Jackson Jambalaya

The Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are echoing one word around the state from Tupelo to Cleveland, to Pascagoula and back to Meridian claiming "confusion, over the new law. What is there to be confused about. On July 1, anybody over 18, not convicted of a felony can carry a gun openly, without a permit. If they conceal it, they will have to get a permit. If they want reciprocity from other states they will need a permit. These guys are putting fear in the minds of business owners suggesting signs that will only keep the honest people out with guns. The criminals will still come in and the honest will have no way to defend themselves. The abuse is coming from the top down and has for 2 years now. Circuit judges are claiming the entire courthouse are their court "rooms," so they can keep guns away in conflict with the statute for enhanced carriers. The Capitol Police are not allowing enhanced carriers in with weapons when it is allowed by statute but they are letting over 30 members of the legislature in while armed. Chiefs and Sheriffs are boasting strict enforcement of the new law. What is there to enforce with open carry unless the person without a permit is carrying concealed. If so, how will they know anyway? If we are going to be expected to abide by the law, then those people passing enforcing it and passing judgment on us need to set the example.

Rick Ward

"As a lawyer/lawmaker, I respect the rule of law in our nation, and I took an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. The law is designed to encourage good conduct and deter wrongful conduct. It’s not intended to criminalize law-abiding citizens simply exercising their constitutional rights."

Where is Rep. Gipson's staunch defense of constitutional rights and people's free will to exercise them when it comes to the rights of a woman in pursuing an abortion? Because this just happens to fit within his narrow religious mind-set does he think that this is worth pursuing.

Of course, it could a knee-jerk reaction to the multiple threats he has received over the years. Either way, his rectoscopic selection of issues with which to wave the constitutional banner is sad.

Will the metal detectors be removed from the State Capitol so that Mississippians can exercise their right to open carry there?

my confusion is with "where" i can carry a "non-concealed" weapon. bars? libraries? state parks? casino? northpark mall?

Don't forget that Hinds Sheriff Tyrone Lewis stated without equivocation on Kim Wade's radio program some months back that if the law of the land was to confiscate guns that he, as Sheriff, would follow the law of the land.

Tyrone Lewis is hostile to your 2nd Amendment rights. Tyrone Lewis is NOT supportive of lawful legal gun owners.

Think about all the people you meet in a day. Do you think all of you would be safer if all of you were carrying a firearm? Do you think your children will be safer when they walk out the door each day, if everyone around them is carrying a firearm?

If someone did not grow up around firearms, and they have not had any other training in the safe handling and operation of one, they have no business carrying one around. I have to believe that this is another example of a vocal minority of fringe nutjobs who are pushing political action no one with any common sense would want. Can we please put the Cowboy Amendment to a vote before some dumbass shoots himself in the foot?

Do you think all of you would be safer if all of you were carrying a firearm?

Yes

Do you think your children will be safer when they walk out the door each day, if everyone around them is carrying a firearm?

This question is riddles with fallacy violations.

If someone did not grow up around firearms, and they have not had any other training in the safe handling and operation of one, they have no business carrying one around.

Another statement riddled with fallacies.

I have to believe that this is another example of a vocal minority of fringe nutjobs who are pushing political action no one with any common sense would want.

HB2 passed the House 111-8 and the Senate 51-0. Who, EXACTLY, is the fringe nutjob? In fact, this question exposes you to be either a complete idiot or a MamaDonna groupie or Eichelbuttnutburger or all three.

Can we please put the Cowboy Amendment to a vote before some dumbass shoots himself in the foot?

Absolutely. Let's do it. Care to put some money where your mouth is into a betting trust? Care to bet how the folks in the Jimmy Giles lovin' Belhaven will vote?

LOSER LOSER LOSER

No property owner is required to allow firearms on his premises. What I don't know is, if the state can't restrict my carrying, how can state (and local) buildings restrict it?

