not (law-enforcement).

                            Again, just curious -- please do not feel pressured by my question here, it's not an attempt to setup a "gotcha" response.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:48:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When you have company over to your house -- (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            be it family or the parents of children that are coming over for a playdate, it is now always the easiest thing to make everyone keep their belongings under their control at all times.

                            Or, if we're having a dinner party and are having a glass of wine or any thing else that might impair someone's judgement.

                            When there are little kids around, they will (and I say this from experience) GET INTO THINGS.  This can certainly include firearms.

                            I do not own any.  I do not want any on the premises unless they're in the control of a police officer.

                            It could be that my objections are purely based upon having small children, but at this point in time I consider it a really bad idea.

                            And this further ties into my opinion about schools and parks.

                            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                            —Spike Milligan

                            by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 05:51:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

                            My parents discouraged my interest in firearms. Now I carry one daily, shoot them regularly, and teach people how to safely handle them as a job. It didn't really work...

                            Then again, my grandpa taught me firearm safety and I started shooting before I was double digits. I received my first firearm at the ripe old age of 12.

                            As your kids get older, I'd seriously suggest they learn how to safely handle firearms for multiple reasons.
                            1. It demystifies them.
                            2. If they ever do run across a firearm, they know what to do.
                            3. It gets rid of the "mom and dad told me not to, so I will" impulse with regards to firearms.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:47:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's good advise and I'll take it! (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, theatre goon, KVoimakas

                            I learned to shoot at age 10.

                            But it will be many years before the youngest is that old.

                            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                            —Spike Milligan

                            by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:40:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reasonable answer. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            polecat, PavePusher, fuzzyguy, KVoimakas

                            Although I do find it interesting that you would trust law enforcement over private citizens -- even though people with concealed-carry licenses commit fewer crimes than police officers do (as per Florida stats, at any rate).

                            I don't find it unreasonable to extend that self-control to control of one's weapons.

                            I have no small children of my own, but I do have two young nieces that I spend a lot of time with -- not once have they ever gotten their hands on a firearm, and they are always around (in my home, their own home, grandparent's house -- we all have firearms).  It just takes a bit more awareness and control of the situation.

                            Just sharing my own thoughts -- thanks for the response.  I'm not disagreeing with you as much as sharing a somewhat different viewpoint.

                            I can at least see the argument where it comes to schools (even if I don't agree with it), but parks are public places -- everyone should have equal access to them, even those who choose to legally carry a firearm.  Somewhat off-topic of this discussion, though.

                            Again, thanks for the response.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 06:48:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I occasionally have ties with L.E. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, theatre goon, KVoimakas

                            The officers with whom I've associated have been extremely professional, but I don't think any would have contemplated doing some of the heinous crap I've seen reported.

                            People behave differently when they're being observed by peers.

                            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
                            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
                            —Spike Milligan

                            by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 07:48:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If a child can "get into" the handgun in a holster (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas, oldpunk

                            on my belt, without my noticing, I'm either intoxicated, passed out (due to intoxication, or already dead.  The first two are already illegal and things I don't do.  The third... well if that's the case, getting at my sidearm is probably the least of anyones' worries.

                          •  Doesn't sound like a good idea (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas, oldpunk

                             For the same reason most assault and mugging victims aren't big, strong,  men and women.

                              A home invasion  criminal might see your no guns signs and feel an invitation .
                             

      •  in texas you don't see (7+ / 0-)

        with ccp carrying a firearm.  it's illegal to let the firearm show.  

        a rifle, or shotgun is freely shown and street legal.

        •  personally, i'd rather see them coming. (7+ / 0-)

          and yes i have a ccp.  had it for years.  my training was given me by my grandfather, father and green beret husband.  

        •  I never understood this aspect of "conceal-carry" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joe wobblie, polecat, OrdinaryIowan

          I have never understood why gun-owners feel the need to conceal the fact that they are carrying a gun, UNLESS the gun-owner is up to no good.

