January 4, 2010

Indiana Bills Filed to Protect CCW Permit Data

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- State lawmakers submitted a series of bills this week to protect the privacy of Hoosiers who hold gun permits.

The proposed laws would prohibit the Indiana State Police from publicly releasing the names, home addresses and other identifying information about permit holders.

Two of the bills bars all non-law enforcement sources from accessing the data.

Current law allows anybody to purchase the state's full permit database for $32. It includes a permit holder's race, height, hair color, eye color and more.

GunReports.com reported last week that the The Herald-Times newspaper had published parts of the state's permit database, raising privacy concerns for permitholders.

Comments (63)

Sharps - Yes, there are. I think that they should have to undergo and pass background checks periodically, just as law enforcement and military personnel have to do. Drug tests too. THAT should help clear out the crooks!! Ooh-rah!

Posted by: PVB | January 23, 2010 8:45 AM    Report this comment

There are plenty of felons in Congress already representing the American people.

Posted by: Sharps | January 23, 2010 12:38 AM    Report this comment

The concept that a felon can be elected to represent the American people is ridiculous.

Posted by: PVB | January 15, 2010 3:38 PM    Report this comment

Bobby Rush is an ex-Black Panther, with a felony record for (get this) illegal firearm possession.

Canada tried this same experiment, and projected that it would cost 2 million Canadian dollars. Ten years later, it's price tag is over 1 Billion (with a B), and the non-compliance rate is estimated at 70-80%, including whole Canadian provinces which have opted out of enforcing it. It's a disaster.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 15, 2010 2:47 PM    Report this comment

Yeah, I'm really helpin' myself out with that moniker.... All kidding aside, it was a huge coincidence - I read your post and stumbled onto that webpage. I think I clicked on the wrong bookmark when I was looking for something else; honestly didn't even know it was in my list.

Have a great day.

Posted by: PVB | January 15, 2010 1:04 PM    Report this comment

Thanks P V B, the NRA had some info also. I knew I could count on the "satistics rainman" (just kidding). Looks like the bill is not going anywhere. My friend emailed me while I was on this site about this bill so I thought I would ask. A lot of information out there, some true, some not, and most in between.

Posted by: Robert J | January 15, 2010 9:18 AM    Report this comment

Welcome back August, we ARE all on the same side. Has anyone heard of SB-2009 or H.R.45 in which it will be required for you to list all your guns on your 2010 tax return? The rhetoric I heard was you will be taxed for each gun with other restrictions. It seems unbelieveable, however I don't think anything coming out of this current administration would surprise me.

Posted by: Robert J | January 15, 2010 6:42 AM    Report this comment

You guys need to get a life.

Posted by: Kevin L | January 14, 2010 9:24 PM    Report this comment

August - good point on the context.

I also had a CCW in CT, but that was over 10 years ago. They did not go to my neighbors (although the feds did for my security clearance). Perhaps I was luckier than you. At the time I had one (permit), you needed it to take the pistol out of your house, even to go to the range. As a result, the mindset at the time was "shall issue." I had to complete NRA Basic Pistol (or whatever it was back then) and I think there were also a few character references.

By the way, call me all the names you want - I was only trying to make a point. If I beat it to death - I'm sorry. See ya at the bar!

Posted by: PVB | January 14, 2010 7:23 PM    Report this comment

PVB, I apologize for calling you the Statistical Rain Man. The reason I lobbed that expression at you is because you keep saying “satisfy his query for "facts" and "research." I’m all for statistics and facts, I love them, but nowhere did I ask for facts or research. Your continued point of contention with me is that I did. I can’t keep saying the same thing over. So let’s call it a day. “see how his own words have begun the tirades” actually my tirade was in response to Lee’s tirade. 2 wrongs don’t make a right. We have made up and moved on. Lee reformulated his post in non-tirade form and I think it’s perfect. Basically my point all along is let’s not alienate potential allies with harsh language or perceived slights.

Sharps

“BTW August, how did you know we were tree hugging heroin addicts?. We thought you didn't notice.” I saw it on MSNBC!!!

Posted by: August | January 14, 2010 7:09 PM    Report this comment

Lee, we will just have to agree to disagree on some things and leave it at as my fingers hurt from typing. Your original post set me off with its wording and what I perceived as a slight against northerners (not the word Yankee, the implication northerners were somehow less pro-gun), I responded on the offense which you retuned in kind and it devolved from there. Now that cooler heads have prevailed, we can move on. After all our goal is one in the same.

Your rephrasing of your original post is spot on and I could not agree more.

I'd be curious if anyone had links to any articles posted by an Indiana newspaper listing CCW holders. I'm interested to see the context in which they were displayed. Did they just paste the list into the paper and say the following people have CCWs or was it used when reporting about an individual etc.. Regardless it's a damn good thing they corrected that.

When I applied for my CCW permit in Connecticut years back, the local police actually went to my neighbors and asked each one of them how they felt about me and the idea of me having guns. Talk about an invasion of privacy. I’m surprised I didn’t have to wear a giant red G on my chest.

Posted by: August | January 14, 2010 7:08 PM    Report this comment

Agreed Gav, though I understood your point last week!

