“Since no amount of gun-related tragedy seems sufficient to get state lawmakers to dial back on their firearms-friendly laws, we need to find a different approach, or face a future in which citizens of some states are required to carry a weapon with them at all times except when bathing.” New York Times columnist Gail Collins [above] would no doubt defend her hoplophobic hyperbole as simple sarcasm. And I would suggest that it’s a positive sign when anti-gun crusaders throw their metaphorical hands in the air (like we just don’t care). But one must always keep an eye on the anti-2A—sorry, pro-reasonable restrictions crowd. And here’s what Collins is “thinking [is] the best solution for all concerned” . . .

. . . a strict national gun-control law that makes it very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit, permits gun dealers to sell only one handgun per individual per year, and makes it illegal for even permit holders to keep handguns anywhere but their home, store or car glove compartment unless they are employed in the security business.

No humor there. Only entrenched opposition to Americans’ constitutional rights. And a complete lack of ideas on how to make her disarmament dreams a reality. Thank God.

Recommended For You

51 Responses to NYT Gail Collins: Create Federal Concealed Carry Law

  1. How about a law where shes only allowed to write one sentence per year and can only read it out loud at home, work or her car.

  2. I love it when the Anti’s make their disrespect for multiple constitutional amendments clear in a single statement.

    • I found this comment on her article. I may go to hell for saying this but people like Dean H Hewitt deserve to get robbed, beaten, shot, or whatever the criminals feel like doing to them if they are to ignorant to take responsibility for the preservation of their own life and liberty.

      “Dean H Hewitt Sarasota, FL

      March 22, 2012 at 7:26 a.m. RECOMMENDED 451

      I live in Florida and you should hear the excuses to carry a gun to the local Starbucks. Most of the guys wanting concealed weapons permits are of two main ilk. There is the group who have had minimal exposure to firearms and think after watching Jason Bourne Movies, it would be cool to carry and have an impact(like save the damsel in distress). The other main group is the masculine tribe who have gone to seed. Yeah that group who hasn’t seen their own junk in twenty years with out the help of a mirror. They may have been in the military, maybe once been an avid hunter but I believe worried they no longer have it to protect themselves or project the proper image. They want the gun to feel like a man. Both groups are scary because we may get shot in the crossfire. Just to frame these comments, I served in the military during Vietnam. I also carried in 5 different states while working for Brinks as a manager. It is not fun to carry, at least for me. It is a responsibility to properly act when you have such power. I never though it was worth the risk to me or others.”

      • Why do you say he deserves all that?

        If I said you deserve to have a negligent discharge and blow your big toe off, that wouldn’t be very nice. I don’t think you’d accept a comment like that from me without a vicious attack. But, it’s OK for you to do it?

    • Thanks MikeS ’cause you got me wondering “how bad could the comments be” and holy hell, they were horrible.

    • You see Bob, Jeff Snyder said it best in a book of essays he’s written over the years called “A nation of cowards”( in print again on amazon.)
      In the book, he writes how anti-gun or anti-self-defense people are so denigrating towards those who carry guns to defend themselves and others because they themselves know sub-consciously that they are cowards, that they have abdicated all responsibility for defending themselves or anyone else for that matter.
      So to make themselves feel better for being such pathetic and pitiful creatures, they tear down those who are actually acting as mature and responsible adults.

  3. That’s one scary looking beyotch. I expect her to start shouting “I will not be ignored, Dan!” any second now. And I’d say the same thing if she was a board member of the NRA.

  4. See? It’s not good enough for her to live in a state where most of those measures are already law. People can move and retain their liberties. They must be pursued. No one should be allowed to escape. Everyone must be forced to live the way she wants them to live.

  5. a strict national gun-control law that makes it very difficult to get a concealed weapons permit, permits gun dealers to sell only one handgun per individual per year, and makes it illegal for even permit holders to keep handguns anywhere but their home, store or car glove compartment unless they are employed in the security business

    How come I can see this becoming a reality?

    • I contine to be amazed at the mental processes going on in the anti-self defense crowd, in one breath, they say how we should be so afraid of homicidal maniacs with a gun killing bunches of people, so let’s outlaw all the guns; then, when we carry a gun to defend against those homicidal maniacs, we”re accused of being paranoid,fearful and compensating for having a small package.
      Just another example of the completely irrational mind of an anti-gun nut.
      Another thought; to an anti-gun nut, what is a woman compensating for when she’s carrying a gun?

