Since we’re throwing out lame non-sequiturs
Prometheus6, who still hasn’t learned to format posts in a manner so that it’s easy to distinguish content from the copying and pasting, writes:
I need to overlay a map of states with concealed carry laws with that map of the Confederacy
Should be easy, since only two states (Wisconsin and Illinois) do not have concealed carry provisions. And 39 states have shall issue (including Vermont and Alaska, which have not permit requirement). That’s pretty easy to Google up, unless you’re a hack with no interest in doing so and are trying to make stupid and incorrect assertions implying that gun laws are racist.
S/He(?) also writes:
Middle American is about to experience the joys of drive-by shootings by crankheads and bored, drunk teenagers.
People who get carry permits engage in drive-bys? Teenagers get permits? Hmm, seems that’s not allowed.
I need to overlay a map of Prometheus6’s head with a map of his/her ass.
Update: Ask and ye shall receive. Reader Guav made a map. So, there it is. And, P6, the point is?
September 6th, 2006 at 7:48 am
First of all, please give out a proper link. This way people can see the quotes are all blockquote formatted. Very easy to distinguish if that’s your goal.
http://www.prometheus6.org/node/13777
The inital thrust, which people should note generally has no bearing on the actual discussion (not specific to you, it’s the form public debate takes in the agora), failed.
Secondly, I didn’t say teens will get permits or that everyone wth permits will do drive-bys. I’m saying it’s a stupid idea to arm a population with a high incidence of drug use and alcoholism…one would think you’d know that from the rhetoric aimed at Black folks by the mainstream press.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:08 am
That link appears in the original post. It is linked from the word writes.
Then why mention in at all, or is it a lame non sequitur like the map of the confederacy?
The population is already armed. The NYT piece addresses carry permits, not possession of weapons.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:22 am
The NYT piece addresses carry permits in combination with authorization to shot with no consideration for anything but your personal fear.
Context. You really need to consider your laws in the social context in which they will be enforced (or not). Pretending each action takes place in isolation makes for exciting debates…and deep disappointment over the outcome.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:35 am
That is a blatant fabrication by both you and the idiot at the NYT. The laws repeal the duty to retreat requirement and that is all. And duty to retreat requirements were the minority before the recent trend to get rid of the nonsensical idea. Try again.
And what does the confederacy have to do with that? Or Minnesota?
September 6th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Hey! No fair!
How come the NRA didn’t arm Tennessee when it passed its concealed carry law? I could use another gun.
I see a distinct anti-southern bias within that organization….
September 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Um…no.
So if you feel threatened, you may shoot. Seems you’ve proved the blatant fabrication of the idiot at the NY Times.
That headline really bothered you, didn’t it? I actually wanted to address your problem with that seperately, but I didn’t imply laws requiring the issuance of concealed carry permits are racist. I implied it has the greatest acceptance in those states that were previously slave holding territories. That simply identifies them; it doesn’t say anything about the current state of affairs among white folks in those states.
And yes, I mentioned the rhetoric around Black folks, drugs, alcohol and violence, but only to imply thereis no difference between Black and white folks…the very opposite of an accusation of racism.
If that’s clear, we can continue the discussion on the NY Times article after I get back in a couple of hours. If you think race is still an issue in the discussion, this is my last response here.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
That has nothing to do with what I said. I feel threatened in traffic sometimes, it does not give me the right to shoot nor does it give legal protection if I do. Generally, one must feel that their life/body or another’s life/body is in imminent danger before deadly force is justified. Feeling threatened does not denote imminent danger. Duty to retreat means that a person must do everything in their power to leave the situation. Now, that is not the case.
Only for its stupidity.
And that was incorrect as all but two states have CCW provisions.
I don’t care about race in this discussion. I care about the implication you made that CCW correlates to racism. Glad you clarified you position but no reasonable person would have drawn that conclusion based on what you said.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
As I recall, one of the reasons for the founding of the NRA was the Republican party’s desire to confront the Southern Democrat tactic of disarming former slaves by state legislation. Former US President U.S. Grant was involved, if I remember correctly. The idea was to keep the civilian (black) population armed against the KKK and other night-riding vigilantes among the former slave-owning white population.
So let us assume (despite the facts) that there is a correlation between CCW states and former slave states. The inference one might draw from that, is that the slave states have learned their lesson, and the blacks therein (and possibly whites also) now support CCW as a way to keep themselves safe from criminals of all types.
