Quote of the Day: States’ Rights? Edition

Everytown for Gun Safety Spokesperson Elizabeth Ulmer (courtesy linkedin.com)

“The standards for who can carry in one state versus another vary greatly — as they should given that carrying in Utah is a very different thing than carrying in a densely populated city.” – Everytown for Gun Safety spokesperson Lizzie Ulmer, quoted in Gun Control Advocates Slam NRA Push for Nationwide Concealed Carry [via america.aljazeera.com]

comments

  1. avatar Matt says:

    I’m almost positive Utah has cities…. With populations, that live densely.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Nope, you’re mistaken. It’s nothing but salt and Mormons out there, and the natural habitat of the Mormon is quite rural.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I once had to go on assignment to Dugway Proving Ground. I stayed at the motel in Tooele, and the commute from there to the site was about 10 miles, then about 4 miles on the army base. I could tell that it was rush hour because there was another car on the road.

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          “And now the morning traffic report.”
          “A big truck just went by. Now it’s gone.”

        2. avatar Stuki says:

          SLC Rush hour is as bad, or or even worse, these days than LA and SF, as those “freedom lovers” up there thinks sending armed tax feeders after you for simple lane splitting, is somehow compatible with a civilized society.

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          I think traffic may be a tad bad with the HUMUNGOUS NSA data repository outside town now. Courtesy of AT&T, Verizon, and Google.

      2. avatar Maineuh says:

        Ha ha ha! As a Mainer, I am totally laughing at you rural Utahians.

      3. avatar E White says:

        I you don’t have a clue about our lives then you should not say anything.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          You need some work on your /sarc detector, I think.

      4. avatar Ben says:

        Hey I’m a Mormon and lived in Miami once..for like 2 hours. Does that count?

    2. avatar DisThunder says:

      The Wasatch front is about 80 miles of city and suburb home to about 2.5 million people and growing.
      We have one of the highest concentrations of school-age children in the country. Guess how many school shootings have happened in Utah? None. Our teachers can carry.
      Oh, but there was a mass shooting, sort of! At a mall, even! ….but then a good guy with a gun (off-duty, out-of-town cop) engaged the little shit and jammed the tide.
      Besides, you don’t even live in an actual state, princess. You don’t have a dog in this fight.

      1. avatar EagleScout87 says:

        What Dist said. x10

      2. avatar Zach says:

        The population density along the Wasatch Front is about the same as Orange County, for reference. Once you get out of that area, it’s wide open, but almost everyone in Utah lives within about 50 miles of Salt Lake, north and south. Now, I grant that a lot of pundits just hop between the coasts; in my experience (and I’ve lived a lot of places: Seattle, New Jersey, Knoxville, Toledo, and yep, Utah’s home) the most parochial people in the country are in the big coastal cities.

  2. avatar DaveL says:

    I guess Salt Lake City doesn’t count as “densely populated? “

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      not compared to NEW YAWK
      NEW YAWK is da GREATEST FAWKIN CITY IN DA WULD PAL, and it ain’t no place for GUN TOTIN’ CRAZY REDNECKS from YOOO-TAH.

      okay, she may not actually sound like that, but you can bet it’s what she’s thinking.

      1. avatar Maineuh says:

        Jaysus, you do that well. I LOL’d and here it is not even noon.

      2. avatar Taylor TX says:

        Yea that might have been the best phonetic yankee speak I’ve seen lately 🙂

      3. A New York City (or New Jersey) accent is a weapon all by itself, here in Texas.

  3. avatar JR says:

    Thank-you, Elizabeth. Given what I’ve seen of American cities, you may be right.

    It is FAR more important to carry there and the restrictions on carrying in big cities is observably a colossal failure of public policy.

    While you seek to disarm law abiding citizens in cities, you continue to victimize them.

    1. avatar Felix says:

      I remember some study of the wild wild west, where Kansas City, Dodge, and the other cow towns had far lower crime rates, including murder, than the big cities back east, some huge ration, 10:1 or more. Many of the cow towns whcih were so famous for murder and mayhem didn’t have a single death in some years, in spite of all those drunk cowboys, thieves, and rapscallions wandering around.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I went to look that up, and much to my chagrin, discovered that at least Dodge City, or maybe Tombstone, had strict gun control.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

        1. avatar Felix says:

          But so do Chicago and Washington, DC.

          I’d also like to see what kind of gun control the eastern cities had during the wild west era. I doubt it was much less than the western cities.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      What you said: ABCDEF
      What she hears: XZXZZZZRACISTHAYSEED.

  4. avatar Aaron says:

    Typical modern liberal. Most liberals support State Rights only when it fits their political agenda. Otherwise, they generally want a dominant centralized fascist government dictating policies a ‘one size fits all law’ throughout the land.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Their version of “diversity” is millions of people cut from the same rainbow-colored cookie cutter.

