-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
politifact shows its true liberal colors
- Thread starter bmwguy11
- Start date
My email to politifact:
If you want to contact them about this biased piece of junk reporting, go here:
http://www.politifact.com/contact/
If you want to contact them about this biased piece of junk reporting, go here:
http://www.politifact.com/contact/
scm54449
Opt-Out Members
I just sent the following email:
"I ask why this hysteria on the part of Representative Seidel merits your energy or attention. In the state of Vermont, anyone aged 16 or older may carry a handgun in any fashion they choose, including carrying a concealed handgun. No training, permit, or license is required.
"What about the children?", you ask? According to the uniform crime report statistics maintained by the US Department of Justice, the average homicide rate in the state of Vermont from 1996 through 2009 was 2.07 per 100,000. For the same period of time the average homicide rate in the state of Wisconsin which had a total prohibition on concealed carry of a handgun during that same time period was 3.28 per 100,000, or 1.58 times the homicide rate for Vermont. It is interesting to note that the HIGHEST homicide rate recorded in Vermont for the 1996-2009 period was 2.7 homicides per 100,000 while the LOWEST homicide rate recorded for Wisconsin during that same 14 year period was 2.6 homicides per 100,000.
In 1987 only 11 states had any provision for their citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2011 there are now 49 states that have a provision to allow concealed carry of handguns. "What about the children?", you ask? What impact has this had on the homicide rate with all these "guns on the street"? The US Department of Justice states the following: "In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s." I hope you will verify this quote. You will find it here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. If you are truly interested in the facts, you need to start setting aside your bias and start doing more complete research.
IF they respond to my email, I will share it with the group.
"I ask why this hysteria on the part of Representative Seidel merits your energy or attention. In the state of Vermont, anyone aged 16 or older may carry a handgun in any fashion they choose, including carrying a concealed handgun. No training, permit, or license is required.
"What about the children?", you ask? According to the uniform crime report statistics maintained by the US Department of Justice, the average homicide rate in the state of Vermont from 1996 through 2009 was 2.07 per 100,000. For the same period of time the average homicide rate in the state of Wisconsin which had a total prohibition on concealed carry of a handgun during that same time period was 3.28 per 100,000, or 1.58 times the homicide rate for Vermont. It is interesting to note that the HIGHEST homicide rate recorded in Vermont for the 1996-2009 period was 2.7 homicides per 100,000 while the LOWEST homicide rate recorded for Wisconsin during that same 14 year period was 2.6 homicides per 100,000.
In 1987 only 11 states had any provision for their citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2011 there are now 49 states that have a provision to allow concealed carry of handguns. "What about the children?", you ask? What impact has this had on the homicide rate with all these "guns on the street"? The US Department of Justice states the following: "In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s." I hope you will verify this quote. You will find it here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. If you are truly interested in the facts, you need to start setting aside your bias and start doing more complete research.
IF they respond to my email, I will share it with the group.
hermannr
Regular Member
WA requires no training for their CPL. VT, AK, AR, and WY do not even require CPL to OC or CC.
ID has unlicensed OC, as does WI and several other states. What is the big deal with training? Law Enforcement has many hours of training required, and Law Enforcement has many times the accidents/felony discharges verse completely "no training required", civilian carriers do.
ID has unlicensed OC, as does WI and several other states. What is the big deal with training? Law Enforcement has many hours of training required, and Law Enforcement has many times the accidents/felony discharges verse completely "no training required", civilian carriers do.
scm54449
Opt-Out Members
Since Arkansas § 5-73-301 does require a permit/license did you mean to type "AZ" and not "AR"??
Last edited:
davegran
Regular Member
From the Free Dictionary:
Another meter is consulted...re·search (r-sûrch
, r
sûrch)
n.1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry.
2. Close, careful study.
v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es
v.intr. To engage in or perform research.
v.tr.1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain.
2. To do research for: research a magazine article.
NewZealandAmerican
Regular Member
Watching thread.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
"So what was the bottom line? Did Van Hollen say untrained individuals could slip through?
He told the committee: "In essence, we will accept every application at face value without determining whether substantive and meaningful training has occurred."
And this is as it should be.
When I was issued my driver's license, I didn't have to submit any certificate of training to the licensing bureau.
I've been driving since 1962 and have never had a vehicular accident...but I did stay a Holiday Inn once. :lol:
He told the committee: "In essence, we will accept every application at face value without determining whether substantive and meaningful training has occurred."
And this is as it should be.
When I was issued my driver's license, I didn't have to submit any certificate of training to the licensing bureau.
I've been driving since 1962 and have never had a vehicular accident...but I did stay a Holiday Inn once. :lol:
Last edited:
bluehighways
Regular Member
The author of this little piece of political drivel seems to be having trouble comprehending how laws are made in the first place.
Attorney General B.J. Van Halen ADDED those rules AFTER the law had been created. Something he, as a solitary player, does NOT have the authority to do. Period.
If 'BJ's rules' had been deemed necessary, they should have and would have been introduced during the phase of lawmaking when the bill is being passed back and forth between the house and senate with amendments and revisions being made as seen fit, and applied or rejected by majority vote. Then its off to the Governor's desk, where, once signed, it becomes law. One lowly attorney general does not, under ANY circumstance, have the authority to autonomously edit, augment or revise any law.
The author writes in a tone suggesting that we all blame those nasty republicans for removing the only safeguards this law had against trigger happy whack-o's shooting up daycare centers.
The REAL politifact is that those alleged 'safeguards' had no business being in the law in the first place. They were illegally tacked on as an afterthought by one who grew a little too big for his britches. The removal of 'BJ's rules' was nothing more than getting the law back on track with what it was intended to be at the time of its inception.
Attorney General B.J. Van Halen ADDED those rules AFTER the law had been created. Something he, as a solitary player, does NOT have the authority to do. Period.
If 'BJ's rules' had been deemed necessary, they should have and would have been introduced during the phase of lawmaking when the bill is being passed back and forth between the house and senate with amendments and revisions being made as seen fit, and applied or rejected by majority vote. Then its off to the Governor's desk, where, once signed, it becomes law. One lowly attorney general does not, under ANY circumstance, have the authority to autonomously edit, augment or revise any law.
The author writes in a tone suggesting that we all blame those nasty republicans for removing the only safeguards this law had against trigger happy whack-o's shooting up daycare centers.
The REAL politifact is that those alleged 'safeguards' had no business being in the law in the first place. They were illegally tacked on as an afterthought by one who grew a little too big for his britches. The removal of 'BJ's rules' was nothing more than getting the law back on track with what it was intended to be at the time of its inception.
ta hell with them asscracks...
... for the tiny minded ones know not of what they speak. Besides, it's the spirit of the law that makes it, or breaks it. Olll Van whats his ass meant well, as do we. We stand with the best of them in Wisconsin. We are honest, Vetted carriers by the standards of the state. boar out.
... for the tiny minded ones know not of what they speak. Besides, it's the spirit of the law that makes it, or breaks it. Olll Van whats his ass meant well, as do we. We stand with the best of them in Wisconsin. We are honest, Vetted carriers by the standards of the state. boar out.