Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Adorable Newt Gingrich is still pandering to teabaggers like he thinks he can win. Today's nugget: "You cannot put a gun rack in a Volt"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

3476 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2012 at 5:11 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-21 04:40:09 AM  

foxyshadis: I'd be willing to put that on a Prius, if I ever get around to buying one to replace my shiatcan roadster, just to see what reactions I get.


The only good friend I have with a Prius also is a firearms enthusiast. Newt's a farking moron.
 
2012-02-21 06:54:15 AM  

instantwin: "You cannot put a gun rack in a Volt"

Not true, a smaller model will fit:

[s16.postimage.org image 520x670]


There's something very Uncanny Valley about that girl.
 
2012-02-21 07:14:23 AM  
You know how you know Newt is full of shiat? He should be praising BHO for being good for business.

The gun business.

The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama
(new window)


/Whar CNG powered F150, GM? Whar?
 
2012-02-21 07:53:04 AM  

L82DPRT: You know how you know Newt is full of shiat? He should be praising BHO for being good for business.

The gun business.

The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama
(new window)


/Whar CNG powered F150, GM? Whar?


But that ruins the Obama Will Take our Guns polices. I mean here's a list of all the gun control laws he's put in place:
 
2012-02-21 08:15:38 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: KarmicDisaster: Should work OK, unless you get some Moon Dust in it. If you were worried about the bullet circling around and killing you, you would have to fire it at 5500 fps, not too many guns standard could make that, but the bullet sure could go a long way and probably hit someone on MoonBase Newt One by accident.

Actually, it's more the problem that there's no oxygen on the Moon that I'm concerned about. I suck at chemistry, but I'm pretty sure gun powder is an oxydizing reaction.


It *IS* an oxidizing reaction, but gunpowder carries its own fuel and oxidizer bound together. All that is required is a heat source. That's how explosives can work in space (along with things like solid fuel rockets, some of which are essentially just compressed gunpowder). For example, black powder consists of charcoal (fuel), sulfur (fuel and catalyst), but mainly of potassium nitrate (KNO3), which supplies the oxygen necessary to burn the charcoal and sulfur. Most formulas for black powder have potassium nitrate at 75% by volume. That's a lot of oxygen.

Smokeless powder is similar. Here is the structure of nitrocellulose (gun cotton), the primary ingredient in many smokeless powders:

upload.wikimedia.org

See all those 'O's? Those are Oxygen atoms.

No, a gun would work perfectly fine in a vacuum, so long as the powder was sealed up so that it didn't degrade by sublimation or something like that.
 
2012-02-21 08:18:10 AM  

LoneWolf343: Someone put one of these in a Volt and prove him wrong.

www.du-ha.com


Somehow, I don't think that could ever happen. Somehow, I think you would be proven wrong, genius.

img853.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-21 08:19:35 AM  

heinekenftw:
But that ruins the Obama Will Take our Guns polices. I mean here's a list of all the gun control laws he's put in place:


Hell, we just took him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. - Change.gov Urban Policy Agenda page.

It's not our fault it turned out to be an empty campaign promise.
 
2012-02-21 09:12:50 AM  
Quasar:
"Let me start from a simple premise that Oklahomans will understand: you cannot put a gun rack in a Volt," Gingrich said.

Wow, that's hilariously condescending.


Or maybe nobody has ever seen a Volt up close out here in flyover country.

/Only seen a Volt 3 times in Iowa, and only in the last 3 months.
//And always going the other way on the interstate.
///GM only started offering them to dealers in flyover in the last few months
 
2012-02-21 09:27:20 AM  
From the outside, the Volt appears to be a full sized sedan. The only reason it's classified as a compact is because the interior volume (Passenger + cargo) is only 108 cubic feet - just barely under the 110 cubic feet that would make it a midsize sedan.