By Gipson's logic, I should be allowed to carry my .357 into the Gov Mansion, Legislature, library, college campus, UMMC .... Why not?

How does he reconcile the text of the amendment --which does not make exceptions for "felons, drug addicts and the mentally ill"-- with his assertion that these people "are not meant" to have guns?

I mean, either you're a textualist or you're not.

The vote is over. The bill was introduced, it was in a public forum. It was discussed in newspapers and on the internet. The debates were live from the legislative site. If you were asleep at the wheel, that's too bad. If you snooze, you lose. Only fix now would be a constitutional amendment...Good Luck!

Felons, drug addicts and mentally ill get guns now. Do you think they are going to abide by the law? No sentence in any document has prevented that so far. All of the guys that have gone on the rampage had some history of mentally illness or determined so at the time.

If you were asleep at the wheel, that's too bad.

Or if you were too busy gorging yourself at the local Sonic then that is too bad.

BECAUSE Donkeycrats, as long as you are putting these types of idiots -- who can not lead by example -- in front of Mississippi your argument won't be considered.

Unless you change your name to the Donkeycrats' Fat and Black party.

7:10 is correct, no property owner is required to allow people with firearms. However, if they have an enhanced permit you cant stop them. Your best bet would be a trespassing charge. Whoopie.

I agree that some training should be required. Or a test that those of us can take that grew up around them learning to respect them. It scares me to allow the general public to carry them, because generally speaking, the general public is full of shitty people.

8:13, thanks for bringing "enhanced carry" to my attention, tho it still doesn't seem to me to affect private property.

But per Gipson, those statutes are unconstitutional, seems to me.

"Felons, drug addicts and mentally ill get guns now. Do you think they are going to abide by the law?"

So nothing should be illegal, because criminals just break laws anyway. Brilliant. You should write a book.

It's also important to remember this: These businesses that post "No firearms allowed in vehicles" are not posting legally. Nor can a place of employment enforce such a 'rule' in its parking lot unless that parking is restricted by means of guard or gate from public passage. In other words, it is not legally enforceable for an employer to 'tell, advise or post notice to' its employees that they can NOT have firearms, crossbows or other weapons in their vehicles in the parking lot......unless that parking lot is gated or guarded to restrict free public access.

The only thing that really bothers me about the current 'concealed law' is if I'm taking my nighly walk in the neighborhood or a park or on a walking trail, I can NOT have a pistol in my back pocket for my personal protection unless I pay the government for a document that says I have that right. That's nonsense, but it's the law.

David Baria voted against the legislation. He must have ruled out ever running statewide.

Hmmm; Now I can walk down Capitol Street with a .357 strapped to my leg and a .45 holstered to my chest but I can't be carryin' a longneck. Whatta concept.

And for Mal's parade, the rules are entirely reversed!

" These businesses that post "No firearms allowed in vehicles" are not posting legally. Nor can a place of employment enforce such a 'rule' in its parking lot unless that parking is restricted by means of guard or gate from public passage. In other words, it is not legally enforceable for an employer to 'tell, advise or post notice to' its employees that they can NOT have firearms, crossbows or other weapons in their vehicles in the parking lot......unless that parking lot is gated or guarded to restrict free public access."

On what statute are you relying?

I LOVE gun nuts.

Well, since the mentally ill cannot carry a weapon, I guess most of our legislators should turn in their guns.....

This is the same man who "quoting the Bible" wants me dead just because of my sexual preference. I returned to Miss 40 years ago, following my education because of my family 'roots' and because I loved the state. I can't say I'm sorry about that decision, but I am sorry the populace continues to support and promote ignorance as represented by the likes of Gipson. People like him will continue to keep us high on the laughing stock of the nation and next to/last in societal progression.

@ 7:34am love the post. It goes along the same lines as you can die for our country at eighteen but can't get a six pack or lay down $100 on "the field"

I don't guess it's occurred to anyone that this means that gang members or Hell's Angels that haven't been convicted as yet can openly carry as well.