Arguing with a leftist is like Calvin Ball, except without the fun. The rules are changed at whim and there is no way to know them, and the only point in the game is to obfuscate and upset those playing.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
People at the NYT (and those that quote them) would have us believe anyone saying “I felt threatened” is automatically freed from any responsibility when it comes to discharging a firearm.
This is not only a lie, but a dangerous one. Someone will read these lies instead of doing their own research, and wind up shooting somebody and going to jail.
It’s too bad those that put forth these irresponsible lies can’t be held acountable as well.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Middle American is about to experience the joys of drive-by shootings by crankheads and bored, drunk teenagers. Why wait? Join the fun! Richmond, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and numerous other California cities are already and without any “encouraging” CCW legislation, enjoying a frequency of such drive-by shooting. Despite Federal law and California’s own Assault Weapon Ban, a SFPD Cop was recently killed by a punk with a fully-automatic weapon. That’s a weapon illegal in most states – perhaps an overlay of states allowing access to Class III weapons would be more illuminating, but California isn’t one of them.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Various southern-Oregon towns have big problems with amphetamines and low employment, and Oregon has shall-issue concealed carry.
And yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a permit-holder getting high on crank and or being a bored, drunk teenager (no surprise, since you have to be 21 to get a CCW permit) and shooting people.
But the big thing is, there is no such god damn thing as “shall require”. There is shall issue, which means that the State cannot not issue a permit to anyone who qualifies. This prevents, say, the local Klan-affiliated Sheriff from saying “no, you black people can’t get permits, just ’cause”.
There is no “you kind of HAVE to arm-up”, at all. (I live in a shall-issue state, I’m qualified to get a CCW, I own pistols. I don’t have a CCW, and I don’t carry. Where’s this HAVE to you speak of?)
September 6th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Being afraid won’t allow you to fire. There must still be proof that the opponent had the means, capability, and intent to cause severe bodily injury. This has nothing to do with CCWs – you can defend yourself with a knife or a book, although against a robber with a gun or knife or 200 lbs of muscle more than you, I wouldn’t advise it. That has nothing to do with ‘duty to retreat’ laws, which still allow self-defense if cornered – such laws are only designed to .
But, go ahead, P6. Tell us why you agree with the idea of “It’s about making certain that the public has no ability to limit the rights of an individual.” I’m sure your right to privacy won’t mind, nor your right to free speech or assembly. And don’t kid yourself pretending that the slippery slope won’t occur : the Federal Assault Weapon ban came in the same damn Act that the right to assembly got killed, making it illegal to join a ‘gang’, without defining gang.
Tell us why allowing guns will end up requiring them (“The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked.”), but why allowing abortion won’t require it, or allowing free political speech requires everyone to speak about politics.
Explain why we should be legallly required to run away from a man with a knife to our throats and the express intent to kill. Or why Chris Byrne should have stayed in his room where it was ‘safe’ while a man tried to detonate his home. Or why the thousands of people who defend themselves or others a year should have just tried running, or told the victim they protected to run.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Somebody tried to kill chris?
September 6th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Chris’ Irish Self-Defense Stories, the second to last story.
Side note : finding this left the strangest referal on his site.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
This is actually pretty puzzling to me, since the shall issue law ought to be a VAST improvement in the eyes of P6. Before Minnesota established a shall issue permitting system, it was a “may issue” state. That means that if the local Sheriff liked you, you could have a permit to carry concealed. He had no obligation to justify his position one way or another.
As I am sure he is well aware, the historic use of gun control legislation in this country has been to keep those that the government considered undesirable from owning and carrying weapons, and undesirable often meant “black.” In short, Minnesota has gone from a “permits for everyone who isn’t a criminal and is white” to “permits for everyone who is not a criminal.” I don’t see how this is a bad thing from the black perspective.
The map he is looking for is right here. I think it is telling that the “no issue” states are MI (home of Detroit) and IL (home of the infamous Illinois Nazis. Yes, they are real.) NY continues to be a state where you can carry a concealed weapon if you are a white celebrity or mobster.
(I would have posted at his site, but he demanded years ago that I stay away from his comments. And gratuitiously threatened to harrass my employer.)
September 6th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
I made the map P6 wants:
http://static.flickr.com/92/236182237_28c02fc310_o.jpg
September 6th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Update: Ask and ye shall receive. Reader Guav made a map. So, there it is. And, P6, the point is?