"Compact" != "Small car."
=Smidge=
 
2012-02-21 10:51:57 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-21 11:01:54 AM  

eyeoftheaxis: [i.imgur.com image 640x437]


Why stop there? Why don't they just make an NRAmobile? It's blue steel (or chrome, if you roll that way), burns gunpowder, has 500 externally-mounted firearms, and the exhaust goes GUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUNGUN as you drive down the road, shooting at everything.
 
2012-02-21 11:14:58 AM  

Hickory-smoked: watson.t.hamster: The market for electric cars in the US is small enough. And pretty much limited to the major cities.

This is true, particularly until the battery range goes up... but how does that make Newt's statement even marginally rational? Is it a conspiracy theory about the EPA coming to confiscate your trucks or something?


Oh newts statement made no sense.

I was just responding to the question as to why we don't have 4WD or AWD electric vehicles.

There is a minority population that wants an electric car and is willing to pay the price. There is a minority population that wants all-terrain capability and is willing to pay the price.

If you were to draw a venn-diagram of the two populations the overlap wouldn't be enough to sustain that market.
 
2012-02-21 11:16:41 AM  
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-02-21 11:22:21 AM  

dittybopper: heinekenftw:
But that ruins the Obama Will Take our Guns polices. I mean here's a list of all the gun control laws he's put in place:

Hell, we just took him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. - Change.gov Urban Policy Agenda page.

It's not our fault it turned out to be an empty campaign promise.


I read that statement twice, I don't see anything about taking guns from law-abiding citizens or forcing anyone into an electric car.

Maybe it wasn't so much of an empty campaign promise on his part as a delusional paranoid complex on yours.
 
2012-02-21 12:08:59 PM  

Hickory-smoked: dittybopper: heinekenftw:
But that ruins the Obama Will Take our Guns polices. I mean here's a list of all the gun control laws he's put in place:

Hell, we just took him at his word:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. - Change.gov Urban Policy Agenda page.

It's not our fault it turned out to be an empty campaign promise.

I read that statement twice, I don't see anything about taking guns from law-abiding citizens or forcing anyone into an electric car.

Maybe it wasn't so much of an empty campaign promise on his part as a delusional paranoid complex on yours.


I'll break it down for you:

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't prevent traces of guns for bona-fide criminal investigations. It prevents the data on gun traces from being released to anyone other than law enforcement or prosecutors, you know, the people actually responsible for enforcing the law. It does prevent them from being used in civil suits, which was a back-door way of trying to put gun manufacturers out of business after gun control legislation stalled in the 1990's.

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Like what? Did you support the 'commonsense measures that respect Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, while identifying terrorist activity' known as the Patriot Act? Do you not see how loaded that kind of phrasing can be?

They support closing the gun show loophole

There is no gun show loophole. The exact same federal and state laws apply inside a gun show as outside. Period.

and making guns in this country childproof.


This one is pretty scary. Especially when you consider that in 2007 there were only 51 accidental firearms deaths of children age 12 and under (source: CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports), and some of those were undoubtedly due to careless handling by an adult. To put it in perspective, that same year and age group, there were 63 bicycle related deaths.

So we can see that it's not a serious problem from a health perspective because the odds are literally less than 1 in a million (51 in a population of 53 million).

So how would you make them childproof enough that a 10 year old couldn't operate one, but a slightly built adult female could?

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

This was the big one that got people nervous. The AWB was a massive failure, yet he wanted to reenact it, and make it permanent. That means certain things would be unavailable: New standard capacity magazines, new guns with certain cosmetic features that don't effect their actual function, etc. One gun with certain features would be OK because it was grandfathered, but an *IDENTICAL* gun would be illegal because it was manufactured after a certain date.

Maybe those things sound reasonable to you, because they don't really effect you. That doesn't mean they make sense, or that they are a good idea.

I mean, Obama used racist code to allay the fears of white sportsmen ("what works in Chicago might not work in Cheyenne"), but it was plain that he felt it necessary to at least make noises like he was going to do something on the gun control front, hence the statement I quoted. Of course, for his first term, he'd have been stupid to actually go through with it. Politically, he has nothing to gain from pushing for more gun control: He won't gain any votes by pushing for it, and he stands to lose some if he pushes for it (mainly blue collar Democrats). That's why it wasn't an issue that they raised in the campaign. How that will play out if he wins a second term, and thus doesn't have to worry about reelection, remains to be seen.
 