Oh Boy! Now we can have our own gunfights at the OK Corral! And, we can have our own James' gangs and mauraders!

Gun slingers can terrorize their neighbors at will just like they used to be able to do!

Those who "forget" and drink or lose their temper will have a handy tool, won't they?...just like in the " good old days"!

DUH people...didn't you read the history of the WILD West?!!!?

I don't know what the big deal is. After all we have laws against murder,rape and other felonies which should handle all the problems being discussed on this topic. We know everyone obeys laws therefore what's the big deal.

Come July 1, we will have looser gun laws than Tombstone or Dodge City. Wow.

I can't tell whether or not 10:14 is serious; assuming this is the case, I have to wonder whether said commenter gets his/her information from actual history texts or Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns. While there were certainly gunfights in the "Old West," the idea of perpetual shooting wars between cowboys is one that was promulgated by dime-novelists, because then, just like today, sensationalism sells. With respect to 21st Century America, I would appreciate if those who bemoan this law would provide hard data on higher rates of violent crime involving firearms from those states that allow open carry. I have yet to see this in either governmental or peer reviewed studies...either y'all know something I don't, or you're reacting emotionally to the topic.

Channel your inner Spock, use some logic, and come back with a solid argument. Methinks the folks wringing their hands about blood in the streets are the same ones who had said concern related to the expansion of concealed carry rights in America that started in the late '80s. These concerns proved baseless then, and I have little reason to believe things will change.

Come July 1, we will have looser gun laws than Tombstone or Dodge City. Wow.

You are free to leave the state.

Your continual hyperbole is wholly unimpressive. It must be some pleasurable catharsis for you.

Tell us what steps you took to contact your elected representatives with your concerns when this bill was up for consideration earlier this year.

My guess is you did nothing.

Gang members and Hells Angels, convicted felons or not, could give 2 sh*ts about the gun laws. THEY CARRY ANYWAY. This law allows the law abiding citizens to carry and offset the thuggery.

I posted the revelation regarding an employer's inability to enforce a rule banning weapons inside automobiles in its parking lot.

I'm no attorney and have no citation as to what law, by number, specifically counters the attempts of many Mississippi employers. However, I can tell you for a fact that a number of corporate attorneys have had their HR folks take down those posters from bulletin boards as legally unenforceable.

The basis for my post is that any parking lot which is accessible to drive through traffic by the public (which would include applicants in addition to the employees), and is not otherwise restricted by law (such as college, courthouse, etc) cannot have such restrictions placed upon ANY vehicle parked in that parking lot, whether that vehicle belongs to Henry Applicant, Joe Transient or Mary Employee. Unless that parking lot has the restrictions I mentioned. Challenge is open to any attorney would would like to refute this.

I LOVE gun nuts.

§ 45-9-55. Employer not permitted to prohibit transportation or storage of firearms on employer property; exceptions; certain immunity for employer


(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or storing a firearm in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.

(2) A private employer may prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a firearm in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station or other means of restricting or limiting general public access onto the property.

(3) This section shall not apply to vehicles owned or leased by an employer and used by the employee in the course of his business.

(4) This section does not authorize a person to transport or store a firearm on any premises where the possession of a firearm is prohibited by state or federal law.

(5) A public or private employer shall not be liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession or use of a firearm covered by this section.

(passed in 2006)

Darryl Hamilton is right. The "Constitutionalist, The Rev. Gipson, wants the constitution to be be enforced. But the "open carry" provision says that the right "shall not be called in question." Is it not "called in question" when felons, mentally defective folks and drug addicts can't carry? The point is that reasonable regulation is already accepted, and to allow open carry in general is a very bad idea.

Employers in this state can fire an employee at almost any time, for no stated reason, unless they have a contract or are in a union with a contract.

If the company says "no firearms in the parking lot or in the plant/store", and someone brings one, I would expect them to get fired for violating company policy, not any law.