    2. avatar Mike says:

      At least she’s cute, for an ignorant facist.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      Small correction: Liberals only ever support anything when it fits their political agenda. Lacking convictions or morals, they are quite flexible.

  5. avatar ST says:

    “I’m campaigning on a platform of protecting employment practices, law enforcement, segregation and other problems that have been historically classified as states’ rights by the Democratic party”.-
    Eugene “Bull” Connor, 1938.

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    How about Ms. Ulmer’s articles can only be published in cities of less than 5,000.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Wait, you want to INCREASE her readership?

  7. avatar the ruester says:

    “I’m pretty sure cities are more dangerous…”

    “Ummm, ya, that’s like why we have to ban guns!”

    “But then people will be vulnerable to criminals!”

    “Like didn’t you hear me? We’re banning guns.”

    “?”

    “Like, for the children, maan…”

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Sure, I know it will have no positive effects, but we HAVE to do SOMETHING, right?”

    2. avatar JR says:

      The last 3 lines of this one sums it up nicely:

  8. avatar George says:

    Ahhhh, now I understand.

    Those of us who don’t live in New York are too dull to possibly understand the needs of cities. We just live out in the sticks where there are few people and many wild animals.

    How could us dullards possibly understand the needs of the city. We’re too busy keeping the bears and lions at bay.

    But, of course, in return, Bloomie will stop messing with the states.

    Well, maybe after he pours tons of money into Washington for his “universal background” check initiative.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      Oregon, too. So much apparently that Ginny Burdick has ducked questions about Bloomberg’s cash.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJei1G5_Lyg

      Bloomberg thinks he can buy gun laws in the PNW, but he’s in for a real surprise.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        I sure hope so. I want to move back home someday and not arrive to be an instant felon with scary black rifles and uber high capacity magazine clips.

  9. avatar WayneMHK says:

    She’s right. I’m much more likely to need to defend myself in a densely populated city than in rural Utah. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to carry in Utah. Oh, wait………

  10. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Hmm… I could be wrong but I seem to recall comments here from “2A but” types saying basically the same thing (between states and urban/rural within a state).

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m a firm believer in those differences. When I feel no potential threat, I may even decide not to carry that day. But how does that difference concern anybody else? It’s not your business, lady!

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        Individual risk assessment is a whole different animal than infringement by government. My post was bringing up so-called pro-2A commentators making the statement that government infringement is okay, usually in reference to open carry, based upon the same claim she made.

  11. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Elizabeth, Elizabeth…did your previous PR job at The Raben Group teach you nothing? Different “from,” not “than.” Bigger than, smaller than, but different “from.”

    After all – if we can save even one child’s grammar…

    1. avatar Tyler Kee says:

      For some reason, I imagined Michael Cain delivering that line to Elizabeth whilst wearing a pair of khakis and a suede sportcoat.

      1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

        I think Michael knows his way around a firearm, he apparently saw combat with the Royal Fusiliers in Korea, doing a couple of years of compulsory service in the British Army.

  12. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    This is why the founders of the country had the wisdom to write two constitutions, one for rural folk and another for city slickers.

    1. avatar JJ48 says:

      The Urban Aristocrat Second Amendment is as follows:

      A well regulated ego, being necessary to the superiority of elitists, the right of the people to keep and bear inflated opinions of themselves, shall not be infringed.

      1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

        and, we have a winner!

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        +10 internets for you sir.

      3. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

        Don’t be ridiculous. Their egos are not regulated, they’re unbounded.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      +10,000

  13. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    For what possible reason would one need Second Amendment guaranteed arms in a populated city? Gangs only attack you, muggers and rapists only attack you, mentally unsound people only attack you, out of cities, especially in remote rural areas, everyone knows that.

    For a similar reason, we do not need First Amendment guarantees in populated cities. There is no reason we need them there, like we need them in remote rural areas, everyone knows that. Since that is true, arrest Senator Harry Reid for slander for almost all he says while in the Senate chamber in the big populated city of Washington, D.C.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Besides, if you are allowed to run off at the mouth in cities, it might attract the attention of the gangs and muggers and rapists, seriously endangering you. So to protect you, we will enforce your silence with heavy fines and jail time.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        …. FROM MY COLD DEAD LIPS! hehe.

  14. avatar neiowa says:

    Bloomberg – Aljazeera. Sounds about right.

    Who at NRA decided an interview with these jokers was a good idea?

  15. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I live in rural North Texas, but frequently travel to and work in Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston. All three of those cities are on the list of the top 10 most populated cities in the US.

    Why should the “requirements” to carry changed based on the city or state you inhabit?