2012-02-21 12:18:44 PM  

Fark It: AntiNerd: Why does the word psychopath come to mind?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x353]

/hotlinked

God, his wife is so farking creepy.


Of course she's farking Creepy. If she stops, he'll leave her, Just like he did with the first two.
 
2012-02-21 12:43:11 PM  

dittybopper: Dwight_Yeast: KarmicDisaster: Should work OK, unless you get some Moon Dust in it. If you were worried about the bullet circling around and killing you, you would have to fire it at 5500 fps, not too many guns standard could make that, but the bullet sure could go a long way and probably hit someone on MoonBase Newt One by accident.

Actually, it's more the problem that there's no oxygen on the Moon that I'm concerned about. I suck at chemistry, but I'm pretty sure gun powder is an oxydizing reaction.

It *IS* an oxidizing reaction, but gunpowder carries its own fuel and oxidizer bound together. All that is required is a heat source. That's how explosives can work in space (along with things like solid fuel rockets, some of which are essentially just compressed gunpowder). For example, black powder consists of charcoal (fuel), sulfur (fuel and catalyst), but mainly of potassium nitrate (KNO3), which supplies the oxygen necessary to burn the charcoal and sulfur. Most formulas for black powder have potassium nitrate at 75% by volume. That's a lot of oxygen.

Smokeless powder is similar. Here is the structure of nitrocellulose (gun cotton), the primary ingredient in many smokeless powders:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x127]

See all those 'O's? Those are Oxygen atoms.

No, a gun would work perfectly fine in a vacuum, so long as the powder was sealed up so that it didn't degrade by sublimation or something like that.


Similarly, that explains how Newt can continue to function with his head so far up his own ass.
 
2012-02-21 01:54:09 PM  
dittybopper:
I'll break it down for you:


Okay, I appreciate it.

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't prevent traces of guns for bona-fide criminal investigations. It prevents the data on gun traces from being released to anyone other than law enforcement or prosecutors, you know, the people actually responsible for enforcing the law. It does prevent them from being used in civil suits, which was a back-door way of trying to put gun manufacturers out of business after gun control legislation stalled in the 1990's.


There appears to be some debate on what that Amendment does and doesn't allow. But in any case, the changes to trace data restrictions proposed by Obama were signed into law December 18, 2009 as part of the FY10 appropriations bill. How man gun manufactures have been put out of business by this so far?

Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Like what?


Hey, I thought you were telling me. In any case, I don't find myself jumping to the conclusion that it means "we're going to come and take all your guns."

They support closing the gun show loophole

There is no gun show loophole. The exact same federal and state laws apply inside a gun show as outside. Period.


Sounds like he's referring to private-individual-to-private-individual transactions. Would I be wrong to think that those regulations vary significantly from state to state?

and making guns in this country childproof.

This one is pretty scary.


Is it? Without hearing the specifics, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

This was the big one that got people nervous. The AWB was a massive failure, yet he wanted to reenact it, and make it permanent. That means certain things would be unavailable: New standard capacity magazines, new guns with certain cosmetic features that don't effect their actual function, etc. One gun with certain features would be OK because it was grandfathered, but an *IDENTICAL* gun would be illegal because it was manufactured after a certain date.

Maybe those things sound reasonable to you, because they don't really effect you. That doesn't mean they make sense, or that they are a good idea.


This part I actually agree with you on. Not much in the AWB made much sense, but then I don't think it was the authoritarian nightmare some people predicted either.

Here's the thing; I'm a leftist who likes guns. I don't fetishize them, and I think strong regulation is necessary, but I have no interest in disarming the populace. I don't believe that Barack Obama does either. Other people, however, clearly have paranoia deeply ingrained in their politics and will assume the worst no matter what anyone says.