Of course, they can always file a grievance with their shop steward :-)

Has nothing to do with a union, idiot at 6:16.

Loser.

Actually, the law is that 'an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all as long as it is not an illegal reason'.

The point being made here is that employers' control of employees, in many situations, ends at the front door.

It pays to be informed. You should try it.

It is not 100 % clear that firing X because he had a gun in his car, is the sameas having a policy or rule against same. Just can't do it to everyone with guns in their cars. A could fire B for wearing a red shirt, but let others wear red shirts.

Also, A could fire employees for letting A find out they have guns in cars.

mpeople, the thugs can't carry openly...well until July 1st... and at least have to reach into their britches.
mpeople, you have so NEVER been in gunfight...you may hunt , but deer don't shoot back.
This law will erase any doubt in the rest of the world ( except the likes of Somalia ) that the majority of Mississippians are crazy , ignorant rednecks.
We won't be getting any new industries anytime soon.

You gun nuts better practice your quick draw. You can't protect anyone unless you have the drop on the other gun nut.

Police will have to be investigating who drew first.

Y'all are going to love it when your 18 year old comes home holstered and tells YOU who is in charge or a holstered 18 year old comes to the door to pick up your daughter for a date. That's going to make you feel so much safer !

Sporting events should be more exciting. Won't being a ref or a little league coach be more fun ?

Trying to get the armed drunk out of your restaurant, bar, store or off your property will be more challenging too.

Want a divorce? Better tell your spouse while they are in the shower since a holster will be the new fashion accessory.

Adulterous affairs just got more dangerous too. This will be better than TV!

Won't it be fun watching teenage boys drive around armed? And, won't they have fun just like the teens in the 3rd world countries are having!

And, when an armed person breaks in line or cuts you off or tells you what to do, won't it be fun to decide whether or not that person is deranged or exercising rights?


Now when you come across someone packing heat, you won't know if that person is plain clothes law enforecment or here to rob the joint or kill someone or just exercising rights.

Won't all these new challenges be interesting?!

A could Fire B.....the discussion being had (so far) is off track. The employer can fire A or B for whatever reason he likes. But, be ready for a challenge. You're better off to fire one or both for documented poor performance.

Do you really want to spend a month or more of your time satisfying agencies that you didn't fire them because of their race, sex, age, religion, physical limitations, the perceived health of their domestic partner, history of FMLA use, complexion or number of dependents?

And if a hungry lawyer can (and will) show the court that more whites are carrying than blacks and the two you fired have Obama bumper stickers.......grab a lifejacket!

5:31

What an absurd and naive kneejerk reaction. When I was 17, I was one of many kids with hunting rifles hanging in the window of my pickup psrked in the school parking lot or, gasp, stopping and picking up a girlfriend on the way home from hunting with the same in the vehicle.

You can not protect anyone period, unless you have the tools to protect. The majority of your hyperbole is based upon some notion that your hypothetical situations were not occuring or could not occur prior.

Your silly notion that somehow behavior is going to change because a law simply recognizes what the state constitution provides for is not logical, backed by anything but irrational emotion and is anti-liberty, anti-freedoom, anti-self protection, and quite frankly simply anti-American.

Just because you have not served your country, or taken the time to familiarize yourself with guns or just choose not to have the tools to protect yourself if you get thrown into a situation where that's your only option (except death), please don't use your ignorance to deride the RIGHT of others to fo so

I see that my challenge to the naysayers and handwringers has been neglected. In light of 5:31's (have mercy, can't you people choose the "Name/URL" option and pick a friggin' nickname? It's easier to track trains of thought that way) comment, I'm begging you again to find peer reviewed, scientifically acceptable studies based upon empirical data that show the dangers of living in an open-carry state.

As an aside, I applaud Bill Dees for using an actual name for his comment, but question his claim that "to allow open carry in general is a very bad idea." Based upon what, sir?

