Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    I posted this before, but Sa45auto(who's new hobby is apparently following me around and posting trolling comments in response to mine) was able to successfully derail the thread, so I'm giving it a second shot. :?

    --

    I'm always amazed at how bad "red states" are with their gun laws. Texas doesn't allow open carry. Alabama is "may issue."

    But the state that never ceases to amaze me is NEBRASKA! It's a rural state isn't it? It's a red state. Yet, two of its cities require gun REGISTRATION (and it's the only state besides Illinois that has no state preemption). If you look at a map of gun laws, you can almost guarantee that Nebraska will be on the wrong side of the issue (no emergency powers legislation, no castle doctrine). And as I recall, they just got shall issue permits about a year ago.

    So my question is this, why do you think it is that conservative states with high populations of gun owners have such horrible gun laws?

    I have a few theories. I think that people in those states may feel too secure in their rights and don't feel threatened because, "hey, it's Alabama! My state senator goes duck hunting with my cousin Billy Bob on the third weekend of every leap year!" Plus, the police are mostly fair about giving permits so there's no apparent problem. I also wonder how easy it is for a black or hispanic man to get a permit in Alabama and whether or not the desire by some to keep blacks disarmed prevents them from changing their law toshall issue (remember, the first gun control laws were in the South and they made it a crimefor blacks to own guns. Sherrifs would often do house to house searches to make sure black people were not armed).

    Anyway, just some thoughts.

    Oh, and for those of you who don't have a good state gun rights organization, you need to start one. The Virginia Citizens Defense League has been invaluable in getting good gun laws in Virginia. There are also good organizations in Iowa, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, with one starting up in Texas too. The NRA can't even begin to do what a good, organized, motivated group of people - doing their own thing without directions from some boss- can do for a state.




  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    I think you're right in your theory. In my experience/opinion many conservatives, especially in these rural areas are fairly close minded. I grew up in Pennsylvania and moved to Wyoming at 16 with my parents. The racial ignorance and intolerance blows my mind. There is very low crime out here, and I've never met a black man in Wyoming who was anything less than pleasant. (As a matter of fact, the first time a saw someone OC in Wyoming was very tall black man. Seeing a black person here is rare enough, but this guy was really drawing attention. I remember liking the idea, and thinking, "Nobody's going to mess with him!" but this was long before I considered OCing myself. I think I was 17 and my parents were almost anti. I credit my uncle with teaching me respect rather than fear of guns. I hate to think what my outlook on guns might have been without him.)

    Anyway, I think criminals, (at least in Wyoming), are viewed as either addicts or whatever criminals look like in movies. And since there is such little crime here, people don't see the need. Its the same old backwards thinking of "People who carry guns are criminals". My number one argument from someone who doesn't want me to carry is "Its WYOMING! You don't need a gun."

    Imagine being the congressman who gets in front of the state house and his delegates, (most of whom have this thought process), and saying, "Openly carrying a gun should be legal!"

    Thats not going to get him more votes at reelection, (in general), and his peers will think he's a nut.

    If the law has always been there, it would be hard to get rid of it. Saying "No one should be allowed to open carry" would have the same effect. But if an open carry law was never established, creating one now would be difficult.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?



    Well lets see if that is true?



    Alaska,is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Arizona, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Arkansas, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Colorado, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Florida, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Georgia, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Idaho, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Indiana, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Kansas, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Kentucky, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Mississippi, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Missouri, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Montana, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Nevada, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    New Mexico, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    North Dakota, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Oklahoma, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    South Dakota, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Tennessee, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Utah, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Virginia, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Wyoming, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.



    Yea I must admit, I have been to every state I listed and I guess you are right. :what:



    Not.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    Sa45auto wrote:
    Why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?

    ¬*

    Well lets see if that is true?