Democrat: "We should have reasonable regulation on firearms."
Gun Nut: "OH shiat, HE JUST SAID THEY'RE OVERTURNING THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS. AIM FOR THE HEAD."
Democrat: [proceeds to enact regulation of firearms, in varying degrees of reasonableness, and even removes some bad regulation.]
Gun Nut: "Typical lib. I guess all that talk about overturning the second amendment was empty campaign promises. I'm sure NEXT election cycle they're going to start up the FEMA camps. I better send all my money to Wayne LaPierre."

/And scene.
//Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late to go pheasant hunting with my brother. I have to be at the bird club in 26 minutes.
 
2012-02-21 03:09:17 PM  

FuturePastNow:

4WD isn't going to do a damn thing to keep you out of a ditch in snowy weather. When all four wheels are on ice, it doesn't matter at all how many of them you're spinning.


Snow and ice are not the same thing.
 
2012-02-21 03:09:27 PM  

Chinchillazilla: muck4doo: Do people even use gun racks in trucks anymore? I haven't seen one of those in years, and I'm in TX.

See them from time to time in Kentucky, although I can't remember the last time I saw an actual gun in one.


Most of the ones I've seen recently are used by carpenters to carry their long framing levels.
 
2012-02-21 03:24:01 PM  

Fark It: AntiNerd: Why does the word psychopath come to mind?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x353]

/hotlinked

God, his wife is so farking creepy.


reminds me of the chicken lady from the Kids in the Hall...
 
2012-02-21 03:50:58 PM  

Hickory-smoked: dittybopper: and making guns in this country childproof. This one is pretty scary.

Is it? Without hearing the specifics, I guess I'll have to take your word for it.



You have to understand that most of the "0bama gunna take mah guns!" people are intellectually outshined by children, so making a gun child-proof is effectively the same as rendering them completely unusable. See also: child-proof medicine bottles.
=Smidge=
 
2012-02-21 04:14:52 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Here's the thing; I'm a leftist who likes guns. I don't fetishize them, and I think strong regulation is necessary, but I have no interest in disarming the populace. I don't believe that Barack Obama does either. Other people, however, clearly have paranoia deeply ingrained in their politics and will assume the worst no matter what anyone says.


How can you have the first without at least partially doing the second?

New York City has strong gun regulations. The question I put to you is, should I have to pay $434 and submit a stack of paperwork just to be allowed to purchase a handgun, something that the Constitution says I have a right to own?
 
2012-02-21 04:35:45 PM  

dittybopper: Hickory-smoked: Here's the thing; I'm a leftist who likes guns. I don't fetishize them, and I think strong regulation is necessary, but I have no interest in disarming the populace. I don't believe that Barack Obama does either. Other people, however, clearly have paranoia deeply ingrained in their politics and will assume the worst no matter what anyone says.

How can you have the first without at least partially doing the second?

New York City has strong gun regulations. The question I put to you is, should I have to pay $434 and submit a stack of paperwork just to be allowed to purchase a handgun, something that the Constitution says I have a right to own?


So no regulation is acceptable? It's okay for convicted felons and certifiable nut cases to own handguns? Is that your point? Or is it the cost of the background checks that irk you? You could move somewhere where gun ownership is less costly. Or is it that you just want someone else to pay the cost of your registration?
 
2012-02-21 06:00:34 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: KarmicDisaster: WELL YOU CAN"T PUT A GUN RACK ON A MOON BUGGY!

You can. The problem is the results you get when you fire a gun on the Moon.


You can't fire a gun on the Moon. There's no oxygen to facilitate combustion.*

*yes, I know that you actually could fire a sealed-cartridge gun on the Moon. I'm talking about a flintlock here!
 
2012-02-21 06:20:49 PM  

cryinoutloud: thamike: It's almost as if he's implying Okies cling to their guns or something.

And then adds that none of them are smart enough to desire good gas mileage, either.


Or even smart enough to understand your average simple premise.
 