I find the comment from 5:31 particularly egregious, as, in the pursuit of making his/her ill-considered point, the commenter engages in hyperbole without so much as a whiff of consideration for the current laws of the state. Of the examples you cite, four are arguably already covered under the existing laws related to firearm ownership in Mississippi. Additionally, your pejorative language does little to advance your argument, nor does it establish credibility.

With respect to the comment from 11:17, which ties open carry to the idea of the Magnolia State's populace being dominated by "crazy, ignorant rednecks," would you also argue that states such as Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Virgina, and Vermont are controlled by said "crazy, ignorant rednecks"?

The possession and bearing of arms is an important subject, one related to the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and the older Lockean concept of the right to life, liberty, and property. I believe its importance is further evidenced in its inclusion in the Bill of Rights, which shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it a weighty matter. However, if there is to be debate on this subject, it should be in good faith with arguments based in reason and data, not the emotional appeals and wild assumptions many seem to enjoy employing.

Additionally, your pejorative language does little to advance your argument, nor does it establish credibility.

Nor does your admonishment and attitude "Joseph".

8:58 am Sorry that we are using common sense and knowledge of human behaviors but we are aware that the statistics put out by gun lobbyists and the NRA and rightwing nuts is based on poor research but sounds good to someone ignorant in knowing the difference between sound research and BS. And, we know some apparently can't comprehend the research they pretend to quote.
Look at the murder rates in states with tough gun restrictions like Massachusetts compared to other states .You might look at the US murder rate from handguns per capita compared to other western countries. Ours is 3 per 100000 and other countries don't manage to get to 1 per 100000. One trick often used by gun nuts is to ignore population differences.

Open carry is rather new so don't be disingenuous in specifically requesting those stats. Data would not be relevant as yet.

I challenge you to tell me how I can distinguish between a plain clothes officer, a citizen exercising rights, a holstered person with anger management issues, or someone with malicious intent by looking at them!

I challenge you to look up the stats accumulated by the military and our police depts. in their training exercises of how long it takes to pull your weapon when confronted. And, try to remember they are TRAINED and YOU are not!

Do you know the affects of adrenaline on aim?

Have you read PTSD research and do you understand why police officers are required to get counseling after a fatal shooting?

Do you know that our population is aging and what the incidence of senile dementia is? Yet you want to make sure those with onset of dementia are armed?

Have you read the research on brain development so you understand that teens brains can't undergo great spurts of growth which affects their judgment?

No...you don't deal with the bigger picture or a changing environment.

Geez...some can dish it out but not take it...does the word " facetious" mean anything to some of you?

Compared to " you can't protect yourself without a weapon", my remarks do, I'll grant seem to be logical rather than facetious. One can use one's wits and security measures and remain perfectly safe...or once could.

For Pete's sakes, you people watch too much TV. We are not a state ravaged by home invasions! Even nationally, only 2% of women and 25% of men are killed by a stranger. You'll have to " protect yourself" from an intimate relation, family member or friend!

The gunfight at the OK Corral happened and lawlessness in the " Wild West" is well documented by historians. Some of us read non-fiction and even look for factual information rather than reinforcement of what we want to be believe to be true. Yes there were exaggerations put out at the time, but the reality of the time is compelling as are some riots about which some of you apparently have never read.

If you don't consider the biases and sources of your information ,you are foolish. You remain ignorant deliberately.

Some of you have quoted the other open carry states as if the law passed and existing laws are all the same and the results are in.

I frankly, don't give a damn how many of our legislators are frightened of the NRA and Tea Party. This is stupid legislation that will make it more difficult for those whose JOB it is to protect us to actually do so. I'd rather rely on the police than on some holstered Bubba!

Everyone please ignore the troll @ 10:01.

I think unrestricted open carry in general is a bad idea because under Rev Gipson's interpretation, it can't be regulated. (The right "shall not be called in question".) If that's the case, then it would be unconstitutional to outlaw open carry in divorce courts, in churches, in schools, in bars, in prisons, in Circuit Court during criminal trials, and the list goes on and on.

Thanks for your answer, Bill. I think that's a concern worthy of consideration.

House 111-8
Senate 51-0

Did you call up your Representative and Senator Dees while the bill was being discussed before the vote?

Have you called them even after the fact to express your disagreement with their vote? Did you call Reeves or Bryant?

Did you try to influence the process at all or are you only talk on a blog?

I think the bill will do good but there will be some issues in court for the initial responses. The idea is even if the potential victim has no gun, possible witnesses will. I believe the big hurdle is witnesses rights to use guns for the sake of victims. I usually do not interfere with domestic/violent situations I see in public due to the fact that I maybe unprotected against the same violence from the defendant. BUT if he sees me with a gun he may think twice if I do interject and also may think twice about future retaliation. The whole point of the bill is the perception of more protection on the streets of this state by civilians against criminals. I for one will only carry certain areas at certain times where I feel a need and threat.

Open carry was legal before Jim Hood issued his opinion in 2012. Up until then you could carry a gun in the open just like you will be able to after July 1st. I don't remember any shootouts like the wildwest. Unless you count West Jackson. Which most of those guns are stolen anyway. A lot of which are out of peoples cars. Maybe if people stopped leaving them in vehicles and started keeping them on their person the democrats will think twice before stealing them.

Ah, indeed, the much revered appeals to “common sense and logic.” I am glad you are a logical person, Anonymous at 10:01; I attempt to be one myself. Perhaps we can reach an accord.

Regarding research, I have quoted none, because I haven’t found any related to this particular subject. In the absence of such research, I admit that I tend toward the logical conclusion of my ideological bias, which, overall, favors freedom. As such, I believe it is incumbent upon those who would abridge freedoms to explain why said freedoms should be abridged.

Regarding state homicide rates, it is true that, according to what I’ve been able to find, the state of Massachusetts has a lower overall murder rate than, say, Mississippi (2.83 per 100,000 from 2008 to 2011, compared to 7.38 per 100,000 during the same time period for the Magnolia State), the state of Vermont, an open carry state with relatively few restrictions on firearms, had an average murder rate of 1.43 per 100,000 from 2008 - 2011. With respect to gun murder rates, Vermont had the lowest in the nation in 2010 (0.3 per 100,000) while the District of Columbia, which has a set of rather stringent gun laws, had a gun murder rate of 16.5 per 100,000 in 2010 (over four times that of Mississippi!). Admittedly, this information comes via Wikipedia, so your mileage may vary. I do believe the important point here is that correlation does not equal causation. Statistics matter…but the proper interpretation of statistics…well, that’s rather important too.

Regarding the relative newness of open carry, we can still extrapolate information from the data presented.

I challenge you to be able to tell me anything about the mental state of a person with or without a firearm showing. If you wish to be leery of those openly displaying a firearm, please, go on ahead.

You have no idea what training I have or have not been through. A reasonably competent person can close a distance of 7 yards before all but the swiftest of pistoleers can draw their weapon, yet this does not deter law enforcement officers from carrying a sidearm. Shall we tell them “well, you’d never be able to get your gun out in time to make a difference, so just don’t carry it”?

I am, in fact, quite aware of the effects of adrenaline on my aiming capabilities.

What does police counseling after a fatal shooting have to do with open carry? Should the need arise, I hope folks will see somebody…but I don’t follow your logic.

I believe it is the responsibility of those close to said sufferer of dementia to insure that they are able to safely operate in public. I’ve had this conversation with fellow gun owners with aging parents before; it’s a tough decision, but I fail to see why the degenerating faculties of a small section of the population should affect the rights of the population as a whole. Really, why should the inability of some people to effectively exercise their rights impinge my potential to do so? This makes me think of elementary school: Little Johnny acted up, so nobody gets to go to recess. I’m not a huge fan of authoritarian states, given their tendency toward abuse.

