Opinions on the override of concealed weapons bill in MO.

Brooksider · Post by **Brooksider** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 3:22 pm

I have to admit even though I don't like what the legislature did and I don't like concealed carry I don't think this change in the law will make much difference in the long run. Hardly anyone is going to run out and get a gun because of this. Those that will carry probably already do.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:00 pm

According at a Justice Department report, property and violent crime rates are the lowest since the Justice Department began keeping records in 1973. The decline over the last ten years has been 50%. http://www.beaufortgazette.com/opinions ... 0317c.html

Of course, the Associated Press could have misinterpreted the Justice Department stats.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:08 pm

mean wrote:Fortunately for freedom-loving folks everywhere, our system actually works sometimes, and the timid, generally ignorant majority who would gladly watch their liberties dissolve if only it meant they could be "safe" from "evil" doesn't always get its way. If the majority of people voted to make Christianity the official religion of MO, I'd hope the government would overturn that, too.

How on earth can you say that the system worked in this case? How is overiding an electoral majority a good thing? The General Assembly basically said F. You to the voters of Missouri. Just because you agree with the outcome doesn't mean the means where right.

And comparing this with establishing an official religion is a bogus argument Such and action would be a violation of both state and national constitutions, it would never be overturned by the courts - but not the government.

GuyInLenexa · Post by **GuyInLenexa** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:10 pm

It seems that the state where this became legal, mayhem never broke out. The crime rate in those places are probably lower than those in urban Misssouri.
I do question the manner that the people's vote was overturned.
I agree with the previous post where someone mentioned that you would think that there are other priorities a state government would have in these dire economic times.
[/quote]

Post by **mean** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:16 pm

dangerboy wrote:How on earth can you say that the system worked in this case? How is overiding an electoral majority a good thing...Just because you agree with the outcome doesn't mean the means where right.

And comparing this with establishing an official religion is a bogus argument

I can say the system worked in this case, because your (and my) liberties are being protected at the expense of the majority who would have them taken from us. I do agree with the outcome, but that is because it increases freedom, not because people might get to carry guns. Since you're apparently confused, the government's job isn't to do what "We, the people" say. If it were, several states would have long since been Christian States (to use my previous example). Ah but yes, there are those damn "founding documents", including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which grant us things like freedom from religion and the right to bear arms. It is very clearly written out, if you happen to have a knack for picking the meaning out of 18th Century texts, and these documents take precedence over the wishes of any and all paranoid delusional voters.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a member of the NRA, I don't own any guns, and I think Charlton Heston is a schmuck.

Post by **dangerboy** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 7:06 pm

mean wrote:
dangerboy wrote:How on earth can you say that the system worked in this case? How is overiding an electoral majority a good thing...Just because you agree with the outcome doesn't mean the means where right.

And comparing this with establishing an official religion is a bogus argument
I can say the system worked in this case, because your (and my) liberties are being protected at the expense of the majority who would have them taken from us. I do agree with the outcome, but that is because it increases freedom, not because people might get to carry guns. Since you're apparently confused, the government's job isn't to do what "We, the people" say. If it were, several states would have long since been Christian States (to use my previous example). Ah but yes, there are those damn "founding documents", including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which grant us things like freedom from religion and the right to bear arms. It is very clearly written out, if you happen to have a knack for picking the meaning out of 18th Century texts, and these documents take precedence over the wishes of any and all paranoid delusional voters.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a member of the NRA, I don't own any guns, and I think Charlton Heston is a schmuck.

The Bill of Rights refers to the right to bear arms IN RELATION TO MILITIAS, no one has yet provided convincing evidence as to whether or not the authors intended that to include private citizens who are not members of the milita.

No liberties would have been taken from you, rather this was about establishing a new liberty that didn't exist before.

DISCLAIMER: I do own guns, I am not a fan of overzealous gun control, and I am not in the NRA.

Post by **mean** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 8:36 pm

No liberties would have been taken from you, rather this was about establishing a new liberty that didn't exist before.

Fair enough. I can say the system worked in this case, because you (and I) would be granted rights we have personally never experienced that were possibly meant to be ours from the beginning. That is secondary to the point that it increases freedom, whether those old dudes in wigs meant us to have that freedom or not. As a crime reduction measure, it beats the pants off spending more money on prisons and keeping people in them and spending more money on more police to catch the bad guys to fill up the new prisons.

If something is illegal yet many people continue to do it anyway, there are several possible options. It seems to me that the one option which should always be considered is to make it legal, increasing the 'Freedom Quotient' rather then decreasing it. It also seems to me that the only option which is ever considered is to "toughen up" on crime. Make more things illegal, put more people in jail, and make their sentences longer, decreasing the FQ. This kind of police state mentality is not what America is supposed to be about, but it is great for politicians who can then run for re-election and say, "I got tough on crime!" After all, who wants to repeal a law and be perceived as weak on crime? Might as well tattoo a swastika on your forehead.

I digress. We were talking about CCW. You are correct in stating that this is about establishing a new liberty that didn't exist before, at least in our lifetimes. And you may be correct about the second amendment -- scholars still fight about it, so there's little point in dragging it out here -- I'm not a Madison scholar, but I've read a lot of his writings and drawn my own conclusions about the second amendment. Regardless of his intentions, unless CCW dramatically increases gun deaths it should be legal, since there's obviously no good reason for it to be outlawed. "I'm afraid," isn't a good reason.

I would like to state that it feels very odd to be defending the government doing anything.