2012-02-21 07:22:47 PM  

dittybopper: Hickory-smoked: Here's the thing; I'm a leftist who likes guns. I don't fetishize them, and I think strong regulation is necessary, but I have no interest in disarming the populace. I don't believe that Barack Obama does either. Other people, however, clearly have paranoia deeply ingrained in their politics and will assume the worst no matter what anyone says.

How can you have the first without at least partially doing the second?


As a point of clarification, does wanting to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons, the mentally ill, and unsupervised children count as "partially disarming the populace?" Because if it does, I might want to edit my previous statement.


New York City has strong gun regulations. The question I put to you is, should I have to pay $434 and submit a stack of paperwork just to be allowed to purchase a handgun, something that the Constitution says I have a right to own?


I don't know, is the $434 really necessary to show that you're fully trained and responsible? I'd imagine that's an issue of inefficient bureaucracy, and should be addressed, but selling handguns on every corner like cheap cellphones does not seem like a viable alternative.
 
2012-02-21 09:46:27 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: dittybopper: Hickory-smoked: Here's the thing; I'm a leftist who likes guns. I don't fetishize them, and I think strong regulation is necessary, but I have no interest in disarming the populace. I don't believe that Barack Obama does either. Other people, however, clearly have paranoia deeply ingrained in their politics and will assume the worst no matter what anyone says.

How can you have the first without at least partially doing the second?

New York City has strong gun regulations. The question I put to you is, should I have to pay $434 and submit a stack of paperwork just to be allowed to purchase a handgun, something that the Constitution says I have a right to own?

So no regulation is acceptable? It's okay for convicted felons and certifiable nut cases to own handguns? Is that your point? Or is it the cost of the background checks that irk you? You could move somewhere where gun ownership is less costly. Or is it that you just want someone else to pay the cost of your registration?


What purpose is a $400+ in registration fees? So that those people (meaning blacks, for the most part) can't afford to legally own them. Can't let the uppity black folks be havin' guns now, can we?

/Look at the demographics of every city that has restrictive gun laws, and you tell me it has nothing to do with race.
 
2012-02-21 09:54:50 PM  

Mavent: Dwight_Yeast: KarmicDisaster: WELL YOU CAN"T PUT A GUN RACK ON A MOON BUGGY!

You can. The problem is the results you get when you fire a gun on the Moon.

You can't fire a gun on the Moon. There's no oxygen to facilitate combustion.*

*yes, I know that you actually could fire a sealed-cartridge gun on the Moon. I'm talking about a flintlock here!


Niter, please.

You can fire a flintlock on the moon. Black powder contains its own Oxygen supply. Fully 75% of black powder is Potassium Nitrate (KNO3). Note those three Oxygen atoms in every molecule of it.

You don't even have to know that though to intuit the right answer: A barrel is a closed cylinder, and a load of powder behind a ball has essentially zero free Oxygen available to it. Certainly not enough to support the amount of combustion that we see when you fire a flintlock. Think how a jet engine works: It sucks in enormous amounts of air to supply enough Oxygen to combust the fuel to produce thrust. Guns don't work that way, they are more analogous to rocket engines where fuel and oxidizer mix and burn (and a gun is essentially the same thing as a solid rocket engine with an obstruction in the exhaust nozzle).
 
2012-02-21 09:57:46 PM  

Hickory-smoked: I don't know, is the $434 really necessary to show that you're fully trained and responsible? I'd imagine that's an issue of inefficient bureaucracy, and should be addressed, but selling handguns on every corner like cheap cellphones does not seem like a viable alternative.


The real purpose is to make it as difficult and as expensive as they possibly can so that only the rich and well connected can afford it. So, mostly white people.
 
2012-02-21 10:50:58 PM  

dittybopper: The real purpose is to make it as difficult and as expensive as they possibly can so that only the rich and well connected can afford it. So, mostly white people.


Are you stating this as verifiable fact? If so, citation please. Or is this just some paranoid conspiracy theory fueled by an inability to accept that there might actually be genuine costs involved in attempting to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unstable (regardless of how effective those attempts may be), and the city has decided that those cost should be borne by those who wish to be armed instead of the entire population? Because if you're right, that's gonna be one hell of a civil rights settlement when the city is sued and loses.
 