    I live in the county, but carry in city, nothing about me rightly changed except my physical location.

    I’m no more or less competent, or incompetent, based on my physical location.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Did you check your criminal history? Maybe that’s what changes. For instance if you travel led to New York City or Washington DC with your concealed weapon you’d be a felon. Maybe it works that way in other cities too.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Merely having male genitals make you a felon in those places.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Ah yes, I believe federal law protects your right to drive through those jurisdictions with your testicles locked in a case in the trunk as long as you don’t stop for any reason. But walking around carrying them in a concealed manner (or open for that matter) will definitely get you in big trouble.

        2. avatar peirsonb says:

          Is there an exemption for married men that are required to keep them in their wife’s purse at all times?

        3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Well, of course your wife can carry your balls, don’t be ridiculous.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          As long as the purse is locked in the trunk. Might just be a misdemeanor if they find them though.

        5. avatar BDub says:

          @ piersonb Wait, I thought we all decided that purse-carry was a no-no?

        6. avatar peirsonb says:

          I agree, but I’m pretty sure in this case her carrying on her person would be a illegal in most jurisdictions….

  16. avatar Buckeyecopperhead says:

    But, but, but…I thought all people were the SAME! That’s what the progs have been telling us for decades.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      All people are the same. Just some people are more the same than others.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Come on, man, don’t you get it? We’re all identical, unique, special snowflakes who are exactly the same and completely different. How is that confusing?

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        They haven’t yet figured out how to map an orthogonal paradigm onto a fractal reality.

        1. avatar BluesMike says:

          You win 1.61803398875 internets for that one!!!

  17. avatar SAS 2008 says:

    From the linked article:

    But Malte countered that such “reciprocity” could ultimately leave states “powerless” to stop even violent individuals who cross the state line with weapons.

    I am trying to figure out which states allow violent individuals to get a concealed carry permit and how states are currently stopping violent individuals from crossing states lines with weapons.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Don’t try to figure it out, man. Just let the progressive statist lies wash over you.

      Thinking is for individuals; everyone else lets the government think for them.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Ask DiFi, as this was here objection to national reciprocity., the other being that training requirements vary from state to state–which they do. but so do training requirements fro driver’s licenses, but there is national reciprocity for those…

  18. avatar Don says:

    So she’s saying city people are dumber and more volatile than rural people? Or maybe she’s unconsciously a racist?

    It seems Bloomberg is transparently rounding up every skinny white rich ruling-class PR/advertising woman in the country. Yet not one of them noticed that something like “Moms Demand Action” by its very name represents their insidious paternalistic world view.

  19. avatar Stinkeye says:

    Oddly enough, though, the Second Amendment is the same everywhere. It still says “shall not be infringed”, whether you’re reading it in a high-rise apartment tower in Chicago or a tin shack in the desert.

  20. avatar Robert Keeton says:

    Ms. Ulmer has a point. Reciprocity for carry among all the states would be wrong. That would be like the various states recognizing a drivers license and allowing a sixteen year old child to operate a motor vehicle in any city in any state in this country without supervision. That could and should never happen.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Even if that 16 year old child is violent!

  21. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    There shouldn’t be different standards because there should not be any barriers to the individual right to carry. Anytime someone tools up the are taking responsibility for themselves. It doesn’t matter if your in rural or in an urban setting, a law abiding person or a criminal, you are still responsible for every bullet that leaves yourgun.

  22. avatar Greg says:

    I don’t know if they have ever said something so correct. Here in Utah I could walk around with clothes made of money and still be less likely to be robbed or murdered than spending just one day in some of her “densely populated cities”.

  23. avatar Larry says:

    Kind a funny, to get my NYS permit, took filling out some forms and well a long wait. Zero classes or training to take,never had to renew it,although the safe act changed that but the system is not in place yet,good for life. My family all has one as well as most co workers ,neighbors and so on.

    To get my Utah one I had to take a class….

  24. avatar Fuque says:

    They recruiting Special Ed, compulsory school, dropouts now?

  25. avatar KMc says:

    Man, talk about dense…..

  26. avatar One If By Land says:

    We don’t need special legislation, it already exists: Article IV, Section 1 US Constitution: (full faith and credit) as well as the 14th Amendmenet (equal protection)….our brilliant founding fathers already factored this into the law of the land, all we need to do is follow it, and by way of an amendment, we’ve ensured these protections were extended to everyone equally.

    As for the differing laws, just like anything else, you need to abide by the laws in the jurisdiction you are in…..driving is no different, nor is fishing, hunting etc…..you’re responsible for abiding by local laws. Period.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I agree with you to a point. However, driving requires and fishing often requires licenses and permits respectively. The Constitution handles government regulation of the right to keep and bear arms thusly, shall not be infringed.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yes but it is infringed.