IMO, we're better off with the misuse of the CCW for two reasons - as you said, it becomes a pro-gun win which discredits the emotional anti-gun position; also, we can close any loophole to preclude further access to personal information, CCW related or otherwise. (You can't fix a problem if you don't know about it.)

What really bothers me though is that the media's behavior is hand in glove with what many politicians find as acceptable in this day and age, but should, at least in my opinion, be considered unethical. We hear about identity theft all the time, so I can't fathom how anybody thinks publishing a list with personal information is anything other than Wylie Coyote-esque. (Hopefully that's not an offensive remark.)

I hope I made sense....

Posted by: PVB | January 14, 2010 6:55 PM    Report this comment

Let's see if I can recreate my first post on the issue without causing any excitement.

Newspaper reporters with an anti-gun agenda get hold of the list of permit-holders through a legal loophole.

They publish the list, with a "story" containing slurs against people who have CCWs.

The offended permit holders call their legislators and demand that the list be made private in order to prevent these abuses, so that their names, whereabouts, and property are not exposed to bad guys.

The legislature agrees, and makes the list private.

The anti-gunners complain, but because they brought up this issue and caused all the ruckus, they lose, and we win. This has happened in North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas. If the anti's had just kept quiet, they would still have access to the list, but they have to gloat and cast aspersions on people they disagree with, so they've lost again.

How's that?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 14, 2010 4:43 PM    Report this comment

I think the politicians who allowed this information to get into the hands did so on purpose as a bully factor. There was no mistake, the loop hole was intentionally created to bully gun owners. This is a complete and total violation of privacy. That is why Bloomberg has been pushing to get this information.

Posted by: Robert J | January 14, 2010 1:41 PM    Report this comment

Access to 'presumed private' information is the key, not just for CCW info either. Waaaay too many politicians, with either a "D" or an "R" after their names, are willing to nefariously use information we citizens willingly submit for purposes other than the original pretense. Publication of CCW info is especially unnerving as it is the start of a great shopping list for thugs.

Posted by: PVB | January 14, 2010 10:51 AM    Report this comment

Mind if we get back to the original subject area?

As an Indianan, I can say that this whole situation about a newspaper publishing CCW information caught me off-guard.

Indiana has had a "shall-issue" policy towards CCWs since 1935; however, it wasn't uniform throughout the state until around 1975 or so.
One fills out an application with local law enforcement, which then gets forwarded to the State Police, who do a background check. If the
applicant comes up "clean", the permit is issued. Which is about as straightforward as it gets - assuming that you're okay with getting a
permit to carry in the first place.

With such a straightforward policy in place, it never dawned on me to check on who could access this information. I had just assumed that the information would only be released to authorized agencies on a need-to-know basis.

I hope that this episode prompts those in other states to verify who has access to CCW information. One can't assume that living in a gun-friendly state assures CCW permit data privacy.

BTW - the ongoing discussion about "Yankee", "Liberal", "RINO", "Democrat", etc. makes me glad that I just use the adjectives "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" when describing politicians or activists - and let it go at that.

Posted by: pbs_goat | January 14, 2010 10:29 AM    Report this comment

I agree Sharps - I don't even like to give my phone number anymore.

Posted by: PVB | January 14, 2010 10:21 AM    Report this comment

This post started as a statement on the release of "private" information by the State of Indiana. To avoid glittering generalities I will simply say,it is wrong and invasive of the privacies allowed a U.S. Citizen. I'll let the rest of you Generals and geniuses talk it out. I don't give out my SSN to anyone anymore because I believe that the "gatherers of information" simply cannot be trusted with said information.Obama is a Gatherer in Chief and has aligned himself with the same . BTW August, how did you know we were tree hugging heroin addicts?. We thought you didn't notice.

Posted by: Sharps | January 14, 2010 10:12 AM    Report this comment

Gaviota you always seem to hit the nail on the head. I have had a disagreement or two (ATF) on this post with you and never felt disrespected. I even remember you and Col. Novack at each other hot and heavy and walked away shaking hands, each understanding the others point. I guess you get what you give. It seems the people who run into problems on this site are ones who appear to misrepresent themselves. They claim to be independent and unbiased towards either political party, however everything they write supports one party and trashes another. That's why I like your posts Gaviota, you are not only an eloquent writer, your an equal opportunity offender. You will not hesitate to call out anyone, regardless of party affiliation. I truely believe you are not only an independent, you are an independent thinker. Keep up the good work, I for one enjy it. You to P V B.

Posted by: Robert J | January 14, 2010 6:59 AM    Report this comment

There is often a fine line between blunt and rude, and the receiver usually gets to determine that line. Being rude is never my intent, but I will respect others' opinions when they feel offended. (If I've learned nothing else in marriage....)

Frankly, I enjoy your sarcasm - I see the humor in it, so please keep it up!

Posted by: PVB | January 13, 2010 9:07 PM    Report this comment

"Concise posts that leave no room for misinterpretation without the visual cues present in normal conversation are nearly impossible to construct..."

That's absolutely true, and holds pitfalls for all of us. Unfortunately, one of the things that always seems to come in loud and clear is sarcasm, which is never well-received.