    ¬*

    Alaska,¬*is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Arizona, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Arkansas, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Colorado, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Florida, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Georgia, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Idaho, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Indiana, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Kansas, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Kentucky, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Mississippi, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Missouri, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Montana, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Nevada, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    New Mexico, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    North Dakota, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Oklahoma, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    South Dakota, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Tennessee, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Utah, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Virginia, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Wyoming, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    ¬*

    Yea I must admit, I have been to every state I listed and I guess you are right. :what:

    ¬*

    Not.
    Man, you've got some serious problems with your posting. Can you not just grow up enough to try to get what he's talking about and be part of this online community without hair-splitting? You made the same kind of stupid remark on one of my threads. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, just don't bother! At least try to further the thread rather than try to tear apart the wording in the title.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    I could also turn this on you and split hairs with you that North Dakota has some pretty dumb gun laws. I'm sure some of the others you listed do to, but I'm not going to do research just to argue with you about a pointless topic. Instead, I can see the point you are trying to make with the list, and address that.

    You should try it sometime.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Quibbling with the premises;

    WI is "blue" only for the overwhelming influence of Milwaukee and Madison. WI is anti-gun only due to the thumb on the scales of justice of the judiciary and its case law. Case law has contradicted the very words of the associated statute.

    Which is to say, Red rural WI has horrible gun laws for the influence of the population centers struggling and failing to contain their (immigrant) illegals and (criminal) illegal population.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Manka Cat wrote:
    I think you're right in your theory. In my experience/opinion many conservatives, especially in these rural areas are fairly close minded. I grew up in Pennsylvania and moved to Wyoming at 16 with my parents. The racial ignorance and intolerance blows my mind. There is very low crime out here, and I've never met a black man in Wyoming who was anything less than pleasant. (As a matter of fact, the first time a saw someone OC in Wyoming was very tall black man. Seeing a black person here is rare enough, but this guy was really drawing attention. I remember liking the idea, and thinking, "Nobody's going to mess with him!" but this was long before I considered OCing myself. I think I was 17 and my parents were almost anti. I credit my uncle with teaching me respect rather than fear of guns. I hate to think what my outlook on guns might have been without him.)

    Anyway, I think criminals, (at least in Wyoming), are viewed as either addicts or whatever criminals look like in movies. And since there is such little crime here, people don't see the need. Its the same old backwards thinking of "People who carry guns are criminals". My number one argument from someone who doesn't want me to carry is "Its WYOMING! You don't need a gun."

    Imagine being the congressman who gets in front of the state house and his delegates, (most of whom have this thought process), and saying, "Openly carrying a gun should be legal!"

    Thats not going to get him more votes at reelection, (in general), and his peers will think he's a nut.

    If the law has always been there, it would be hard to get rid of it. Saying "No one should be allowed to open carry" would have the same effect. But if an open carry law was never established, creating one now would be difficult.
    That's interesting. So the lack of crime is almost a deterrent to passing good gun laws? That probably wouldn't apply to TX and AL though. Regarding Wyoming, I was amazed at the pushback recently to a Castle Doctrine bill there among Republicans. it's really odd.

    Regarding the troll, let's try to make sure he doesn't ruin this thread like he did the other one.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Sa45auto wrote:
    Why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?

    Florida, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Kansas, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    North Dakota, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Oklahoma, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    What constitutes "great" gun laws to you? And what exactly is "rural" to you? All states have "rural" areas but some of the states you mentioned have major cities that dominate the politics of the land.

    You can't even OC in Florida and Oklahoma, so I wouldn't say they are "great". Plus, Oklahoma has a bunch of strange off-limits carry locations as does North Dakota. Kansas doesn't evenhave full state preemption and has a load of local ordinances and OC is "iffy" in many areas. I wouldn't call that great either.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    52

    Post imported post

    ama-gi, sorry to use your thread to argue. I read your first posting on this topic, and got mad at this guy.

    The world is becoming more and more controlled in the sense of a "Big Brother" scenario. Its getting impossible to know what people in power believe in because they can't tell you since that will cost them votes. The world is also getting more and more anti-gun, anti-true freedom, and anti-individual liberty. People promote being free to be gay, use drugs, etc. But the same people won't defend the rights sewn right into our Constitution. Either you're for freedom or you're not. You don't get to choose which freedoms support your life-style, and tell everyone else they can't do what you don't.