        I’ll be happy to start with less infringement (by giving gun carry permits the same full faith and credit) and then move incrementally from there. Take a page from their manual.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I would be inclined to agree with you if I didn’t think that people are more likely to become complacent with the privilege and forget the right. We’ve already seen that in Ohio. If rights are replaced by mere privileges then the antis have won.

          In brief, if I thought that the end result would be restoration of the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, I’d be on on board. But I don’t so I’m not.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Driving and fishing licenses are arguably justifiable as a means of minimizing damage to ‘the commons‘, but the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms stands alone, and is supposed to be inviolable, i.e., “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Ohio does something interestingly similar with the RKBA as it did with the right to travel. (Not, of course, that I agree with it… merely posting an observation.) In Ohio, there are very few places that I cannot travel on foot, horseback, or slower motorized device; no license required in most cases — the true right to travel. Controlled access highways, of course, are off limits. However, with few exceptions, I can get to the same destination by alternate routes. Likewise with the right to keep and bear arms. One can open carry without license — the right to bear arms. When government is successful at shaving off part of the exercise of a right by requiring a license, it will continue to expand that exploitation as far as possible over time. If enough resistance is met, an alternative way to exercise the right without further government permission is left open so as to appear to not be infringing upon rights. It’s pretty sneaky.

  27. avatar Maineuh says:

    The only people affected by this debate are the people earnestly interested in following the rules. I have my CCW here, I’d like to have it over there, too. The people who DON’T follow the rules don’t give a shit about reciprocity or universal this and that. If I was coming to your city to raise hell, I wouldn’t give a damn what was legal and what wasn’t. It’s that giant but overlooked fact that renders all this posturing completely meaningless.

  28. avatar One If By Land says:

    ….and one other thing….governments, including states (IMHO) do not have “rights” they only have power and authority (granted to them by THE PEOPLE)…..I get the sentiment with “states rights” but, rights are reserved for people….hence the (forgotten) 10th Amendment only references “powers” and makes no reference to “rights”.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That’s an important distinction.

  29. avatar craig says:

    So If i check the crime statistics for Utah, they will be ZERO?????

  30. avatar E White says:

    For all the know-it-all’s about our fair state us Mormons and the salt at least have a state were we can carry without having to deal with idiots and cowards who spit bullshiz and hide behind their hired guns. We have legislatures who believe in supporting and defending the constitution rather then try and change it. I for one am glad to live in the Brady Campaigns worst state for gun control. I carry everywhere and know that my family will be safe.

    The problem is the densely populated areas are leading to more and more subversives being born to destroy the constitution of the United States. We need to seriously hold some birth control for liberals movements and or remove them to Rikers Island were they can live gun free in their 4 x 8 foot cell.

  31. avatar dh34 says:

    Okay…who let the associate have access to the Twitter account?

    Thanks for your input Lizzy, now go back to your desk and color.

    1. avatar 7.62x54r says:

      In my closet there is at least one pair of boots and one pair of wingtips that are older than she is. Christopher Columbus!! the AMMO for my Mosin is older than she is. Maybe we can pitch in for a Trailways ticket from DC to Omaha. She should be at least 30 by the end of the trip and a little more mature.

  32. avatar BDub says:

    Bwahahaa! Man, if they have said crap like that all the time, they could have their own cable tv stand-up comedy channel. Do they even listen to themselves?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      No. Obviously.

  33. avatar Anon in CT says:

    I used to sort of agree with this reasoning, even if not with the draconian restrictions in places like NYC. Unfortunately, statist lefties have taken this diversity and exploited the sh*t out of it to the point where I’ve changed my mind. Also, most of the people I wouldn’t want to have guns can’t pass an NICS check anyway, so they are probably already carrying illegally.

    I still don’t think open carry on the NY Subway would be a good idea. I’d want a very retentive retention holster, or better yet a shoulder rig.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      And the problem with that view can be found in the first part of the Second Amendment; A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. When we allow government to “interpret” shall not be infringed then the fox is guarding the hen house. This is one of those situations where there cannot be a middle ground. The right to keep and bear arms is so necessary to a free state that it cannot be infringed.

      Allow one little government infringement and it won’t stop. Governments have proven that throughout history. The nature of government does not change.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I wish there were some effective way to get people to understand that “free State” doesn’t mean some geopolitical entity that has carte blanche to do whatever its rulers want, it means a state (as in condition, or state of being) of Freedom.

        The same meaning applies in Article 2, section 3, about the State of the Union, e.g., “The state of the Union today is one of Liberty for All.”

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I always took it as both, in a sense. The free state of the individual depends on a free State whenever a government is installed. Of course, without government the individual is in the most free state. Necessary to the security of a free state seemed to mean, to me anyway, both necessary to individual freedom (where government was involved) and necessary to a free nation (as opposed to tyranny and invaded by foreign armies). Am I missing your point or are we pretty much walking the same path?

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Well, the way I understand it is, when a bunch of people want to live together, they set up a committee to manage all the stuff that has to be done in common, like roads and sewers, and some police to catch thieves and murderers and punish them, and a means to call up and regulate the militia if the country were attacked militarily.

          Well, the government has diverged so far from that that they have become the enemy that they were supposed to be protecting us from. And just these days, when everybody in the whole bloody world has a cell phone, it makes you wonder, who is going to attack us? No military will, because “a gun behind every blade of grass.” So some Communist who wants to conquer us would have to conquer the government and turn it against us.

          Wait. What?

  34. avatar bontai Joe says:

    So she is saying that we have different levels of rights, depending on where we are? I can peacefully assemble with 25 people in place “A” but only with 4 people in place “B”? I have the freedom to worship in the church of my choice as long as it’s on the other side of the river? I can sit in front of the bus as long at I’m north of the border? I am secure from illegal searches as long as I’m in the designated areas? Seems to me that all this was settled long ago, and many times over in a way that this woman apparently can’t or won’t understand. My head hurts, MY HEAD HURTS!!!!! ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH…….

  35. avatar Dave357 says:

    She is right, there’s more crime and an even greater need to carry in densely populated cities.

  36. avatar Ardent says:

    Do I read this right that she suggests that those places with the highest rate of crime are the places where one should be most restricted in the means by which to defend oneself? It’s difficult to imagine whether she’s actually that stupid, or duplicitous, or so inculcated in the bizarre fantasies of the anti’s that she doesn’t recognize the incongruous and illogical implication of her statement.

    It’s as if one railed against the positioning of fire extinguishers near places where fire was likely to breakout specifically because it was a likely place for fire.

    Having written that I think it makes an interesting line of reasoning about anti’s;
    These must be people who think that by preparing for violence, violence becomes more likely just as if preparing for fire makes fire more likely.

    Given that they have nothing against alarm systems and cameras to deal with violent crime and presumably nothing against smoke detectors to deal with fire, might they be counter fire extinguisher since being anti gun they presumably don’t think anyone should take direct and immediate action to deal with potentially life threatening situations?

    Given that both smoke detectors and burglary alarms summon authorities, could it be that they think only firefighters ought ever take direct action against fire and only police ought ever take direct action against violence? There are strong arguments that this is the case but one must wonder, why?

    Is it because they feel inadequate to face either threat and thus extrapolate that no one ought to face either unless they are designated as the person who does so? This requires an ability to span a logical gap without noticing it; that is, that presumably police and firefighters are from and of the same pool as other citizens and are not especially remarkable other than their employment. Also, there are police who espouse these same odd ideals and thus it cannot be a machination designed to shield one from acceptance of individual cowardice, making the position even less likely.

    Perhaps it is that antis don’t believe that anyone ought to take any action which they are not sanctioned and designated to take by the government. That no matter how simple, obvious or necessary an action is, that no one not specifically directed by the government should take it.

    I’m reminded here of union rules that say one employee cannot take an action reserved to another no matter how simple or necessary the action is and how leftists and unionists have forever been close fellows.

    Arguments for unions notwithstanding, what could lead a person to reasonably assert that necessary and simple action, in fact lifesaving action, not be taken by any person who feels up to it and recognizes the need unless they are specifically appointed to that action by government?

    I can only speculate, but it’s my suspicion that this comes from fear since most unreasonable and unreasoning reactions and arguments do. What is it that they are afraid of though? Is it simple hoplophobia? If that were the case then why the support of armed police?

    I think it’s much broader than hoplophobia. I think it’s a clinical level psychological issue revolving around control, or more specifically lack thereof. In being highly restricted themselves, likely as children, as to what actions were acceptable, and the resulting feelings of dis-empowerment and fear of individual initiative they are able, or compelled, to develop a framework in which any action not specifically authorized by an authority is inherently bad and cannot produce beneficial outcomes.

    This explains why they can’t accept the statistical fact that firearms produce more good than harm and why they are wedded to statist concepts of control. Many mentally ill people are to a degree aware of their aberrant thoughts and often seek to normalize. Normalization for this type of person could include attempting to convince others that they ought not to take any action that has not been cleared by an accepted authority.

    I don’t think that this sort of anti is afraid of guns generally or being shot in particular, rather, their distress comes from the idea that a person might perform an action that hasn’t been appropriately sanctioned because within their disorder all unsanctioned actions must have dire consequences. It may be that when this type of disorder manifests that some sufferers focus on self-defense use of firearms but I suspect that other examples could be found.