Are not all people (not just teenagers) somehow susceptible to errors in judgment? Are you arguing that we should abridge the rights of all because of the poor judgment of teens? Seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

Let me know when you choose to give up your car and choose public transportation only. Then, perhaps the statistical cherry pickers, the history re-writers and the Too smarter than everyone elses will have an arguable position.

Cars kill far more than guns.

I am married to a person who believes in all that gun stuff about "gee, if some had been at so and so mass shooting with a gun, etc.", blah, blah, blah. I don't think our founding fathers had any idea of what the "right to carry" has come to mean, certainly had no vision of what America has become (crime,, drugs, etc.). I would venture a guess that if they could have envisioned where we are today, they might have thought longer and harder about "right to carry." However, as some have posted on here, states with RTC laws have lower crime rates.

My spouse and I have very different points of view on this subject......

A relative of mine who is a decorated COMBAT veteran who actually has killed and seen his buddies killed was at dinner one night with someone who bragged through dinner about his skills of self-defense including his gun collection in a cabinet near by and his easily accessible revolver.
The relative tried to reason with him and explain why it was more dangerous to have so many guns in his home and that use for protection was a myth.
Like those on this blog, the gentleman didn't believe such and my relative said, I'll be able to show you after dinner.
We were nearly through when my relative simply stood up and shouted loudly.
The braggart fell, literally, out of his chair knocking it over, injured himself in the process and couldn't , as he was so startled he couldn't get the drawer open that was less than foot away to get his weapon to repel the invented danger.
My relative quietly said, "Imagine if that had been your door being kicked in."
But, then those who have had to defend themselves don't have to rely on imagination as to the realities.

1:30 pm while one hopes those with dementia have people " close" , that is not the case anymore as children move far away and as the person becomes ill they begin to alienate others. Beyond that, those close may not see the warning signs in time and the person with dementia has rights that make restricting their freedoms hardly something that can be done in a timely way.

I find it difficult to believe that you have had military or law enforcement training at the level I mentioned or you'd know the nearness of the subject is not at all the issue. It is the reaction time to the unexpected.

The reality Joseph is that living in a civilized society is not all about you. Your desires and convenience and beliefs are no more important than that of your neighbor who disagrees with you. Nor do we, thank God, live in a society where the tyranny of the majority ( facism) was part of the framework. We are a democratic republic. Our elected officials are supposed to balance the demands of their constituents against the good of the State, the Nation and by rationally examining the facts...something the individual citizen doesn't have as his job...his duty but not his job.

Wikipedia is a poor source but it's also clear you've never been to Vermont.The largest city is Burlington and only a bit over 42000 people . The population is not diverse and everyone knows everyone.To compare any place in Vermont with urban areas where the socio-economic incomes are diverse is absurd. That gun right activists even use Vermont as an example should give you pause for concern about the accuracy of the rest of their information.

My point on therapy is that killing another human being, even in defense of self or others, is a traumatic experience except for sociopaths. Such traumas can have physical and psychological effects and is not something a normal person will find thrilling or satisfying.

You seem to feel that when accosted in a life threatening situation, you will have time to adjust your aim on the first shot. Tell me about why you think that is so. If you were a Seal or Special Forces or a Ranger, I believe you but that is not the training of the majority of those who will be toting. Coming upon a bear or boar is not the same.

You did not address per capita gun murders in other civilized societies.

Washington,DC is also a poor example. You can't compare ghettos and suburbs. Socio economics is a factor as is the prevalence of drug use in some urban areas and population density is a factor as well. You must compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges to prove your point. Compare Washington to Manhattan including Harlem and Brooklyn or to South side Chicago not to Vermont or Virginia. When you compare statistics, your universal samples have to be comparable.