    Hypocrisy is reaching some all time highs. Ignorance is fueling it.

    The Government needs to get out of my home, and the anti's need to get out of my life. I won't tell you what you can and can't unless your my kid or breaking the law. I expect the same.

    My point, I guess, is that the further down this path the nation goes, the harder true freedom giving laws will be implemented. I don't even like that wording. No one has the right to "give me" freedom. But I think you know what I am saying.

    Introducing better gun laws in these states will not get easier. And it gets harder every day.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    I posted this before, but Sa45auto (who's new hobby is apparently following me around and posting trolling comments in response to mine) was able to successfully derail the thread, so I'm giving it a second shot. :?

    --

    I'm always amazed at how bad "red states" are with their gun laws. Texas doesn't allow open carry. Alabama is "may issue."

    But the state that never ceases to amaze me is NEBRASKA! It's a rural state isn't it? It's a red state. Yet, two of its cities require gun REGISTRATION (and it's the only state besides Illinois that has no state preemption). If you look at a map of gun laws, you can almost guarantee that Nebraska will be on the wrong side of the issue (no emergency powers legislation, no castle doctrine). And as I recall, they just got shall issue permits about a year ago.

    So my question is this, why do you think it is that conservative states with high populations of gun owners have such horrible gun laws?

    I have a few theories. I think that people in those states may feel too secure in their rights and don't feel threatened because, "hey, it's Alabama! My state senator goes duck hunting with my cousin Billy Bob on the third weekend of every leap year!" Plus, the police are mostly fair about giving permits so there's no apparent problem. I also wonder how easy it is for a black or hispanic man to get a permit in Alabama and whether or not the desire by some to keep blacks disarmed prevents them from changing their law toshall issue (remember, the first gun control laws were in the South and they made it a crimefor blacks to own guns. Sherrifs would often do house to house searches to make sure black people were not armed).

    Anyway, just some thoughts.

    Oh, and for those of you who don't have a good state gun rights organization, you need to start one. The Virginia Citizens Defense League has been invaluable in getting good gun laws in Virginia. There are also good organizations in Iowa, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, with one starting up in Texas too. The NRA can't even begin to do what a good, organized, motivated group of people - doing their own thing without directions from some boss- can do for a state.


    All I can add (and this is all just personal opinion) is that in most of the states in question, they are big-time farming states.Farm subsidies and other hand-outs,most notably to the Indian reservations, ect.. have "bought" votes for local represenatives forLiberal democrats for many years now.Many of these "red" states are red in the general elections but many have democrat dominated legislators and governors. This may explain why some of the so-called "red" states may lean to the left on some gun issues and other conservative concerns. How else could a place like North Dakota elect democrats regularly but still vote conservative in the general election and hold some strange gun laws on the books?
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I think you are backwards in the OP excepting the examples you give and admittedly a few other problems. Going to the NRA-ILA page you linked and clicking on 2006 right to carry map, I find that the 10 very most restricted, few rights or no rights are several NE states, HI, CA, IL, and WI, all I believe being traditional blue states. If you start looking at reciprocity maps between various states from a site such as hungunlaws.us, you again find that the most restrictive states (with a few exceptions) are blue states, with a few noted dissenters. Most red states with little reciprocity such as WY, are gold star OC states which balances. Open carry gets a little more confusing and less defined.

    As to why this happens? Well, for most of the midwest states, there are 1-2 very large, very blue cities that balance out with the rest of the state, mostly red, for votes. IL though, for example has no balance. Chicago metro area dominates the state in population and therefore in the number of senators and reps and it can out vote the entire rest of the state. Add to that that there are 2 key "red regions" down state to boost things and you end up with the blue staters in the NW and central areas having no voice in the gov't. We have been trying to get OC preemption passed in MO for years, but the same group of legislators from very red St. Louis and KC metro areas continue to sink it, barely. That's the same reason it took so long to get CC in MO.

    When midwest states go red, it tends to be by very slight margins of rural over urban votes. That is the issue in NE from what I understand. The 2 cities you reference are very liberal, very blue and the red remainder of the state just squeeks out victories on certain issues. I am not familiar with the politics of AL at all to comment on that issue.

    So really, I think what we see is more an issue of rural vs urban rather than state v state or blue v red. Rural areas tend to have people who are self-sufficient, independent, take care of themselves and pull themselves up by their boot straps kind of people. Large urban areas tend to be full of rude people with little common sense and a huge "whine gland" at the base of their vocal chords that makes most everything that comes out of their mouths sound like "you owe me" and "for the children". The rural peoples want to be left the hell alone to take care of themselves including self-defense with their own firearm. The urban dwellers want somebody else to do most things for them while they go off to the new art gallery opening and flirt with homosexual themes in modern art. :P

    Seriously though, I really do think that is where the key to your question lies, in the city v rural population distributions within regions or individual states.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    --

    I'm always amazed at how bad "red states" are with their gun laws. Texas doesn't allow open carry. Alabama is "may issue."
    You might want to look a bit further than just red vs blue. There are plenty of democrat States that are not very socially liberal. Similarly, any number of republican voting States are really not very conservative. Of course, you'll need to look beyond gun laws to get a feel for this, though gun laws are one portion.

    Beyond that, also look at which States have long histories of discriminitory carry and then shifted to shall issue, compared to which States had no permits and instituted shall issue from the get go. GENERALLY speaking, States with disciminatory permits tend to have pretty good carry laws. If they can move from discriminatory to shall issue, they often don't change WHERE guns can be carried, only WHO can carry. In contrast, States that had no permits and adopted shall issue as their first (modern) venture into allowing people to carry guns often feel a need to impose more limits on where and how guns can be carried.

    I will also point out that the percentage of red, rural States with really bad laws is lower than the percentage of blue urban States with really bad laws. And this is a process. It has only been about 30 years since Florida paved the way with shall issue permits. Utah has had shall issue for about 12 years. Some States simply haven't gotten better laws passed yet. While entirely relevent to this subject, I do note that the true political meaning of "conservative" is one reluctant to accept change. And there is a LOT of interia on gun control in this country. In modern times it gets serious around the time of Reconstruction and is in really bad shape during the anti-gun/anti-war/peace movement of the anti-vietnam days of the 60s and 70s.

    So you may well be asking the wrong question. I expect it has less to do with why some red rural States have bad gun laws, and a lot more to do with why some red rural States have not moved faster on the subject.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Beyond that, also look at which States have long histories of discriminitory carry and then shifted to shall issue, compared to which States had no permits and instituted shall issue from the get go. GENERALLY speaking, States with disciminatory permits tend to have pretty good carry laws. If they can move from discriminatory to shall issue, they often don't change WHERE guns can be carried, only WHO can carry. In contrast, States that had no permits and adopted shall issue as their first (modern) venture into allowing people to carry guns often feel a need to impose more limits on where and how guns can be carried.
    Excellent observations, sir!

    We need to break out of our complacency.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    All I can add (and this is all just personal opinion) is that in most of the states in question, they are big-time farming states.Farm subsidies and other hand-outs,most notably to the Indian reservations, ect.. have "bought" votes for local represenatives forLiberal democrats for many years now.Many of these "red" states are red in the general elections but many have democrat dominated legislators and governors. This may explain why some of the so-called "red" states may lean to the left on some gun issues and other conservative concerns. How else could a place like North Dakota elect democrats regularly but still vote conservative in the general election and hold some strange gun laws on the books?
    Some great points there and more of the puzzle, IMO.

    ETA: Utahbagpiper: Also great points.

    Only it has only been 20 years since FL startd the CC wagon rolling which is only a generation. Gun laws restricted slowly for some 50 years from the 20s to the mid 70s, kinda stagnated for about a decade and then the pendulum started swinging the other way following FL's 87 CC law. If we keep fighting I think the pendulum may keep swinging in the direction of 2A freedoms, barring a stupid decision from SCOTUS in Heller.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Only it has only been 20 years since FL startd the CC wagon rolling which is only a generation. Gun laws restricted slowly for some 50 years from the 20s to the mid 70s, kinda stagnated for about a decade and then the pendulum started swinging the other way following FL's 87 CC law. If we keep fighting I think the pendulum may keep swinging in the direction of 2A freedoms, barring a stupid decision from SCOTUS in Heller.
    This is true. and exactly why I hate statements that seem to lump red states or blue states or rural states or western states into a group.



    You really need to look at each state, its history and demographics so that you can truly understand why anomaliesdo exist in otherwise conservative states.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Quibbling with the premises;

    WI is "blue" only for the overwhelming influence of Milwaukee and Madison. WI is anti-gun only due to the thumb on the scales of justice of the judiciary and its case law. Case law has contradicted the very words of the associated statute.

    Which is to say, Red rural WI has horrible gun laws for the influence of the population centers struggling and failing to contain their (immigrant) illegals and (criminal) illegal population.
    Exactly !

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Sa45auto wrote:
    Why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?

    Florida, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Kansas, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    North Dakota, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    Oklahoma, is a rural, conservative state with lots of gun owners and great gun laws.

    What constitutes "great" gun laws to you? And what exactly is "rural" to you? All states have "rural" areas but some of the states you mentioned have major cities that dominate the politics of the land.

    You can't even OC in Florida and Oklahoma, so I wouldn't say they are "great". Plus, Oklahoma has a bunch of strange off-limits carry locations as does North Dakota. Kansas doesn't evenhave full state preemption and has a load of local ordinances and OC is "iffy" in many areas. I would call that great either.
    Good now you are thinking.



    Florida is great because they got the CC ball rollling... They still have a way to go, but a lot better than CA.

    Oklahoma forced employers to allow their workers to keep their guns in the parking lots. Another big step.

    My point is not to lump, but look and the good and bad or strange in each state. I don't like broad brush statements.........Not even when I make them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Just to clarify any confusion for the one person confused by my post, nothing I said was a broad brush statement. I was asking "why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?" I then named 3 specific examples. I didn't ask "why do all rural...." or "why do most rural..."

    The implied statement in this question, for those less skilled in logic, was that I already know why liberal, urban states have bad gun laws, but not why rural, conservative states do (which is why I added those adjectives in order to narrow the discussion to the point of interest which was laterexpounded uponclearly by my examples).

    But I don't expect you to get it as you've already got a record ofcausing argumentsby twisting other people's words on other threads already.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    Just to clarify any confusion for the one person confused by my post, nothing I said was a broad brush statement.¬* I was asking "why do rural, conservative states with lots of gun owners have bad gun laws?"¬* I then named 3 specific examples.¬* I didn't ask "why do all rural...." or "why do most rural..."¬*

    The implied statement in this question, for those less skilled in logic, was that I already know why liberal, urban states have bad gun laws, but not why rural, conservative states do (which is why I added those adjectives in order to narrow the discussion to the point of interest which was later¬*expounded upon¬*clearly by my examples).

    But I don't expect you to get it as you've already got a record of¬*causing arguments¬*by ¬*twisting other people's words on other threads already.
    Ok I'll bite.

    As I read your statement, with my own prejudice, I saw broad brush.

    If you want to talk spacific states, I love that.

    I have wondered about Nebraska myself. I have hated going there in the past, because of their gun laws. I would love to know more about why.

    I truly doubt the cause has a lot to do with Texas and the good laws there except for open carry.

    I lived I Texas for about 20 years and still don't know why a state that is as gun friendly as they are won't let you carry openly.


    My guess is that it has its roots in Jim Crow laws.

    That is not the case for Nebraska, and thus my reluctance to lump the 2.

    So ama-gi, can we be friends now.

