KS preemption bill, newspaper story comments

KS preemption bill, newspaper story comments

This is a discussion on KS preemption bill, newspaper story comments within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; For a little background: Cities in Kansas found loopholes that would allow them to prohibit carry in parks and other places. House bill 2528 passed ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: KS preemption bill, newspaper story comments

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736

    KS preemption bill, newspaper story comments

    For a little background:
    Cities in Kansas found loopholes that would allow them to prohibit carry in parks and other places.
    House bill 2528 passed by a significant majority in the house and senate, it will prohibit cities from restricting concealed carry (they still have control of open carry). The opposition to this bill claims that it infringes on "cities' rights" (just like banning Army recruiters from is about the don't ask don't tell policy).

    Here's the story from a newspaper in Kansas's most liberal city: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/ap...ks/?city_local

    I posted there (as StephenCCH) mostly in response to previous comments. Here are some of my favorite highlights:

    In response to "The founders might have had an entirely different viewpoint if they could have foreseen a time with weapons that could mow down 50 people or more in a heartbeat."
    http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm
    There were plenty of high casualty producing weapons prior to the revolution. Chemical weapons were used by the early Romans.
    Tyrants almost always forbid weapons to their subjects, whether it be firearms, bows, swords or spears. The founders understood that an armed population is able to resist tyranny (as did the tyrants).
    A heart will normally beat 70 times per minute. So an average heartbeat is less than 1 second. Less still because in situations where one might shoot others heart rates tend to rise.
    A typical fully automatic firearm (highly restricted, not the semi-autos commonly available) will fire at a rate of 800 rounds per minute. My calculations show that to approximately 15.555 rounds per heartbeat. Fully automatic fire also tends to be less accurate so that doesn't equal 15 hits. My semi-automatic weapons have considerably lower practical rates of fire. The only way I can see hitting 50 people or more in a heartbeat is if they are standing in a straight line and fired upon with a high velocity rifle and a non-deforming munition (not a likely scenario IMO).
    The Columbine high school shooting resulted in 12 deaths in a period of about an hour (roughly .0028 deaths per heartbeat)
    ....................
    The machine gun invented in 1718; da Vinci predicted the tank and helicopter; and Ben Franklin couldn't foresee more potent individual arms?
    Responding to claims that CC couldn't possibly reduce crime
    SB 418 is the "personal and family protection act". It's not the "general public protection act", it's not the "crime reduction act". Persons licensed to carry concealed do so for the purpose of protecting themselves and their family, not to be vigilante crime fighters.

    Kansas has a population of about 2 million adults (2005 census), 5,122 (about .0025%) of those have CCH permits (as of 28 Feb). Violent crimes are not frequent; Many licensed persons will never use a gun in self defense. I think it's unlikely that concealed carry can be related to any crime trends.

    Having a gun is not about making the community safer, it's about making me safer. It's not a substitute for or augment to law enforcement. In order for it to make a difference, we would need 1-2 million more Kansans licensed.

    Even though it's doesn't really effect the community at large, the right to carry has a profound effect on those who have needed it.
    They asked for an example why I would need a gun at a kids ball game, I gave them 2. One a robbery, and 2 an angry baseball team picking a fight. Theses were compared to needing a bazooka in case of Iranian tank attacks or UFO sightings and called "laughable", and of course, police recommend we comply with robbers.
    I don't see how assaults, and robberies are "laughable".

    "Comply with any robbery", this assumes mister bad guy will comply with the "etiquette" of not killing me if he gets my money. Somehow I don't trust a man who has threatened to kill me to not do so after I've given him money. A witness makes conviction a lot easier so why would a career criminal take that risk?
    If instead of my money he wants to kill me? rape my sister? kidnap my child? Am I still to comply then?
    ...........
    Yes I can make up scenarios, but these 2 (or similar events) actually happen on a daily basis. I've never heard of Iranian tanks or UFOs in Kansas from credible sources, nor would they be clearly defined threats justifying deadly force. Since mine is a concealed carry handgun license, bazookas aren't allowed.


    And my favorite, people who carry at ball games are unmanly wimps who are just compensating for something
    I am compensating for something. I'm compensating for my lack of ability to stop bullets and knives with my superman steel flesh and jedi mind powers. I'm compensating for my malfunctioning crystal ball that does not accurately predict when and where I might be assaulted. The best way I know to stop a deadly assault is with deadly force.