Damn, I was hoping it was an overlay map of P6’s head/ass…
September 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
And I think it’s worth noting that neither of the two states that have NO restrictions at all were part of the confederacy.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
“I think it is telling that the “no issue” states are MI (home of Detroit)” In that case, the map is out of date, and IIRC was wrong in the first place. MI passed a shall issue law two or three years ago. You pass a safety course and a background check and you get your CCW license even if the police chief doesn’t like you.
MI does have a couple of other restrictions you won’t find in most red states – handguns have to be registered, and I can’t put my rifle in a rack in my truck because any gun in a car that isn’t covered by a CCW must be out of reach, unloaded, and separate from the ammo – but we’re chipping away at them in spite of the People’s Republik of Detroit.
September 6th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I’ve had the misfortune of having to defend myself against lethal force several times (including those mentioned in the Irish stories). Most recently I have had a credible terrorist threat against my life.
I am not going to wait for the police to arrive for 5 minutes while I am placed in an impossible tactical situation, so they can throw grenades through my bedroom windows; or pound through my interior walls with massed fire.
Our response plan is to barricade my wife and daughters in the back bedroom (which is the most secure room in the house) while they call the police, and some local friends; and I actively address the threat.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Phelps, that is a bald-faced lie.
And I still have the tin the fruitcake you sent me was delivered in.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
My audience is different than yours. Different experiences, different assumptions.
I don’t mind explaining when someone overhears and misunderstands
September 7th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Then what the hell is the point? Besides, Confederacy and slave states are not the same thing. Delaware and Maryland were both slaves states, too, and they’re among the may-issue minority. Ditto for Missouri, which is shall-issue today but became so relatively recently, and then kicking and screaming.
September 7th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Ok, great—but that’s not correct anyway. No matter how you cut it, you’re wrong.
September 7th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
This thread is about as productive as slamming your hand in a car door.
Uncle, I have scolded you before about trying to reason with them.
I tend to agree with P6 about his readers being different, very much so I suspect.
September 7th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I am no liar, and certainly no bald-faced liar. Making assertions that are refuted by your own site only hurts your own credibility.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Phelps, you called me a pig and a bigot. THAT, not any racism you may or may not have evinced, was what put an end to my patience.
Here is the exact Google query you used to seek out that single post. Let everyone search the full history of our interactions for themselves.
You are a liar.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:41 am
In fact, let them start with our first contact.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:43 am
SayUncle:
I’m normally a lot more patient in other people’s spaces. I apologize for this mini-thread…I think I can end it right here, though.
This is a text file listing all the posts on Prometheus 6 in whihc Phelps participated. All 310 of them.
He hung around that long. Why? Because he was able to speak freely, knowing his positions were radically different than mine. I extend myself in that fashion and you still call me a pig and racist?
Yes. There IS a limit. And you don’t get to pick out the last few posts, wherein because you can’t win an argument you get obnoxious enough to be thrown out, as an indicator of MY behavior.
310 posts, multiple comments in most of them. Let the audience examine them attheir leisure…in over 13000 posts I have nothing to hide.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I said that you demanded years ago that I stay away from your comments.
You called this a bald-faced lie.
I showed that it was no lie, in your own words, on your own site.
Your response is to try to revisit the original assertion, and again call me a liar in complete denial of what is actually on your site. You appeal to context. Fine.
I accused you of becoming progressively more partisan, shrill, and bigotted. I stand by that. Your collection is perfect, because it illustrates exactly what I said. I am more than willing to let the reader examine it.
Since I left, you don’t seem to have gotten any better. Right now, you have made an assertion that insinuates that everyone who supports broad gun rights and broad self-defense protection is a racist. Is there any other conclusion that can be drawn from title?
For the record, I called you a bigot against Republicans and said you were acting like a pig. I didn’t say that you were racist, but the fact that you still hold onto this so vehemently makes me wonder. Does Republican == White in your mind? Do you have any white commenters left, or have you run them all off?
September 9th, 2006 at 6:17 am
The lie is that I contacted your employer.
And I’m done with you. You’re a frustrated liart and I have no more time for you. Evrer.
September 9th, 2006 at 6:19 am
“Threatened” to contact your employer.
310 posts, people. Much respect given this…person for a long, long, time.
September 9th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Bullshit word games that I don’t play. Have the courage of your convictions.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Umm, P6, I have to call bullshit on that assertion. That’s all you’ve done with the Confederate/CCW thread and looking at a few posts of yours on your website, you seem to do a lot of it.
September 9th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
comment from http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=201.1.4.126 deleted, tard limit exceeded.
September 11th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Larry, I’d like you to tell what I said that you consider word games OFFLINE.