    To this type of person, comfort is found within systems that do not allow for deviation from established rules even when these rules are arbitrary, contrived, ineffective or even destructive. It’s not the product of following the rules that is important but rather the following of the rules in itself. That is the process is where their value lies and the actual outcomes are of less value.
    I can’t help but draw a comparison with religion here, that is; slavish devotion to an arbitrary system of rules regardless of the value of outcomes. Given how widespread such concepts are, there must be some artifact of human development that leaves us with not only the ready ability but even a desire to adhere to rules regardless of their value or utility.

    Perhaps the biggest difference between fanatical anti’s and pros regarding anything is the specific focus of their disorder and all share the same disorder.

    That leaves the few of us who are unencumbered and who value logic and reason above all else to actually debate value and utility while the rest shout empty epithets at one another, all borne along by their intrinsic traits born only of instinct and lacking anything in the way of reasoned though.

    I’ve managed to lower my opinion of humanity by a notch on this odyssey; I hope I haven’t damaged yours.

    1. avatar Wendy says:

      On control of our fellow humans being at the root of Bloomberg’s crusade: Probably not many here read or watch Al Jazeera America, but AJA had an excellent piece the other day: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/4/bloomberg-gun-controlnypdincarceration.html I commend it to your reading.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I gave up watching AJ after it became AJA. If they actually aired an excellent segment, I’m certain that Management will take the necessary steps to ensure it never happens again. AJ turned into NBC when it opened up in DC. Should have stayed in Doha.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        That’s a good article. Thanks for sharing it.

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      ” It’s difficult to imagine whether she’s actually that stupid, or duplicitous, or so inculcated in the bizarre fantasies of the anti’s”

      A mixture of the second and third, I think. I refuse to accept that she’s that stupid.

  37. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    OK, folks, I have a serious question:

    We’ve now seen four mouthpieces from the MDA group spout some of the most illogical, ill-informed pablum we’ve recently seen in American political discourse, and with John Kerry as SecState and Joe Biden as VP, we can all agree that the bar for “most illogical and ill-informed” statements has been raised pretty darn high.

    At what point in this campaign of nonsense will we have enough evidence to start a movement to repeal the 19th Amendment?

    1. avatar JR says:

      I always thought Heinlein’s idea in “Starship Troopers” was interesting.

      In that story, only combat veterans gain citizenship and thus the right to vote.

      I also think that someone should be able to demonstrate basic knowledge of what the Framers were doing when they wrote the Constitution to participate in our system of government.

      That does not mean that they AGREE with it or hold any particular ideology in the modern age (ie, not necessarily be a Constitutionalist), but that they at least know WHAT IS WRITTEN and why it was written that way.

      Perhaps the Federalist Papers should be required reading as well.

      It’s weird to think about, though. On the one hand, voting is such a tremendous responsibility that it angers me how people take it lightly and from positions of willful ignorance about the government they are participating in. On the other hand, it could be very easily abused by power-mongers when we start putting litmus tests on voting rights. As we are seeing now, unfortunately.

      Arrrrggggh.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Your recollection of Starship Troopers is not *quite* correct. You had to do a two year term of service at whatever the government assigned you to. That could have involved being in the military or not (he mentioned possibly being sent to help terraform Venus as something that 4F volunteers might end up doing). In the military you might or might not have to fight–though it seemed clear that in the book, there was always some sort of brush war flaring up somewhere.

        Nevertheless the larger point remains: Heinlein wanted to give the vote to people who had earned it somehow, rather than just “You’re 18 and your breath can fog a mirror, here’s your ballot.”

        1. avatar JR says:

          “Your recollection of Starship Troopers is not *quite* correct. “

          That’s not surprising considering it has been years since I read it and I’ve only read it once.

          Thanks for the correction. I guess I remembered the “gist” more than the specifics, but the details matter, too.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I’ve read it several times, probably four or five years ago most recently. My copy is falling apart.

          [And by the way (for any others reading this) the movie was just awful and, to the extent it talked about the issues raised on the book, caricatured them. I cannot urge you enough to read the book especially if you did see the movie and thought it was awful.]

          RAH wrote an essay (page 397 of the paperback version of “Expanded Universe,” which I imagine would be impossible to find today except for Amazon) wherein he takes on many of the criticisms routinely made against the book. Most of them (as might be expected) are simply made by people who can’t or won’t understand simple declarative English sentences, such as the claim that Troopers endorses the draft. (It clearly doesn’t, you not only have to volunteer, but you can quit at ANY time (other than in the face of the enemy) without penalty–except you don’t get to be a citizen after all and you never get to try again either. No only that the book actually argues against a draft.)

          The one “criticism” RAH didn’t disagree with was that the book glorified the military. His answer: Indeed it does, and not only that it’s the Poor Bloody Infantry he’s glorifying, deliberately.