    I guess I'm a wimp. I don't go around picking fights, I avoid fights when I can, and I don't have enough confidence in my ninja training to kill a man at 10 paces with my bare hands. Some licensed women may not be offended by your claim that they lack manhood.
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736
    Wow! Uber bad spelling in the title.
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com

  3. #3
    Member Array kansas_plainsman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Central Kansas
    Posts
    80
    Cities in Kansas found loopholes that would allow them to prohibit carry in parks and other places
    Actually there was no loophole. The cities (with the urging of the League of Kansas Municipalities - a good-ol-boy politician club) just ignored the plain intent of the original law. They claimed that municipal governments had the same rights as private property owners. They were 'posting' open parks, parking lots, city streets, other places.

    The bill just passed makes it very clear that cities and other governmental entities within the jurisdiction of the state have no such right.

    The reason I'm picky on this point is that they may choose to ignore this new law as well.
    Clint
    Kansas - The original Old West
    Open Skies - Long Vistas

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,095
    Quote Originally Posted by kansas_plainsman View Post
    Actually there was no loophole. The cities (with the urging of the League of Kansas Municipalities - a good-ol-boy politician club) just ignored the plain intent of the original law. They claimed that municipal governments had the same rights as private property owners. They were 'posting' open parks, parking lots, city streets, other places.
    Yeah--I guess they forgot they work for "the people" and all of these posted public places belong to "the people"...these tiny tyrants need to be voted out and then physically thrown out of the office they occupy (it is not "their" office).

  5. #5
    Member Array denverd0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    388
    "The founders might have had an entirely different viewpoint if they could have foreseen a time with weapons that could mow down 50 people or more in a heartbeat."

    This is always my favorite one. So, basically, what they're saying is that our Founding Fathers where a bunch of ignorant, short-sighted cretins who were completely incapable of anticipating technological advances. Yeah, that sure sounds like a description of... oh, let's say Benjamin Franklin!

    At which point they'll usually do a little back-pedaling and try to say that they were intelligent men with foresight, but they didn't think to write it down in the Second Amendment.

    Ah! Now I understand. They weren't ignorant, they just didn't know how to write down what they REALLY wanted to say. I guess, for instance, Thomas Jefferson would be a good example of that sort of semi-literate boob, right?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array sisco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Kansas, GCK
    Posts
    616
    "The founders might have had an entirely different viewpoint if they could have foreseen a time with weapons that could mow down 50 people or more in a heartbeat."

    And if they had envisioned the electronic media of today, would they have limited the 1st amendment to quill pens and Gutenberg presses?
    I'm a child of the 60's, but I got over it.

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes View Post
    Wow! Uber bad spelling in the title.
    Fixed that for you.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Daddy Warcrimes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    736
    Still going; I'm on a roll. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll change anyone's mind. It's a diverting exercise none the less.

    Responding to "I do have a law enforcement background. Therefore I think my opinion should carry a little more weight than yours."
    I disagree that law enforcement experience gives anyone special insight to the rights of citizens.

    A study conducted of the New York City Police Department between 1987 and 1991 showed that the city paid out $44 million in claims to settle police misconduct litigation.

    In 1976, 13,400 or more lawsuits were filed against police. One in 34 officers were sued. 40% for false arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution, 27% for excessive force, 6% for misuse of firearms
    -Darrell L. Ross, "Civil Liability in Criminal Justice" 2003

    11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
    -Cramer C and Kopel D. "Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws." 1994

    “I’m the only one in this room, that I know of, professional enough to carry this Glock 40.”
    -Lee Paige, DEA, just before shooting himself
    Scott, thanks for the title correction.
    Last edited by Daddy Warcrimes; April 12th, 2007 at 02:50 AM.
    "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger"

    DaddyWarcrimes.com

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Preemption laws
    By mlr1m in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 27th, 2011, 09:44 PM
  2. Newspaper story
    By dukalmighty in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 6th, 2010, 02:25 PM
  3. Philadelphia Defies Preemption
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 15th, 2007, 01:13 AM
  4. Story Of Bill Bagwell.
    By QKShooter in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 20th, 2006, 01:28 PM