    I know you aren't my student who needs me to comment on his statements.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Sa45auto wrote:
    So ama-gi, can we be friends now.
    Sure, we're "bff" :P

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    ama-gi wrote:
    Sa45auto wrote:
    So ama-gi, can we be friends now.
    Sure, we're "bff" :P
    I am sure you never get in one of those moods, but today... well any way.....

    My link to this forum is set to bring up all recent posts.

    I was not following you around, it just happened that my interest was peeked by the topics you were posting in. There was nothing personal.

    I ran across an old HankT post and spent some time reading a lot of posts.

    With that fresh on my mimd one of your posts reminded me of that and suddenly you were guilty by association.

    35 years ago in graduate school my thesis chairman used to jump on me for shooting from the hip.
    (expressing my opinion before I really thought about it) Some old habits die hard.

    We may not always agree, but we can be friendly about it.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Nebraska isn't confusing to me given all the comments I have read about the liberal bent of the eastern part of the state where a lot of the population resides. It seems to fit into that typical midwest mode I mentioned above about a few large liberal urban areas having nearly the population of the rest of the more conservative rural areas.

    Texas though, that confuses me. Although it could be a similar effect with just more urban centers, namely Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, due to the huge size of the state, being much more liberal than the rest of the state.

    As I said earlier (and will leave out the snarkiness this time :P), I think this is more a rural vs urban issue rather than a red vs blue issue. Urban living has constant indoctrination into the government or someone else taking care of you. People live in apartments or condos where if something breaks they call the complex maintenance office to fix it. They have noise, crime, congestion, they look to government to fix it. The mindset is entirely different. This has become more apparent to me lately as my fiancee, and all but one of her closest friends were born, raised and have always lived in an urban area. While most of them are republicans, they were all anti-gun or neutral when I met them. Now these are people who live in a region with multitudes higher rates of crime in every category than where I live but saw no purpose in carrying a firearm. They are much more likely to need a firearm in their lifetimes than I am, yet the concept of just taking care of themselves instead of calling 911 is totally alien.

    So there is one simple example of an urban area, in a typically red state, with a lot of people who would generally be considered conservatives and who generally vote republican who's mindset is not pro-2A.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Nebraska isn't confusing to me given all the comments I have read about the liberal bent of the eastern part of the state where a lot of the population resides. It seems to fit into that typical midwest mode I mentioned above about a few large liberal urban areas having nearly the population of the rest of the more conservative rural areas.

    Texas though, that confuses me. Although it could be a similar effect with just more urban centers, namely Austin, Houston, Dallas and San Antonio, due to the huge size of the state, being much more liberal than the rest of the state........

    I really think you are right about Nebraska. Omaha is so big as compared to the rest of the state that they really set the standard.

    Texas on the other hand, has been very progressive on gun laws except for open carry. My question is when did it become illegal.

    It is part of the south and I know most gun control laws came about to control the blacks and keep guns out of their hands.

    If I have a little time I might research that issue.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Sa45auto wrote:
    I really think you are right about Nebraska. Omaha is so big as compared to the rest of the state that they really set the standard.

    Texas on the other hand, has been very progressive on gun laws except for open carry. My question is when did it become illegal.

    It is part of the south and I know most gun control laws came about to control the blacks and keep guns out of their hands.

    If I have a little time I might research that issue.
    http://www.vcdl.org/new/racist.htm

    might be a good start

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    Sa45auto wrote:
    I really think you are right about Nebraska. Omaha is so big as compared to the rest of the state that they really set the standard.

    Texas on the other hand, has been very progressive on gun laws except for open carry. My question is when did it become illegal.

    It is part of the south and I know most gun control laws came about to control the blacks and keep guns out of their hands.

    If I have a little time I might research that issue.
    http://www.vcdl.org/new/racist.htm

    might be a good start
    Good call.

    Here is an excerptfrom your linkthat refers to Texas gun laws;



    "In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state's authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives.[30] Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions -- and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid.[31]

    What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from that same decision -- so offensive that no one would dare make such an argument today -- sheds some light on the racism that apparently caused the sudden perspective change:


    The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self- defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit... We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law.[32] [emphasis added] "

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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