2012-02-22 12:02:50 AM  

dittybopper: Hickory-smoked: I don't know, is the $434 really necessary to show that you're fully trained and responsible? I'd imagine that's an issue of inefficient bureaucracy, and should be addressed, but selling handguns on every corner like cheap cellphones does not seem like a viable alternative.

The real purpose is to make it as difficult and as expensive as they possibly can so that only the rich and well connected can afford it. So, mostly white people.


See, you had a reasonable argument going for a while, then you took the exit to Crazytown. I'm disappointed.
 
2012-02-22 08:49:06 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: dittybopper: The real purpose is to make it as difficult and as expensive as they possibly can so that only the rich and well connected can afford it. So, mostly white people.

Are you stating this as verifiable fact? If so, citation please. Or is this just some paranoid conspiracy theory fueled by an inability to accept that there might actually be genuine costs involved in attempting to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally unstable (regardless of how effective those attempts may be), and the city has decided that those cost should be borne by those who wish to be armed instead of the entire population? Because if you're right, that's gonna be one hell of a civil rights settlement when the city is sued and loses.


There may well be costs involved in keeping handguns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, but I don't think you could argue that it costs over $400.

As for a citation, here are a few of them. The first are about the racist history of gun control:

"Never Intended to be Applied to the White Population": Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity--The Redeemed South's Legacy to a National Jurisprudence?

The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

This last law review touches upon the intent of the Sullivan Law:

Are Gun Control Laws Discriminatory?:

For example, the 1911 Sullivan Laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of immigrants (chiefly Italians--in the first three years of the Sullivan Laws, roughly 70 percent of those arrested had Italian surnames). Why single out foreigners? The answer can perhaps be found in the popular press of the time. The New York Tribune, for example, grumbled about pistols found "chiefly in the pockets of ignorant and quarrelsome immigrants of law-breaking propensities," and the New York Times pointed out the affinity of "low-browed foreigners" for handguns.

Any time you have a law where the granting of the license is at the discretion of the authorities (like it is in New York City, and indeed in New York State: If you aren't granted a license despite meeting the nominal conditions, you can appeal the decision, but that is no guarantee you will be granted one), it is inherently discriminatory. The granting of a pistol permit in NY isn't "Shall Issue", in that if you meet the requirements the licensing authority is required to grant you the permit. They can still deny it to you if they don't like you.

Also, as I have pointed out, the burden of complying with laws that are specifically designed to make it as expensive as legally possible to own a handgun fall hardest upon poor minorities, which is kind of the point. Laws may be written nowadays to be facially race-neutral, but their history shows that they were traditionally enacted to restrict legal access to minorities and immigrants, but *MOSTLY* to black people.

This graphic shows where people who have pistol permits mostly live in NYC:

www.guns.com

This graphic shows the ethnic makeup of those areas:

i41.tinypic.com

Now, go ahead and try to tell me that New York City's pistol permit law isn't discriminatory. The places with the fewest permits are heavily minority, especially black, and the areas that have the greatest number of permits are populated by non-hispanic whites. It's a nearly perfect correlation. If we were talking about election law, or something like that, no one would question that there is a prima facie case for discrimination.
 
2012-02-22 09:47:25 AM  

dittybopper: If we were talking about election law, or something like that, no one would question that there is a prima facie case for discrimination.


So how's that lawsuit going? Sounds like it ought to be a slam dunk. What's that? There is no case? How high does the conspiracy go?
 
2012-02-22 10:30:11 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: dittybopper: If we were talking about election law, or something like that, no one would question that there is a prima facie case for discrimination.

So how's that lawsuit going? Sounds like it ought to be a slam dunk. What's that? There is no case? How high does the conspiracy go?


See for yourself:

Kwong et al v. Bloomberg - Challenges the constitutionality of the $340 fee* to get a pistol permit.


*Not including the $94 fingerprint fee, bringing the total cost to $434
 
Displayed 35 of 235 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report