          See, if you want to carry a gun to prevent yourself from being a victim of violence, you want your gun to be highly visible to all.  You want the bad guys to know you are armed, so they will avoid you.  You want you gun to be neon red and visible from 100 yds.

          But who has a need to conceal the fact they are armed?  Undercover cops, certainly.  Bank robbers walking into the bank they are going to rob, yup.  People who want to shoot someone without that other person knowing they are going to get shot, yup.

          It seems to me that the only persons who are not undercover cops who need to conceal the fact that they are armed are up to no good.

          Can anyone explain this to me?

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:50:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i'd rather open carry (6+ / 0-)

            texas law does not permit it unless you have law enforcement status.  i used to have it, i don't anymore so i carry concealed.  i'm not up to no good, however, there are others out there who are up to no good.

            i don't understand what there is to explain.  either you get it or not.  it's the law that you can only carry with LES or you can legally carry concealed (you must get training and a license, including a background check and fingerprints on file).  or, you can carry concealed and be up to no good.  that's the way it is.

            •  So the law says (0+ / 0-)

              So the law says you can carry a gun openly if you get one kind of permit, and you can carry a gun concealed if you have different kind of permit.  Is that correct?

              I understand gun owners want to carry their guns with them where-ever they go.

              But my question is why does a gun owner want to conceal the fact they are carry a gun?  I can see no reason why a gun owner who is not an undercover cop would need to conceal the fact that they are carrying a gun.

              If I understand you correctly, you are saying gun owners are forced to get a conceal-carry permit because it is easier than getting an open-carry permit.  Is that correct?

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:28:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not easier. It's not possible. (7+ / 0-)

                Labwitchy is saying that only law enforcement personnel can carry openly. If you aren't law enforcement, the only permit is concealed carry.

                This has recently changed in Oklahoma. As of November 1, permit holders can open carry as well.

                •  OK, I understand better (0+ / 0-)

                  So for gun owners that want to carry a gun in public, the only legal option is a concealed-carry permit, is that correct?

                  Sorry, but I now have to ask another (perhaps ignorant) question.  Why are gun enthusiasts not lobbying their legislators for open-carry laws and permits?  If the point of carrying your gun with you at all times is to prevent you from being a victim of violence, and the best way to get the bad people to avoid you is to make sure they know you are carrying a gun, wouldn't it be better to lobby the legislature for open-carry laws.

                  See, when I hear that gun owners are lobbying their legislators to the right to conceal-carry, I think to myself "they want conceal-carry the better to assault someone", not "open-carry is not allowed so they lobby for conceal-carry instead".

                  A second question: can anyone tell me why state legislatures make conceal-carry available, but do not permit open-carry?

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:12:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Because people are afraid of firearms openly (6+ / 0-)

                    carried, even if there's no reason other than, "It's a firearm!"

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:22:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Concealed carry is the only legal means for most. (6+ / 0-)

                    Open carry carries a lot of stigma and most pols won't touch it. One of the ideas behind concealed carry is that it will deter criminal activity because a person who wishes to do something criminal like abduct, rape, assault, etc, won't know if their intended victim is carrying or not. Most criminals go for easy marks and don't want to risk getting hurt, killed, or caught. Conceal carry also recognizes that some people will call the cops and report someone for having a gun in public just because they see a gun and are scared regardless of whether or not the person is carrying it legally frustrating law enforcement officers and private citizens.

                    Carrying concealed drastically increases the burden of personal responsibility on a citizen to not just act legally, but to avoid confrontations and behavior that will result in them using their concealed weapon.

                    •  Makes sense (0+ / 0-)

                      The issue about calls to police saying "there's a man with a gun" makes sense.

                      But I think that tells us something significant about the issue of carrying guns in general.  People don't want to see guns in public, and for good reason.

                      This puts gun owners in a difficult spot: do I carry a gun as a way to protect myself, even tho' I know it upsets people.

                      Carrying a conceal weapons is like The Doomsday Weapon in Dr. Strangelove: it makes war unwinable, but it only works if everyone knows it is there.

                      In NYC, allowing concealed-carry on the subways would be a disaster.  Subway riders in NYC are merely rude at best, frequently antagonistic, and often violent (examples abound on YouTube).  The carnage of an armed public would be great.

                      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:07:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That doesn't make sense. (5+ / 0-)
                        In NYC, allowing concealed-carry on the subways would be a disaster.  Subway riders in NYC are merely rude at best, frequently antagonistic, and often violent (examples abound on YouTube).  The carnage of an armed public would be great.
                        Are you saying people in NYC can't control themselves? The blood in the streets thing hasn't happened in any of the other states with shall-issue concealed carry; why do you think NY is special?
                        But I think that tells us something significant about the issue of carrying guns in general.  People don't want to see guns in public, and for good reason.
                        Take that even further. Why don't people want to see guns in public? Because they're uneducated and don't know that over 99% of the gun owners in this country are law abiding? Because they're hoplophobes? They see LEOs with firearms all day. Maybe they don't know those with concealed carry permits (yes, you don't see them, I see the problem) commit crime less than LEOs do (% wise, and based off Florida statistics).

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:13:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's the gun owners who are out of control! (0+ / 0-)

                          Every year, 30,000+ Americans die from gunshot injuries.

                          It is the gun owners doing the shooting, and nothing says "out of control" like gun owners killing 30,000 people every year.

                          And nothing says "blood in the streets" like 30,000 shooting deaths every year.

                          That's the reality whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

                           

                          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So, your point is... (15+ / 0-)

                            ...that all gun owners are to blame for the actions of a small fraction of criminals.  

                            Not very good logic on your part.  In fact, I'd call it a grossly false over-generalization.

                            Personally, I prefer to blame those who actually commit crimes, rather than trying to blame others, who have not committed crimes, for those crimes.

                            I don't believe in restricting the rights of the law-abiding based on the actions of criminals.  It would be like rescinding the right of free speech because someone, somewhere, committed fraud.  Or putting random people into prison because someone else robbed a bank.  Rather silly, not to mention, very authoritarian.

                            I have a rather a different viewpoint from yours, I realize.  I'm quite happy with that, actually.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:40:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are mis-characterizing (0+ / 0-)

                            I am not over-generalizing; you are mis-characterizing.

                            The 30,000+ gunshot fatalities that occur every year in America are the result of both criminal and non-criminal acts.

                            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:36:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Kinda like (7+ / 0-)

                            the roughly 40,000 people killed in automotive crashes yearly, or the 75,000 involved in those crashes with injuries and deaths? The property damage and economic costs of those automotive crashes are quite a bit higher as well. Illegal and criminal behavior is the result of those deaths and injuries, do we ban personal motorized transit?

                          •  How am I mis-characterizing... (7+ / 0-)

                            ...what you posted?

                            You wrote:

                            It's the gun owners who are out of control!
                            ...and that is exactly what I responded to.

                            Are those not your words?  

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:19:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Its the cars & Drivers that are (12+ / 0-)

                            outta control
                            God only knows how many deaths injury's & insanity they cause, especially here in cental Texas, urban blight that used to be a civilized small town. They should ban cars &  force everyone to ride bikes as revenge for all the deaths & pollution & I'm not voting for another worthless Damn Democrat until its on our national platform !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

                            by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 07:53:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you haven't met the mad motorcyclists in (11+ / 0-)

                            north central texas.  don't get on the freeway in the middle of the night, they OWN it, they will try to cause accidents and try to make it look like your fault.  

                          •  This is a statistically valid point (9+ / 0-)

                            there are far more deaths by auto, might as well heavily restrict the use of those along with guns.

                            Trade always exists for the traders. Any time you hear businessmen debating "which policy is better for America," don’t bend over. -George Carlin-

                            by not4morewars on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 08:45:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not a bad idea (0+ / 0-)

                            There are many ways a ban on automobile use would be beneficial.