    2. avatar Jeff says:

      I wouldn’t go far as to say women shouldn’t vote – that is way over the top. I would agree that women seem to be at the root of just about all “feel good” policies and laws in modern society, some of which are often beneficial (industrial safety standards, basic child labor laws, etc.), some of which are very damaging to American society (frequent support of communist/socialist economics and policies, gun control, leniency on prisoners and violent felons, etc.)

      Ironically, if you asked my wife, she would say without hesitation that most women are too stupid to vote – or they vote on emotion, or in ways that will punish groups of people they do not like. My wife REALLY doesn’t like what most modern American women have become, and she’s only 26.

      It’s a very touchy subject.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        I would.

        A bunch of women want to take away my rights?

        OK. Then I’m coming for theirs as well.

        Since they get all cranky when anyone “infringes” on their right to do whatever they want to their bodies, I won’t touch that issue. I’ll just tell them to stay out of politics, because, quite frankly, it is high time that we had people in politics who quit thinking about issues with their reproductive organs.

        1. avatar JR says:

          “A bunch of women want to take away my rights?

          OK. Then I’m coming for theirs as well. “

          Tit for tat in other words.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          A woman who lived in a flat
          Had triplets named Nat, Pat, and Tat
          ‘Twas fun in the breeding,
          But not in the feeding,
          Because there was no quid pro quo.

        3. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          Exactly.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Don’t you ever, EVER let this woman slip away from you, you hear me? Because the line is forming behind you as I write this!

  38. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “The standards for who can carry in one state versus another vary greatly — as they should given that carrying in Utah is a very different thing than carrying in a densely populated city.”

    OK, let me change a few words (keeping the spirit of the quote), and see if this statement is acceptable to Ms.Ulmer:

    “The standards of who should be able to marry whom, of whatever gender, vary greatly in one state versus another – because the beliefs and standards of Utah vary greatly with those in a densely populated city like New York.”

    How’s that? Will she be OK with that?

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      You could make it more Utah-specific by changing “gender of the partner” to “number of partners.”

  39. avatar Mark N. says:

    Is being a victim of a violent crime in Utah different than being the victim of a violent crime in NYC? that would be illogical. I don’t know where these people get their ideas. Or maybe they think that NYers are more violent and need to be more controlled than Utahans. Or that Nyers are “more special” and need more “protection” from guns than Utahans.

  40. avatar Dev says:

    So basically this genius just pissed off most of the country by reinforcing the “flyover state” stereotype. They sure do get the smart ones running their communication don’t they!

  41. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    The stupid is strong in this quote. While there are different settings where the firearm is carried and different threats in a rural or urban setting, that shouldn’t change the requirments to carry a concealed handgun. I think most people on here would agree that not needing a CCL would be pretty awesome.

  42. avatar Morgan Y. says:

    “The standards for who can carry in one state versus another vary greatly — as they should given that carrying in Utah is a very different thing than carrying in a densely populated city.”

    So why are you trying to regulate the standards for who can carry in every town (pun bomb) however dense and in whatever state? You even admit “…as they should… Given that carrying [is different from place to place]…” You have figuratively shot yourself in the foot whilst advocating for gun safety/control. Pun very much intended.

  43. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Does anyone else see the irony in an Associate (read Intern waiting for a NY Congressional Intern/Page job) funded by an out-of-work NYC mayor and living in DC, dissing Utah, where in all likelihood she has never been (even pre-conception)?

    1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      Well, I’m not sure where she grew up, but per her LinkedIn profile, she graduated from U. of Wisconsin-Madison. So it’s possible she may have gotten over to Utah at some point, at least on a skiing trip. Her first job out of college, in 2011, was as a Staff Assistant in the U.S. Senate, which she held for a whopping eight months. So she has at least been there and done that. In the three years since college graduation, she’s worked three different places, including this current gun grabbing gig, and averaged, well, about one year with each employer.

      I’m not condemning her on that, because Lord knows I’ve bounced around at various points in my career. The common thread in her employment is that she seems just to want to work in D.C. for liberal groups and push people around for a living. That’s condemnable.

  44. avatar Fabian Bollinger says:

    Because granting the premise that it is somehow ok to punish people for arming themselves in certain geographical places, an entity that is as big as an average country is the right level for such a decision.

    Phew, sure glad human rights apply in country and cities equally, so we don’t have to ask that question in the first place.

  45. avatar MRB says:

    The phrase “densely populated city” is code: She’s intimating that Utah’s different because it doesn’t have many black/hispanic people.

    1. avatar Jonathan -- Houston says:

      If one of us used that wording, then I could see the other side claiming it’s code with that meaning. Not that they would be accurate, just that they would claim it. In this case, I wouldn’t agree that she’s using that wording in terms of ethnicity. More likely, it’s culturally.