Well, I'm still learning. Like I said, I'm just as guilty of rudeness as the next guy, but I know better, so I have no excuse.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 13, 2010 7:31 PM    Report this comment

Gav - you've stated the case quite clearly, as usual. The trouble is, August does not appear to see how his own words have begun the tirades. It's foul play and cause for his wrath if you say "Yankee," yet he can call me the "Statistics Rain Man." (I'm sure you understand that my statistics were an attempt to satisfy his query for "facts" and "research.")

I thought his last series of posts was pretty rational and well thought out - I was glad I read them in spite of my gut reaction to just skip it. In the future, I'll scan his posts for worthwhile content and ignore the rest.

Concise posts that leave no room for misinterpretation without the visual cues present in normal conversation are nearly impossible to construct, at least for me. As a result, some of my comments may have appeared to be inflammatory to some people, and if so, I apologize, and will always welcome the criticism (as I have said before). However, I'm tired of trying to be polite and respectful. Like an old 1stSgt of mine used to say: "He put the quarter in the jukebox, now he can dance to the tune."

Posted by: PVB | January 13, 2010 7:18 PM    Report this comment

"This seems to happen on any thread I post on."

Three: Oh, ya think? You seeing a pattern here? As sincere and honest as you intend to be, you will accomplish absolutely nothing except turning yourself into a turd magnet and flame arrestor (by that I mean that people will verbally abuse you, aka "flame" you) if you use ANY impolite or disrespectful terms to describe anything that anyone else has written. You posted about yourself the following statements: "I am not going to sit idly by, ever." and " If I read a post and I feel the need to respond I will just like you would." You say that you HAVE to respond? You hate it when you are flamed, labeled, and misunderstood, but you carelessly use the most sarcastic expressions as a matter of routine, and then you wonder why this keeps happening to you? Can you not understand why I called you humorless, dogmatic, and rigid-thinking? If you are having these flame wars on "any thread" that you post on, then you are having a persistent problem with human nature, and the only common denominator in all of these unsatisfactory relationships is you.

If you desire to be able to post on any forum without being flamed, labeled, misunderstood, abused, imposed upon, all you have to do is be polite. Disagree if you must, laugh if you must, turn away in disgust if you want to, but if you are not polite and respectful, ESPECIALLY to the people you disagree with, you WILL BE FLAMED. It's not right, but it is true.

Respectfully, Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 13, 2010 6:50 PM    Report this comment

"Nowhere did I label you anything and I implore you to show me otherwise. I did however label your statement which is not the same thing."

Okay, I see the disconnect here.

I am a registered nurse. I have many years of clinical experience in several different settings, including psychiatric units, and I have studied the psychology of communication both in and out of college, so I ask you to believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about.

First of all, get this: I'm not talking about me as saint, here. I'm just as guilty as the next guy of being rude.

One: At it's simplest, men tend to use words the same way that they use swords, as weapons to achieve a goal. In order for courtesy and civility to be maintained in this and any other written medium, it has to be accepted by all writers that it is simply not possible to label a statement as "idotic" without the reader coming to understand and believe that he is being accused of being an idiot. A man who believes that he has been called an idiot will naturally reject that accusation, and will also reject all the follow-on facts, ideas, corrections, etc, on the grounds that the first statement was grossly incorrect, therefore everything that follows is suspect. This is human nature, and is as reliable, repeatable, and inevitable as the immutable laws of physics. So, in the minds and hearts of your readers, it IS the same thing. You can't separate them. You commented "I called your statements “idiotic” and I stand by that. I did not call you names nor did I attempt to discredit what you said based on an irrelevant fact about you." You called my STATEMENTS idiotic. What I heard, and what every other man hears is "You are an idiot." Calling a statement idiotic DOES discredit what I said, regardless of what it's based upon.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 13, 2010 6:41 PM    Report this comment

August, I must have confused the fact that you were defending Obama with the assumption you supported Obama. My bad if that's the case, however reading what you have said still leads me to believe your a little pro-Obama. Apparently I'm not the only one that interpreted your comments that way. So either all of us were wrong about you, in which case I apologize, or else its time to come out of the closet. I see alot of liberals claim they have no allegence to either party, however they constantly bash Republicans and defend Democrats. If it smells like dog crap...

Posted by: Robert J | January 13, 2010 11:56 AM    Report this comment

“You had stated that you did not think that he would pass any anti-gun legislation” No I didn’t. Your memory is terrible dude.

“Were you not pro-Obama anti-Bush the last election?”. Uh no, I’m anti anyone who’s agenda tramples the Bill of Rights. As of right now that’s both major parties in this country. I merely defended Obama from those who said Obama will impose Sharia law, ban all guns and implement death squads and from the claims that he said in his book he supports Islamic terrorism. And from that you and several others have then falsely attributed that to mean I somehow support Obama or my political viewpoint is Liberal. I’m getting really tired of it.

“I just wanted to explain to you what I remember about your previous posts” well you did a horrendous job.

Posted by: August | January 13, 2010 10:27 AM    Report this comment

“unwarranted ad hominem insults” Ok lets be sure we are clear on the meaning of this. The old “Argument to the person”. A claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. What claim of yours did I discredit and how did I do so by attacking an irrelevant fact? Please feel free to quote me. I called your statements “idiotic” and I stand by that. I did not call you names nor did I attempt to discredit what you said based on an irrelevant fact about you.

“Oh, and seriously, the "suck eggs" remark is a very, very old expression, several hundred years old, in fact.” Fascinating. Good article on Wikipedia. I actually did not know that. See you learn something new everyday. I did however take exception to it at the time not knowing, because any time anyone has told me or a family member to suck anything it wasn’t used to further understanding. And when you include a female member of someone’s family that’s really a low blow . Especially when said Granny is in the process of dying right now, which of course you had no way of knowing.


“What I said was "I'll let YOUR comments go by without response." I didn't say I would stop posting.” But you didn’t, you continued to respond to my original comments and provide postings that were clearly about our dust-up and not the original article. I am not going to sit idly by, ever. Nor I wouldn’t ask you to sit idly by or not post, but if you say something like “I will not do action A” then you do action A… well whatever…

Posted by: August | January 13, 2010 10:26 AM    Report this comment

“Please don't do this again, August” You did ask nicely but sorry I can’t help you there. If I read a post and I feel the need to respond I will just like you would. Multiple times you accused me of ad hominem attacks which I can’t seem to find in my posts. You went on to label me many things including “humorless, dogmatic, and rigid-thinking”. Nowhere did I label you anything and I implore you to show me otherwise. I did however label your statement which is not the same thing.

PVB

“but they are totally lost when you say "what the eff" or start calling people names” How are my points lost when I ask WTF? And for the last time, where did I call anyone names? You are hung up on believing I asked for statistics (to what I don’t even know) and that I called someone names.

“look forward to passionate, spirited debate, on other topics in the future, albeit with a modicum of maturity” Absolutely, me too.

Posted by: August | January 13, 2010 10:26 AM    Report this comment

Robert J

“August, I had labeled you a liberal because back before the election you were defending Obama”. Well yeah if you want to pull some stuff out of context I was defending him. That hardly makes me a liberal.

“and you appeared to deny the fact that he had an anti-gun voting record.” Wow, do you just make this up as you go along? Because I still have those threads. Let me post a highlight:

“It’s your right to vote and your right to vote for who you want. If you don’t like Obama don’t vote for him, it’s that simple. I am voting for neither puppet come election day. Yet I end up looking like a %100 pro Obama supporter simply because I reject the fear-mongering, worst case scenario vision several people on here have posted, and I further object to the outright lies and false quotes attributed to Obama or any politician, and I will take anyone to task on that every single time.” – August.

“Do I think Obama is a darling of the pro gun movement? No of course I don’t and I never he said he was. His voting record is public and speaks for itself and any interested party can look it up. But more than any piece of legislation Obama has voted on, I’m more concerned for votes he missed” – August

“The world doesn’t have to be polar opposites. Simply because I don't agree with statements you made doesn’t make me an anti-gun liberal Democrat or whatever you want to paint me as.” - August

Posted by: August | January 13, 2010 10:26 AM    Report this comment

Apparently everyone is enjoying themselves so let’s keep this going. The tiring thing to this argument is the constant tactic of some of you of misattributing statements and pinning belief systems on me that I have not made nor do I endorse. This seems to happen on any thread I post on. I make a simple point, usually something like “neither party serves our interest as gun owners” and before long I’m painted as being “The campaign manager for Nancy Pelosi and I am here for your guns”.

I can’t believe there is so much confusion on a forum, where everything I said is there in black and white. Notice I use exact quotes and then talk directly to them. Nowhere have I misattributed a statement from anyone. Unfortunately I have not always been afforded the same courtesy. We may agree to disagree, which is fine by me. I’m not a big fan of yes man and groupthink. Say what you mean, say what you feel and stand behind it, but do not falsely attribute claims to someone, that’s absurd.

So here we go:

Lee W

My father was a Marine too so I can appreciate the best defense is a good offense philosophy.

“if your first post had been more factual and less angry” While it may have appeared angry it was plenty factual. My statements included that Vermont has incredibly lax gun laws (fact). H.R. 6257 was sponsored by Republicans (fact). No Democrats sponsored the bill (fact). I think where it went awry is when I left off the word “only” in referring to “Leftists are the "anti-gun" political party”. I am not defending their atrocious record on guy rights. And finally “Hopefully with a little research” implied you were not educated on firearm legislation, which is what I derived from your initial post because your post really sounded to me like every other one sided rant that was filled with opinion and that is what I reacted to.

Posted by: August | January 13, 2010 10:25 AM    Report this comment

August, I had labeled you a liberal because back before the election you were defending Obama and you appeared to deny the fact that he had an anti-gun voting record. You had stated that you did not think that he would pass any anti-gun legislation and then you used the example of the RINO with the gun legislation. That reminded me of something R. Maddow would do, find the one Republican that did something different and try and label them all that way. Were you not pro-Obama anti-Bush the last election? Not to keep a fued going because I saw a truce in the works, I just wanted to explain to you what I remember about your previous posts and formed my opinion of you from that. As far as Yankees and liberals: I think most city people are liberals and country people are conservatives regardless of north and south origin.

Posted by: Robert J | January 13, 2010 7:23 AM    Report this comment

As always, Gav has summed it up quite well.

August - from my viewpoint, you bring up some great points, but they are totally lost when you say "what the eff" or start calling people names.

If my comments come across poorly, I apologize and will always welcome feedback accordingly.

I look forward to passionate, spirited debate, on other topics in the future, albeit with a modicum of maturity.

It's time to put this nonsense to bed....

Posted by: PVB | January 13, 2010 2:05 AM    Report this comment

I can't help myself...

"...“From now on, I'll let your comments go by without response” yet you posted several more times. What is it with you? Can’t you stand by your word? Then you go on to post about how great you are for having some rule that you don’t follow. If your goal is confusion, then well done..."

What I said was "I'll let YOUR comments go by without response." I didn't say I would stop posting. With the understanding that it is my perogative to change my mind at will, I assure you I can and do stand by my word. Is it your desire that I do so?

Please don't do this again, August. Every time you impugn the intelligence or character of your readers, YOUR credibility drops to zero. Stop using words describing other people and their problems, and use words describing you, your ideas, your facts, your principles, and your philosophy. If you adhere to that standard, the respect you garner will be boundless. In your words, "contain your disgust." It is wise to allow your friends to have their faults.

Is there any other point of contention between us that you and I need to address?

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 12, 2010 10:07 PM    Report this comment

Oh, and seriously, the "suck eggs" remark is a very, very old expression, several hundred years old, in fact. It is NOT an insult, not an emotional outburst, and not irrational. It does have a specific meaning, and I did use it appropriately.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 12, 2010 9:30 PM    Report this comment

August: I appreciate and accept your apology, and I apologize to you that my intemperate and juvenile sense of humor offended you. You are not the first to point this out, and probably won't be the last. I have accepted my congenital inability to be funny, but I don't have the prescience to avoid situations where my humor is inappropriate. I have paid the price many times. Again, sorry about that.

The primary incendiary device that exploded in my hippocampus was the phrase "...if you are implying that Leftists are the "anti-gun" political party..." which you clarified later. I believe you are correct that all parties are anti-gun, and if I hadn't been dealing with some profoundly liberal head-cases here lately, the intensity of my response would have been reduced by several orders of magnitude.

Finally, my mea culpa would be imcomplete if I didn't reveal that I was raised by a Marine Corps fighter pilot. We boys were taught that the best defense is a wicked offense, never to defend ourselves, but always counter-attack. That is why you perceived that I did not respond to your points. I didn't. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

Lastly, this whole contretemps would never have occured at all if your first post had been more factual and less angry. I did take offense at what I considered to be a series of unprovoked, unwarranted ad hominem insults. My amigdala screamed "Kill that guy!" and I didn't catch it in time.

I rescind my self-imposed ban on reading your comments. I look forward to corresponding with you again in the future.

Respectfully, Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 12, 2010 9:12 PM    Report this comment

PVB, you are killing me the most.

What is with you saying I “asked for research and statistics”? I didn’t. re-read my post if need be and then let it go already. It’s like you are Statistics Rain Man just waiting to bombard people.

I didn’t take exception that he used the word “yankee”, I took exception with his whole post but primarily with “They can never figure out that if they just kept their flappy yappy yakkity Yankee hippy mouths shut”. Granted having not read Lee W’s body of work I was unable to pick up on his humorous tone and lacking quotation marks I failed to identify he was quoting someone in his life who had a profound effect on him. Basically I took said statement as narrow-minded and an implication that Yankee was synonymous with being anti-gun. That’s like saying “pacific northwester” is synonymous with tree-huggin heroin addict or that the south-east is synonymous with fat, uneducated country bumpkin. Clearly these over-generalizations are false and will rustle feathers.

Throughout the discourse Lee has shown in actuality he is very knowledgeable that Yankees are a much welcomed ally in the pro-gun rights movement and did a good job formulating his arguments at times. So Lee, I apologize for jumping on your back for thinking your comments were idiotic.

And I’m glad in the end, everyone was able to use this post as a vehicle to bash some liberals. Not being one myself I am not offended. But what is a bit frightening is how some of you immediately drew battle lines and some how I ended up on the liberal side. I’m more of the “lets not label people too quickly so we don’t offend potential allies because we are stronger together than we are a part” kinda person.

Posted by: August | January 12, 2010 7:29 PM    Report this comment

August - aren't you the one who took exception to the term "Yankee" and asked for research and statistics? Whether you like it or not, Yankees are TYPICALLY liberals, and liberals are TYPICALLY anti-gun. We all know there are liberals who who like guns and other TYPICALLY conservative endeavors.

You also said "Hopefully with a little research you will realize neither party serves our interests and there are plenty of us north of the Mason-Dixon who consider firearms a God-given right."

You are absolutely, 100% correct on that assessment, and nearly everyone I've seen regularly posting this board won't disagree.

Posted by: PVB | January 12, 2010 7:07 PM    Report this comment

Sharps

“I am from the beautiful Pacific NW and I can tell you in my part of the world, a Yankee is a LIBERAL Democrat in todays politics”. Uh OK. Make sweeping generalizations if it makes you feel better…

“If you look geographically at the highest number of liberal democrats, they are staged in the area of the original 13 colonies.” Great. I don’t think that is news to anyone, nor was that ever a point of contention in this thread.

“Since California wasn't a state or colony I can only believe that Gaviota means a Yankee is of the NEW ENGLAND species of liberal.” You do realize this article was about Indiana, Right?

“August, you COULD BE a Yankee” I wasn’t born here, but if you feel the need to label me, fine I’m a Yankee, yeehaw.

PVB

I thought we were done too.. What you got for me now?

“The more I think about it, most New Englanders freely accept the Yankee appellation” Yep most do, again never a point of contention.

“I really don't understand why that Yankee term is so offensive....” Who’s offended? Where are you going with all this?

“3 out of 6 Yankee states do not allow civilian purchase of silencers, and Vermont is one of them” OK fine, you win. If you need a silencer than I guess Vermont won’t work for you. But I enjoy the freedom of not registering my firearms and not giving a damn who hears me shoot them off.

“- I'm not going to re-read the entire thread” Wonderful, this should be a good point then…

“but if I recall correctly, you were the one demanding statistics and facts. If my memory is incorrect, I'll apologize now.” Uh no I didn’t, apology accepted.

Posted by: August | January 12, 2010 6:53 PM    Report this comment

(At the risk of inflaming one of them reading this thread....)

The typical liberal also gets very judgmental when they find out you are involved with shooting, scouts, a religion other than theirs, etc.

It's the classic admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-accusations approach.

Posted by: PVB | January 12, 2010 6:47 PM    Report this comment

The emotional development of the average liberal is about 8th grade level. Lately, on several different blogs, and on several different subjects, I have posted opinions different than the blog's owner. In the case of conservative or libertarian blogs, I was treated with respect, intellectual and scientific rigor, and courtesy. On the liberal blogs, I was immediately attacked, and I calculate that the invective and insults were approximately at the developmental level of 13 to 14 year olds. Or, as Dennis Miller put it, they start yipping like a satanic Chihuahua under a strobelight. I believe that it's true, from my experience and perspective, that liberals are unable to dissociate their emotional immaturity from their intelligence quotient, leaving them prey to hysteria, cognitive dissonance, and magical thinking. There's really no point in entering into a discussion with them. The only thing that works is to engage the uncommitted but capable thinkers with the facts, and encourage THEM to join us to vote the yipping Chihuahuas down.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 12, 2010 6:32 PM    Report this comment

The more I think about it, most New Englanders freely accept the Yankee appellation. There's The New Yankee workshop for instance. There are newspapers and businesses with Yankee in the title. Ever heard of Yankee Candles?

Also, the term Yankee applies to all Americans in general. If you live south of the Mason-Dixon, the term refers to anybody north thereof. Either of those may imply some animus, but that is not the context in which it was used.

I really don't understand why that Yankee term is so offensive....

As for Vermont, yes, their concealed carry law is exactly what most of us reading this thread want in our own, but that is only one facet of firearms rights. How many states do not allow you to buy NFA firearms? 3 out of 6 Yankee states do not allow civilian purchase of silencers, and Vermont is one of them. So no, Vermont's gun laws do NOT trump all the other states.

August - I'm not going to re-read the entire thread, but if I recall correctly, you were the one demanding statistics and facts. If my memory is incorrect, I'll apologize now.

Posted by: PVB | January 11, 2010 11:23 PM    Report this comment

I am from the beautiful Pacific NW and I can tell you in my part of the world, a Yankee is a LIBERAL Democrat in todays politics. If you look geographically at the highest number of liberal democrats, they are staged in the area of the original 13 colonies. Since California wasn't a state or colony I can only believe that Gaviota means a Yankee is of the NEW ENGLAND species of liberal.
The term Yankee, according to wikipedia simply means residence of New England and possibly the entire NE region. August, you COULD BE a Yankee. You have the personality for such. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | January 11, 2010 11:02 PM    Report this comment

Great rule!

Posted by: PVB | January 10, 2010 9:33 PM    Report this comment

No, PVB, they certainly wouldn't. Even foolish young men know that, when face to face with other guys, there's a line that they just don't cross unless they want some excitement in their lives, and maybe meet some cute nurses.

Every time I get into one of these little flame wars, it's because I've forgotten to heed Gaviota's Law, which states:

Anyone who jumps into an established, active forum with a first post full of abusive, ad hominem comments is not an emotionally stable, mature adult. Do not respond to or converse with anonymous commentors who's first post is an ad hominem attack. They're trolls, and trolls must not be fed.

I'm getting better, though. It only took four posts this time.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 10, 2010 9:27 PM    Report this comment

Bravo Zulu Gav!

I never cease to be amazed at how quickly people degenerate to vile or offensive retorts when "speaking" via the anonymity of the internet. I wonder if they would do the same when the individual being addressed were standing in front of them....

Posted by: PVB | January 10, 2010 9:06 PM    Report this comment

"the whole thing would never even occurred to you if I hadn't used the word "Yankee." Actually your entire post smacked of smarmy, "emotional" rhetoric which adds nothing to the real discourse at hand. I just couldn't hide my disgust.

"Go teach yer granny to suck eggs."? Yeah that’s some real rational thought there... So which is it? Emotional or not emotional? I can't tell since you are all over the place and pretty much ignored must of what I said, reacted emotionally which you apparently are chastising me for and then decided to label me some more. Well done.

But honestly no one hear wants to read us going tit-for-tat. Best of luck in your future posts not looking foolish.

Posted by: August | January 8, 2010 1:32 PM    Report this comment

August: (cont'd) I don't go off on people until I have a clear idea that what they posted is relevant to the subject, and not just offhand humor. You completely misunderstood one word in my post, and instead of asking me what my point was, you attacked my character, intelligence, education, and dedication to gun rights. Your response was completely emotional, and given your level of education, that's a shame. That is a liberal, progressive pattern of behavior, regardless of what you believe about yourself.

And if you desire to avoid the appearence of name calling, you should avoid the following words: spew, idiotic, stupid, dumbass, "I wish you would learn something," and "do some research."

I may be wrong, but my view of you as gleaned from your posts is that you are humorless, dogmatic, and rigid-thinking. I'm not. From now on, I'll let your comments go by without response. Have a good life.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 8, 2010 12:54 PM    Report this comment

Y'know, August, the sad thing about your comments is that the whole thing would never even occured to you if I hadn't used the word "Yankee." For some reason, that one word is a sore point for you, although the word "hippy" didn't bother you. You appear to know the definition of "Helgelian Dialectic", but you're still subject to it.

Here's the backstory for those who care: I was born and raised in Southern California. In 1968, when I was thirteen, a car commercial was being filmed nearby, and I got to watch. The scene involved a pot-bellied caricature of a Georgia sheriff arguing with the driver over how hot the car looked, and the sheriff-actor used the phrase "shut yer flappy yappy yakkity Yankee hippy mouth" in reference to the driver. It stuck with me because it was so funny.

I used that phrase in my first post because it's funny. I have a sense of humor. I'm fully aware of the fact that Hoosiers are not Yankees, I'm fully aware of the fact that North Eastern and North Central regions have outstanding gun-rights groups. Everyone here is. You may not be a newbie, but by your own admission, you don't read the comments section regularly, so you don't know me, haven't read my posts, and don't understand my sense of humor.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 8, 2010 12:53 PM    Report this comment

August - you are absolutely right, we could go on all day, preferably with pitchers of our favorite refreshments!

I took Gav's Yankee comments as dry humor, and you called him out. No problem.

You suggested stats and I was in a curious mood, so I found them to buttress the point that New England is typically liberal, even though we already know that. I inferred (incorrectly) that you were trying to say the Yankee states are undeserving of a liberal rap - MY BAD. Sometimes it is difficult to pick up on the subtle nuances on blogs.

You bring out some great points, and I enjoy Vermont immensely, though if you aren't from there, it is a bit quirky. So is any other state if you are a visitor. Personally, I've always found Vermonters to be hardy and congenial.

I'd better pay some bills here, so thanks for your thoughts.

Have a great day!

Posted by: PVB | January 8, 2010 8:30 AM    Report this comment

OK this could take a while to sort out because a lot of the replies have nothing to do with my post, so I apologize for the lengthy post. Should make for some good reading though…

P.V.B. Thank you for providing statistics but the “type of firearms purchased by region in 2008” is immaterial to my point. We could argue all day why the statistics are what they are. For example, I didn’t buy any handguns in 2008 or 2009 for that matter; I have plenty already from years past. I did purchase a nice 12 gauge Charles Daly tho. Am I more pro shotgun than handgun? Uh no. But regardless none of this has anything to do with my point.

Vermont being the 49th most populous state again has nothing to do with my point at all. I could just as easily say Vermont is the #1 producer of maple syrup and therefore states that produce maple syrup have lax gun laws, but that would be a bad correlation on my part.

I never argued the political makeup of Vermont. “VT is considered to have the 4th highest per capita registered Democrats”. Great. I never said otherwise, although I do find it interesting that such a “Leftist Democrat” state has single handedly the BEST gun laws in ALL of America, but again none of this has anything to do with my point.

The article is talking about Indiana. Indiana is not in New England nor is it part of New York so I assume Gav’s Yankee smear was aimed at anyone north of the Mason-Dixon.

cont...

Posted by: August | January 8, 2010 8:06 AM    Report this comment

Too funny Gav!

Posted by: PVB | January 7, 2010 10:19 PM    Report this comment

"...his idiotic polarized statements."

Whaddya mean "polarized?"

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 7, 2010 9:09 PM    Report this comment

Laughing at the thought of Gaviota diminishing the educated message we attempt to convey with his idiotic polarized statements. August does have a point when he/she mentions the viewpoint of Vermont Citizens. Work had taken me to Chelsea, Vermont this past summer. I experienced a neighbor of a customer pulling across the driveway (blocking me in) and asking me if I was lost because he noticed the Florida license plate. I walked out to him and replied; My GPS appears to be broken. During my visit another neighbor arrived to check on their friend. They are quite protective of their neighbors. I'm glad I didn't have a flat tire on one of them, narrow, winding, dirt roads. I'm sure someone would have pulled over and asked me what was taking me so long to change the tire. Scenery was beautiful, people were a little stand-offish.

Posted by: JWallace | January 7, 2010 9:00 PM    Report this comment

Vermont is clearly a rebel in that regard; however, they rank 49th of 50 states in total population (census web site). Thus, the Green State is the least populated in the Yankee kingdom. On the other hand, VT is considered to have the 4th highest per capita registered Democrats of all states in the Union (Gallup website). The rest of New England, except Maine, makes up half of the top 10. Maine is still considered "Solid Democratic" by the same Gallup poll.

Additionally, VT's population is barely 4% of the Yankee total, so even if Green Mountain was 100% Republican (which it clearly is not), it wouldn't matter. Vermont is a .22 CB cap in the New England cylinder full of .44 Magnum.

cont...

Posted by: PVB | January 7, 2010 8:51 PM    Report this comment

Conclusion: Gav's Yankee comment is actually based on facts. No, not every "Yankee" is a flaming liberal, but that part of the country does lean strongly to the left. (Where are the Kennedys from anyway?) I'm not going to Sarah B's site, but you certainly may if there is any doubt in your mind that each and every one of the 6 Yankee states are in her Top 10.

Perhaps Gav meant NY Yankee, since they seem to represent much of what's wrong with the instant gratification society we now have. Except Jeter - I don't have a big problem with him.

FYI, I have lived in New England, thus could probably be considered a Yankee. I take no offense at all Gav!

Posted by: PVB | January 7, 2010 8:51 PM    Report this comment

Gaviota you honestly cheapen our message when you spew such idiotic polarized statements.

Yankee? Are you serious? The eff is that supposed to mean? Are you implying that being Yankee is somehow synonymous with the anti-gun movement?

The YANKEE state of Vermont has the laxest gun restrictions in the Union. Hell you don’t even need a CCW because you don’t even need to register a firearm. So perhaps you need to relax with all your hootin and hollerin about Yankees.

And if you are implying that Leftists are the "anti-gun" political party, I wish you would learn something about gun control legislation. The last major "anti-gun" law to enter the House, was H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008. Funny thing is it was sponsored by a Right-Wing Republican and co-sponsored by 4 more. Hell there ain't a Democrats name on it anywhere.

Hopefully with a little research you will realize neither party serves our interests and there are plenty of us north of the Mason-Dixon who consider firearms a God-given right.

Posted by: August | January 7, 2010 7:35 PM    Report this comment

Hopefully, other states will learn from Indiana's example and pass similar laws, if necessary.

Posted by: mookien | January 7, 2010 12:05 PM    Report this comment

Terry B - Now YOU'RE using the "L" word!! I think "they" have an insatiable need to whine about something, the facts be damned.

Posted by: PVB | January 7, 2010 11:05 AM    Report this comment

The thing I find interesting in this is the fact that the liberal media screams so much about guns in the hands of criminals.... Then prints them a shopping list of where to steal them, so they can complain about more gun violence.... Logic has no place in their world.

Posted by: TERRY B | January 7, 2010 10:55 AM    Report this comment

You guys are on a roll today!

Seriously though, you would think that privacy concerns would be taken seriously with rampant identity theft. I really don't expect the libs to connect the dots between publishing a list of CCW's equating to a target list for thugs. No matter what the media wants to believe, a CCW list simply is not the same as a house sale, car registration, or driver's license - kinda hard to miss the house, and the general public can't get info on the latter two. One would logically expect (oops - sorry - I used the "L" word) that they should at least be able to understand identity theft.

Notwithstanding the unique nature of a CCW permit, that information deserves at least the same protection as any other license or identification.

Posted by: PVB | January 7, 2010 10:24 AM    Report this comment

So long as there are people who cannot think a problem through, who rely upon simple answers to complex questions, there will always be leftists.

Probably paraphrased from Winston Churchill. Sounds like something he'd say.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 5, 2010 11:27 PM    Report this comment

Please just tell us how you REALLY feel Lee.
A little information can be much worse than none at all. Semper Fi

Posted by: Sharps | January 5, 2010 9:45 PM    Report this comment

Yay. This is what usually happens. Newspaperprostitutes get hold of a permit list, publish the list with a bunch of smirking, self-righteous sneers directed at those paranoid, panicky "gun nuts," the legislature gets outraged calls from people who don't want their names, whereabouts, and property exposed to bad guys, the law is changed, and the leftists shriek and squeal, piss and moan about THEIR right to violate innocent citizen's privacy rights being violated. Or something like that.

They can never figure out that if they just kept their flappy yappy yakkity Yankee hippy mouths shut, they could still know who had a CCW. They just have to gloat about knowing, and that's how we keep winning the gun-rights fight.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 4, 2010 9:50 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In