                            Here's my suggestion: let's tax the hell out of gasoline - an additional $4-5 per gallon.  This will reduce auto use and the revenue can be used to prepare our infrastructure for the post-oil economy.  At the same time, install a $4-5 tax per bullet.  This wil reduce gun usage, and the aded revenue can be used to offset the healthcare costs to tax-payers from shooting injuries.  

                            Yes, the people who use cars and guns should pay for the costs incurred by using those things.  

                            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 09:45:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your regressive taxes (6+ / 0-)

                            on fuel would hurt the poor and struggling the hardest. Can't feasibly tax petrol at a rate that high with stagnant wages and urban sprawl being the norm. Mass transit would have to be in place first. That is like calling for austerity measures and not understanding why the peasants are beating down the palace gates.

                          •  Don't forget... (5+ / 0-)

                            ...what such a fuel tax would do to things like, say, food.

                            The price of fuel gets passed on to the consumer at the grocery store -- so not only could people not afford to drive to get to work, they wouldn't be able to afford to feed their families, even if they could get to work.

                            Yeah, a fantastic idea...

                            A real 1% solution, in fact.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:36:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which is more expensive (0+ / 0-)

                            Which is more expensive - paying for the hospital costs of gunshot injuries with a tax on bullets, or a income tax?

                            Which is more expensive - paying a higher tax on gasoline, or abadoning New York, Miami, New Orleans, and Los Angeles because of climate change?

                            We pay for healthcare costs anyways, so asking gun-owners to contribute a fair share through a tax on bullets makes good sense.

                            We pay for our use of fossil fuels: wars, climate change, demand speculation, etc.  So add taxes to gasoline makes those costs explicit and open, rather than hidden.  Besides, the costs to the US of being unprepared for post-peak oil and climate change will be much greater -

                            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:09:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, we get it. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, rockhound

                            You want to make it more expensive to do the things you don't approve of.

                            It wouldn't be the first time people have used taxes to try and influence behavior.

                            Personally, I don't agree with that sort of thing -- it reserves the exercise of Civil Rights to the wealthy.  I think rights are for everyone, not just the 1%.  You clearly have a different view.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:24:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah, the poll tax. (5+ / 0-)

                            Yeah, that worked out very well to keep the "undesirables" from voting -- might as well use the same thing on other completely legal activities and/or Constitutionally-protected Civil Rights that you, personally, don't happen to approve of.

                            If we do it enough, only the richest 1% will be able to afford anything!

                            Oh, wait...

                            Personally, I find that sort of thing rather too authoritarian for my tastes -- your own mileage may vary.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 01:23:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  'offset the healthcare costs from shootings' (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas

                            My NYC grabber Budz rants about this too..
                             i say how bout diverting tobacco taxes & refinery pollution costs to Cancer & disability compensation first..
                            -Fat Chance

                            Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

                            by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:13:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, but you are incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, oldpunk, KVoimakas

                            I am not responsible for anyone elses crime or suicide.

                            And yes, you have conflated the two distinct acts in a piss-poor attempt to boost your stats.

                            They are not at all the same act, though they often stem from the same root causes.

                            Please think things through a bit more before making such vile falsehoods, k?

                          •  This has got to be one of the most ridiculous (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas

                            statements I have read on this topic. Let's go a bit deeper.

                            For 2010 there were 14,748 murders, 84,767 forcible rapes, 367,832 robberies and 778,901 aggravated assaults. All of these violent crimes were committed by people.

                            It's the people who are out of control!

                            Every year 1,246,248+ people are victimized by people.

                            It is the people committing these violent acts, and nothing says "out of control" like people committing 1,246,248 violent acts every year.

                            And nothing says "blood in the streets" like 1,245,248 violent crimes every year.

                            That's the reality whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

                            Your reality is fucked up when you blame all firearm owners for all the crimes wherein a firearm is used. That's like blaming all the people for all the crimes committed. Such logic is not just fucked up but downright stupid.