      I think she’s saying that out in Utah, like anywhere in what they call flyover country, they’re just a bunch of rural country bumpkins with cute little rural problems which don’t amount to much. So it’s not much of a deal for them to carry firearms. In the oh so big and sophisticated and cosmopolitan East Coast states, like New York, however, life is exponentially more complex and nuanced. Millions of people in close proximity in such a pressure cooker environment, living such fast paced lifestyles, probably shouldn’t have firearms, because they’re just another spark to an already tense powder keg. Not that I agree with that point, if that’s what she meant, just that I think that is what she meant.

      Still, I wouldn’t even agree that she has a good point, if that were her point. For starters, and enders, really, God-given rights like firearms freedom are, well, God-given rights. They’re universal and do not ebb and flow according to imaginary and arbitrary state lines. So there, Ms. Ulmer.

      Even practically speaking, New York has a state population density of about 411 people per square mile. Utah has about 34. Big disparity there. However, Florida has a population density of about 351 people per square mile. Not as high as NY state’s 411, but it’s no Utah. (U.S. as a whole is 87, by comparison.) So how does Ms. Ulmer explain the difference in NY and FL firearms laws when their respective population densities are comparable? No answer from Ms. Ulmer. Coming from the opposite direction, Utah’s 34 is fairly close to Colorado’s 49 people per square mile. Yet, Colorado has recently been the focus of greater firearms freedoms restrictions. Why, Ms. Ulmer, if your population density rationale holds true? No answer again.

      Even in terms of race, as you suggest, MRB, the numbers don’t really hold up. NY state has white-only population percentage of 66%, while FL has one of 75% (a large chunk of which I’d suspect originated from New York, by the way!). Not identical, but comparable, and not enough to justify the different in firearms laws. True, Utah has a white-only population of about 86%; but firearms freedom police states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island each have white-only populations in the 80%+ ballpark, too. Yet, grossly different firearms laws.

      Whatever the reasons for the different interpretations these states take on the plain language of the 2A, I’m not immediately convinced it’s entirely due to either their racial make-up or population densities.

  46. avatar Charles says:

    Actually, if you make the laws more uniform from one state to another, it would be much less confusing for those that travel to hunt or conduct business in other locations. What is so hard about “You are allowed to carry concealed from one state to the next as long as you have a valid concealed carry permit in your home state.” Why do people have to make things so hard that it takes a lawyer to figure it out?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Why? Because accepting the plain language reading of law would mean admitting that shall not be infringed means just that. Without the faux complexity, it’s almost impossible to subvert the Constitution. Even your suggestion of blanket reciprocity for a licensed government privilege ignores shall not be infringed in the Constitution of the United States and protection of the RKBA in the Constitution of Ohio. The most plain language reading of the 2A proves that this should be a non-issue. The government shall not infringe; no licenses, permits, background checks, nada… end of story.

      What’s so hard about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Why do people have to make things so hard that it takes a lawyer to figure it out?”

      To keep us off-balance, and facilitate their infringements.

      Speaking of laws, there is already one Supreme Law of the Land about guns: Article 2 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”

      1. avatar Charles says:

        I agree with both of you. I wish we could carry arms without being regulated, licensed and all that other crap, but it seems that there are people out there that aren’t listening, Maybe we should replace them. Easier said than done, for as soon as you get rid of one snake, you find a half dozen more, including those that say they are for the 2nd amendment until they get elected, then turn on you afterward.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          That’s why I always vote Libertarian. A Libertarian will never turn on you like that. There’s no such thing as a Libertarian politician, because politicians are liars by definition and Libertarians aren’t liars.We want the government out of our pocketbooks AND out of our bedrooms!

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Hold the line and never back down… that’s how. I won’t settle for crumbs. If we do settle for crumbs then tyranny is the inevitable result. So, we really have no other choice if we wish to remain free.

          Edited: Oh, and voting Libertarian helps tremendously.

  47. avatar rt66paul says:

    In the days of the Wild West, many more people in the Wild West had access to guns than did the denizons of the Eastern cities. No, not everyone in the west owned a firearm or even a horse. Those were both expensive to own and maintain. The people in the cities got along just fine with a knife, a hatpin, broken bottle, or a cudgel. The same could be said for the beat cops.

    Since the gun owners out west were mostly young men workers who worked hard, when they played, it meant a lot of alcohol. It is no wonder that the sheriff collected the firearms of these “players”. These guys worked all season, got paid, and then many spent all of it in 1 or 2 days on liquer and “dance hall” girls.

    When they woke up broke(they was robbed), they might want to get some of that money back. The town’s purpose was to fleece these men as well as supply the firms that employed them, hence to gun collections.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email