If ,sir, you choose to be part of a well regulated militia or meet the conditions of Mississippi's Constitution when summoned by a legal entity or to defend home or person, I'm with you. Toting openly is not necessary to meet any of those conditions. It is a , however, a good way to bully or intimidate those around you or to frighten old ladies and little children who cannot recognize your intent by looking at you.

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. The troll is a complete FAKE.

5:58 pm anytime someone makes arguments you can't counter , you do the troll thing.

SO transparent! You are the phony!

God forbid logic and facts should have a chance!

"Wikipedia is a poor source but it's also clear you've never been to Vermont.The largest city is Burlington and only a bit over 42000 people . The population is not diverse and everyone knows everyone.To compare any place in Vermont with urban areas where the socio-economic incomes are diverse is absurd.

......

Washington,DC is also a poor example. You can't compare ghettos and suburbs. Socio economics is a factor as is the prevalence of drug use in some urban areas and population density is a factor as well. You must compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges to prove your point. Compare Washington to Manhattan including Harlem and Brooklyn or to South side Chicago not to Vermont or Virginia. When you compare statistics, your universal samples have to be comparable."


Oh, I get it now. You're pointing out that in a lily-white society like Vermont most people can be counted on to behave themselves and not kill each other over trivial insults, sneakers, "disrespect", etc. It's only in a "diverse" community, such as D.C. or Jackson, that there are a lot of the type of people who should not be trusted with handguns. Interesting point.....

Hardly 11:53 pm that's YOUR spin

I didn't originally cite Vermont as an open carry state to try to prove it reduces crime.

Those of you who cite Detroit and DC all the time should look at violent crime and murder rate in Houston,TX.

I know this is hard for you but income and population density are established factors in crime rates.

Again, making bad comparisons is a poor argument.

Apparently, however it is true if one repeats a myth enough times the gullible will believe it.

And, politically, while a citizenry is distracted by myths to argue about, your politicians can negate The Stock Act and give Monsanto immunity from prosecution.

The value of divide and conquer and distraction has been understood by those who seek power for centuries.

So while we actually argue and even act on nonsense to keep segments of the population happy in their little belief bubbles, we have been losing our freedom. Toting a gun is not going to help you when the government can track your every move and they steal the wealth while you get poorer!

With statistics, look at who generated and paid for the " study".

Instead of reading and listening only to those things that reinforce what you want to believe, try finding some objective data like following the deficit by year from government stats. Or you can look at data on how much of the economy is dependent on the military industrial complex by their own aero defense stats. Or you can look at how many years we've been at war in the years we've existed. Or you can start pulling the contribution sources of both parties from official documents instead of the selective mentions your favorite outlet gives you. You can look at how many " studies" upon which we base policy are generated by the insurance industry or pharmaceutical industry.

Or in this case, you can look at what the NRA finances!

Maybe then we can stop fighting among ourselves about issues that ought to be flat earth issues because the FACTS overwhelmingly support what we should or should not be doing!

Instead, your panties are in a wad and your egos threatened over " rights" that aren't threatened so you are missing the ones that are!

... because the FACTS overwhelmingly support what we should or should not be doing!

You've not linked to any source o'er these many days of ranting here about your supposed higher level of knowledge, wisdom and insight. Facts, er, FACTS, are not so simply because you deem it so. Have fun kicking against the goads. We've seen your kind, er, actually YOU, before. Nobody, or few, here are changing their opinion based on the mudslides of unsubstantiated crapola you keep releasing.

"And, politically, while a citizenry is distracted by myths to argue about, your politicians can negate The Stock Act and give Monsanto immunity from prosecution."

Very well said 7:10. I'd add the transpacific partnership to that list. As long as the bright, shiny beads are being dangled, important things like those listed can be ignored.

Whoever is leaving those long-ass posts needs to understand that noone is going to read all that shit. And "shit" is what it is.

I LOVE gun nuts.

7:05 AM = YAWN ... SSSnnnnooooorrrrrreeeeeee