                            By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                            by oldpunk on Sat Jun 16, 2012 at 06:48:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  "and for good reason." (5+ / 0-)

                        What good reason?  A criminal won't carry openly until they are in the commision of their crime.  Someone carrying openly in public is almost guaranteed to be a lawful person.

                        Your assertions are baseless and without evidence.

                        "The carnage of an armed public would be great."

                        So, point to places, where CC is legal, that have "carnage" from legal carriers in crowded places.  We'll wait.

            •  OR, you can have a rifle. Open carry = OK (7+ / 0-)

              for long guns in Texas.

              Good to know, as my mother's day gift was a Remington 550. {: 7 D )

              Yesterday afternoon I burnt up 4 boxes of .22LR with a friend over at the local indoor range. We fired my new-to-me rifle (no serial # I can find aboard her) and my SO's inherited pistols: a 9-round Hi Standard long-barrel .22 and a 1960s Browning semiauto .22.

              I am more than thrilled with my Remington; and the Browning semi-auto and the Hi-Standard Revolver performed well. The holes in the paper reveal that my muscle memory hasn't deserted me, including my old bad habits. {: 7 / )

              Some of the ammo having been inherited from my dad, however, I had a lot of work to clean the firearms last night.  I also know that the sights on the rifle are fine for anything beyond 10 feet and under 200 meters... couldn't do longer zeros at the range on iron sights. It had a 100' backstop.

              For those of you from DK's RKBA group: even in West Texas,  Impact ranges aren't as thick on the ground as they once were, and I'll be go-to-hell before I buy a $1200 annual membership to the local outdoor range, the owners of which spent $30 K on a "take our country back" billboard alongside the main road into Lubbock right after the 2008 election.

              LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:42:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  find peace officer requirements here (6+ / 0-)

                in VATS:

                http://law.onecle.com/...

                you must have peace or law enforcement status to qualify to open carry.  most jurisdictions require you pass a test.

                there's the difference.  

                ccp is completely different.  the police officers i know would rather see the ccp go to open carry.  they also want to know what's coming at them.  

                •  I beg to differ: (5+ / 0-)

                  Since I'm not a LEO anymore, I don't open carry. But I do own a rifle, and I can take it to/from the range, or to/from hunting, openly without breaking the law in Texas. Not being a convicted felon (or in some cases misdemeanant) has its advantages.

                  § 229.001. FIREARMS;  EXPLOSIVES.  (a) A municipality may
                  not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership,
                  keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms,
                  ammunition, or firearm supplies.
                      (b)  Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a
                  municipality has under another law to:
                          (1)  require residents or public employees to be armed
                  for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another
                  lawful purpose;
                          (2)  regulate the discharge of firearms within the
                  limits of the municipality;
                          (3)  regulate the use of property, the location of a
                  business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code,
                  zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code,
                  ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of
                  Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
                          (4)  regulate the use of firearms in the case of an
                  insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds
                  the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;
                          (5)  regulate the storage or transportation of
                  explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25
                  pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50
                  pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not
                  subject to regulation;  or
                          (6)  regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person
                  other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under
                  Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
                              (A)  public park;                                                            
                              (B)  public meeting of a municipality, county, or
                  other governmental body;
                              (C)  political rally, parade, or official
                  political meeting;  or          
                              (D)  nonfirearms-related school, college, or
                  professional athletic event.  
                      (c)  The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not
                  apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area
                  designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting
                  event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.

                  Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.  Amended
                  by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts
                  1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.  
                  Renumbered from § 215.001 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, §
                  12.002(10), eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

                  Taking a firearm -- and please note, I transported all the weapons separately from each other as well as the ammunition, and I was in company with a licensed CCL holder during transport -- to a firing range for the purpose of practice / zero is one of the "other sporting event" exemptions. You can't hunt with it until you've checked it for safe operation and proper zero.... even if all you're hunting is holes in a paper target.

                  LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:22:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Two schools of thought: (8+ / 0-)

            1. concealed carry generates that "oh shit, is this person carrying? i might not want to rob/jump/attack then" in a criminal's mind. Concealed carry also doesn't give someone a target: "Oh, he's carrying so I'm going to shoot him first."

            2. open carry generates a lot of looks and OMG, HE HAS A GUN bullshit. It is more comfortable but can lead to issues depending on where you're open carrying. Do I wish everyone was as comfortable with open carry as, say, Arizona? Sure.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:14:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, helpful (0+ / 0-)

              Thanks for your helpful response.

              Right, so someone carrying a gun becomes a target BECAUSE they are carrying a gun.

              And of course litle children and old ladies get nervous seeing someone carry a gun (I admit it, I get nervous too), and we don't want to go around frightening people.

              Of course, the easier and already available solution to both those problems is that gun owners leave their guns at home.

              Yes, that way you run the risk of being the victim of violence.  But that is a risk I and hundreds of millions of other Americans take everyday (those of us who travel in public without guns).  

              And if you are worried about being a victim of violence because of all the guns out there, you could join me and millions of other Americans who want to reduce the numbers of guns out there.  Hmmm... reduce your risk of being the victim of violence, make yourself a non-target, AND stop scaring kids and old folks.   Seems like a win-win to me.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:25:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not even entirely correct here: (6+ / 0-)
                And if you are worried about being a victim of violence because of all the guns out there, you could join me and millions of other Americans who want to reduce the numbers of guns out there.  Hmmm... reduce your risk of being the victim of violence, make yourself a non-target, AND stop scaring kids and old folks.   Seems like a win-win to me.
                First, violent crime isn't determined by firearms. I'm not worried about being a victim of violence because of all the guns out there (that's BS due to the "more guns with falling crime rates" item I've mentioned before). You want to fix violent crime, you do the jobs/education/single payer/better social safety nets/marijuana legalization thing.

                Secondly:

                But that is a risk I and hundreds of millions of other Americans take everyday (those of us who travel in public without guns).  
                We don't need public displays of religion or faith. Millions of atheist Americans go everyday without; so you can too.
                Of course, the easier and already available solution to both those problems is that gun owners leave their guns at home.
                The easier and already available solutions isn't the best one. It rarely is. The easiest solution to violent crime is what?

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 12:58:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm all for the social repairs (0+ / 0-)

                  I am 100% for reducing crime through beter jobs, better education, better healthcare, decriminalizing MJ.  You have my full support on that.

                  I myself an not religious.  When I say I and others take a risk, I am meaning only that I (we) go out in public unarmed.

                  As far as social repairs go, I would like to point out that one of the reasons we need these social repairs is because of a system of governence that allows wealthy persons and corporations to buy the legislation they want, including lower taxes (hurts social programs), and laxer gun restrictions (increases risk of gun violence).

                  My own opinion is that the fix to our corrupt system of governence would result in more of these helpful social programs and perhaps greater restrictions on gun availability.  And I myself would love to see such changes.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:18:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  IIRC, only 8% of violent crime... (5+ / 0-)

                involves firearms.

                There are approx. 1.5 million violent crimes a year.

                So it doesn't take a gun to be "targeted".

          •  There are two primary schools of thought... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, fuzzyguy, KVoimakas, oldpunk

            on the tactical/strategic decision to carry openly or concealed.  Though hotly debated, there seems to be little empirical evidence to sway the debate one way or the other.

            Myself, I'm Pro-Choice.

            If you have evidence that the bulk of legal Concealed Carriers are "up to no good", please present it.

      •  well crap. Guess I ought to run for the Lege (4+ / 0-)

        we don't have a candidate this year ... and a Lege salary, albeit a part-time one, would pay for my CCL permit.

        Or I could be a genuine hardcore one-issue wonder and introduce a zillion Open-Carry bills. New Mexico has much to recommend it -- including open carry. Many members of the Texas Lege vacation in NM.

        Why not bring home one of those frontier principles?

        LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The NRA will do anything for $$. (14+ / 0-)

    I thought that was blindingly obvious.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:15:21 AM PDT

    •  What IS their cut, I wonder? (0+ / 0-)

      Even if I were inclined to be an RKBAer (I'm not), and I can see both sides of the argument and number friends on both sides, the actions of that organization simply boggle the mind.

      We have an opportunity to carve out a reasoned approach that addresses problems with guns in inner cities as well as enabling people to own their own guns and these yahoos pour gasoline on everything around them.

      Does it really have to be that way?

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:35:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They take a (somewhat) extremist position. (11+ / 0-)

        I say somewhat because they aren't the most extreme organization when it comes to the second amendment. Yes, seriously. The NRA-ILA is just crazy though.

        What is the opportunity, by the way? We treat the causes for violent crime and we'll see it drop. Then again, treating a symptom (it's the guns!) is a lot easier than treating the underlying causes (single payer, jobs, marijuana legalization, jobs, better social safety nets, jobs, education, jobs).

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:38:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, improving employment and the economy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, BlackSheep1

          is about the best method of reducing crime of all kinds.

          But the guns themselves make a very nice target (pun intended) for a mechanical solution.  For me, I'd just be really happy if someone had to have the equivalent of a "driver's license" to own a gun -- showing that they know how to care for it, use it safely, store it properly, etc.  But that burden offends certain people.  Yet as a Boy Scout, I learned all of that as a precursor to using one and think it was a valuable experience.

          Sigh.

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:48:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, the issue with that scenario, (9+ / 0-)

            is that it's seen similarly to a poll tax. You shouldn't need a license to exercise your Constitutionally enshrined rights.

            I'm a big fan of making firearm safety a mandatory part of school at the primary and secondary ed levels. There are enough firearms in this country to arm over 90% of its people. The chances of having some sort of contact with a firearm during your lifetime isn't small.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:56:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So...if the NRA were to sell this like AMWAY does, (0+ / 0-)

            selling the insurance using a vertical marketing approach, or like Tupperware (call it Put'em Downerware), just think of the stimulus this would inject into our American way of life.

            It could totally transform Neighborhood Watch and monetize the latent fears into a major economic boon!  Neighbor helping neighbor to securely shoot other neighbors who happen to look different enough and suspicious enough to appear life-threatening, at least to a neighbor who fears anyone not like him is clearly out to get him and displace him from his privileged spot in society and simply looks menacing if in a hoody carrying soda and candy. It's quite the miracle of the American 'Free Market' and voluntary organizations have come together to create this in this time of need!

            When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

            by antirove on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:06:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  polecat: we agree. (5+ / 0-)

            I think you ought to get this training in junior high, and once you finish that class (which ought to be free!) have a photo ID proving you passed.

            That ought to qualify you to own any non-automatic (as in, a true mil-grade M-4/16/14, Springfield 03-A3, AK-47, etc.; for those, yes, you need to take extra schooling and prove you can responsibly maintain and store them when not using them) firearm (if you have to pull the trigger to send each bullet down the barrel, IMO, it ought to be legal for anyone in the USA to carry it, whether it's a matchlock, wheellock, flintlock, black-powder electrical-ignition, revolver, semi-auto, or shotgun. PERIOD. Hell, if I had my way, decommissioned F/B-111s wouldn't be rotting away in the boneyards. They'd be in people's backyards. Or flying at the CCAF airshows, alongside Tomcats and Streak Eagles and -- if any survive -- the Hustlers, Delta Daggers and Delta Darts I grew up loving from the far side of the fence at the AFB).

            But I'm a radical that way. I don't think locking up the guns and throwing away the keys is the answer. I think stopping criminals -- be they armed robbers or white-collar crooks in high-dollar Wall Street offices -- is the answer.

            Many many many of Jamie Dimon's colleagues come nigher needing to be in Gitmo than the poor suckers currently there, IMO.

            LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 10:48:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  May I see your First, Fourth... (4+ / 0-)

            Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendment Licences, please?

    •  in that way they're a lot like (6+ / 0-)

      organized religion aren't they?  except organized religion can meddle in politics and not have to pay for it.

  •  I am not at all exaggerating when I say... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, mightymouse

    ...this deserves a Pulitzer. For just the last panel alone, never mind the brilliance of the rest of it.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:19:39 AM PDT

  •  Do they sell perjury insurance, too? /snark (4+ / 0-)

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:38:29 AM PDT

    •  Won't be necessary if NRA covers bond as well. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      polecat

      No need to mumble about paying any arbitrary $5 bond, $10 bond, since anything like that is covered X 1,000.  Or the NRA will fully cover the costs of transporting you to a non-extradicting country.

      When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

      by antirove on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:56:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What a wonderful idea on population control!! (0+ / 0-)

    Don't worry I'm insured! I'm gonna go out hunting coons .... I can just hear the rednecks and KKK now ... Unbelievable!!

    Apathy is our biggest enemy!

    by whatGodmade on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:43:02 AM PDT

  •  I used to care about Democrats winning... (13+ / 0-)

    but after all the work the RKBA group has done to inform Democrats about the election losses we incur when they "Stand their ground" against the Second Amendment, here it is again on the front page of DKOS.
     I despise the NRA/ILA but as an Election Policy, it's just dumb.
      Had the Democrats been the people to design "Stand Your Ground" Laws, they would surely have crafted them with less of the racist loopholes the Repubs desiged., because we actually think in more than black and white, right and wrong, etc. BUT, we don't propose these kinds of Laws, the Repubs do, and THEY get credit with the voters....sheesh.
    PS: I still do care, but get a little low once in awhile....

    All we need to do is pass a few more laws and we can change human nature. Promise. My Site

    by meagert on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:00:39 AM PDT

  •  Thankfully... (0+ / 0-)

    Thankfully, I have insurance against this type of insurance.  It's called living in a blue state.

  •  Since the NRA has about seven times (8+ / 0-)

    the approval rating that Congress does, I would suggest that fellow progressives abandon their anti-gun crusade.

  •  Does the Policy also have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    a "Zimmerman Clause"

    Where wives are covered for perjury?

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 09:38:12 AM PDT

  •  did yall see that SYG shooting in WV this week? (0+ / 0-)

    pretty dang funny.
    Former U.S. Senate Candidate Arrested after Clay County Shooting

    make sure you watch the video over there. Some really colorful people live over in that neck of the woods.

  •  Who gets to claim he was standing his ground? (0+ / 0-)

    Seems like it was the kid in the hoodie -- He was the one who was stalked, right?

    •  Well, I heard ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... that he probably smoked pot at least once in his life. So it was OK to stalk him and murder him. (Or something.)

      America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

      by Tony Seybert on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:30:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't get to claim SYG if you're dead. (0+ / 0-)

      At least that's the way it seems.

      /disgusted

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:49:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tsk, Tsk, You Can't Call It "Stalking" (Even (0+ / 0-)

      though it is). The right wing politically correct term for following someone that they think looks suspicious is "monitoring." Of course, a logical person might ask, who the hell has given all these would be vigilantes the right to "monitor" someone walking down the street minding their own business, just because they happen to be wearing a hoodie, or have a skin color that is not white, or have some other characteristic that the vigilante thinks is suspicious? Answer: aside from the police and private investigators (who are exempt from anti-stalking laws),  no one has a right to follow/stalk/monitor/accost someone outside who is not trespassing on their property or committing a crime. There is no need for "stand your ground" laws. If someone attacks you in your home (or on the street), the law already allows the use of force for self defense.

  •  Just use your bare hands- cheaper than bullets, (0+ / 0-)

    and you'll also get kudos instead of lawsuits.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

  •  great comic - special kudos for "burgle" (0+ / 0-)

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 11:56:51 AM PDT

  •  This comic is on the money. (0+ / 0-)

    Especially the last panel.

    I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

    by Gentle Giant on Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 01:24:31 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site