  6. face a future in which citizens of some states are required to carry a weapon with them at all times except when bathing

    Why on Earth would I want to remove my weapon when bathing?

  7. Well. That was freakin’ repulsive. I’m as liberal as it gets, and I’ve never been a fan of the NRA, but I think it might be time to become a donor. And I think the Second Amendment Foundation is going to get some money as well.

    Gah, I’m nauseous.

  8. I have found it a fun strategy to agree with them, but then say COMPLETELY SERIOUSLY “But how would we amend the constitution to allow that?”

    trollololol!

    But seriously, the Fed does not have such power, if they want it they need to give it to themselves by amending the constitution, and I don’t think such an amendment could pass all 50 states.

  9. Why do people like this never bring up, or just fail to notice the fact that in areas where people are allowed to carry guns legally violent crime is down.
    If you want to win an argument on CC laws just say two words. “Washington D.C.”
    Not exactly the peaceful utopia they had hoped for.

  10. I had an enlightening conversation with a gentleman from Kenya. He moved from nation to nation in Africa due to his work at the U.S. State Department,and I find his perspective priceless because he has lived and worked in places where civilian gun cultre is simply non existent.Unless one counts the drug addicted gangs rolling with AK type rifles in their pickups as ‘gun culture’.As he tells it,in such countries concealed weapon permits are a pipe dream,gun posession is either outright illegal or subject to extreme regulations the likes of which make NJ look like AZ by comparison.If those countries have a constitution the RKBA certainly isn’t anywhere to be found therein.To hear American liberal pundits tell it a disarmed nation-such as Kenya-should be a peaceful paradise.As my friend tells it the reality is that life is short,corrupt,brutal,and if one is female,tragic.Defending your mother or wife from assault is rather difficult when the only armed individuals are criminals;and going to the police is just another way to end up dead in a riverbank somewhere.Thanks to our sometimes graphic discussions,my foreign friend has shown me another reason for the 2nd Amendment;it keeps American society from devolving into a Darwinian system where the strong have guns,and the weak face death and slavery.

    • Sometimes I wonder if allowing the latter to happen would be the only way to wake up the idiot antis. At the very least, it would rid the country of them. Perhaps this land where “Everyone is required to own a gun except while bathing” wouldn’t be so bad?

  11. That black bear must be having a hard time trying to crap her out…

    Though comparing her as such is an insult to the dignity and value of crap.

  12. You know motor vehicles kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of people every year in this country. Us simpletons are far to dumb to handle the responsibility of driving a 2 ton death machine around at 55MPH without killing each other. I propose we ban them and only allow government approved citizens to drive cars and trucks.

    That’s about as much sense as her argument makes. Let adults be adults. Let people live their lives as they choose. If I want to carry I gun just let me without getting your panties in a bunch.

  13. Paperwork, fingerprints, photographs, fees, and background checks to allow people to carry a side-arm? What kind of nonsense is this?

    The right of self-defense is a corollary to the right to life; to deny one is to deny the other. The purpose of government is to insure our rights, not to infringe on them.

    The fact is that governments should not be involved in permitting the ownership or carriage of weapons, either openly or concealed, by anyone.

    Our constitution states that the right of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed. Marbury v. Madison (1803) decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that any law that contradicts the Constitution is null and void. “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 178)

    The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

    In Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) the Supreme Court stated that a constitutionally-protected right may not be licensed, nor a fee charged.

    In Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama (1962) the Supreme Court decided that “If the state does attempt to convert a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” (That means they can’t punish you, folks!)

    To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line, “Permits? We don’ need no steenking permits!”

  14. If you clicked on the NYT link to view the article, you obviously noted that today, March 23rd 2012, exactly one day after the article was publixhed, the comments are closed. And, as you might expect, it was closed before any opposing comments could be posted.

    Typical liberal/progressive tactics.

  15. All politics aside. I live in one state and work in another. I am required to have a different permit to carry in one state than the other. There isn’t a guard crossing when I go to work, but I have to stop put my firearm away. If we had a national system it might make traveling with a firearm easier. I am all for simplifying the law, we can argue about how much gun control we need, but what about the practical side of interstate travel?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *