L. Brooks Patterson slams gun 'zealots,' but Granholm says change in state law unlikely

[Bold Lib]

"These guys want to make a point and don't give a damn about the charities the festival supports," the Republican leader (Patterson) and festival founder told The Oakland Press. "I have a problem with these gun-toting zealots."
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/l_brooks_patterson_slams_gun-t.html

I do not understand all these Ruthuglicans and their thuggish organizations that try to take civil rights away from the American people.

[slackmaster]

1. Everyone has to pay to get in

It's not as if everyone who is not carrying a firearm can be automatically assumed to "give a damn" about anything other than getting some food, beverages, and entertainment.

[notadmblnd]

2. AE&B has never charged an entrance fee

Outside of parking there has never been an entrance fee and the city of Pontiac is very economically depressed. Now royal Oak is a fairly upscale town. If they are charging an entrance fee then greed is their motivation.

[slackmaster]

3. "In 2009 the festival added an admission fee. This $3 admission fee..."

"...supports the festival and community as follows: .25 to Arts Advocacy, .25 to the City of Royal Oak, and 50% of the remaining admission fees to 13 local charities after gating costs. For a list of non-profit partners that will share our admission fee, click here. To date, over $2 million raised by Ford Arts, Beats & Eats has been donated to charity."

http://www.artsbeatseats.com/?q=node/30

[notadmblnd]

7. I really don't recall paying it

I doubt I'll be going this year.

[old mark]

4. Well, as a long time Progressive "gun zealot", all I can say to Mr. Patterson is a hearty

Fuck You, Brooks.
:hi:

Have a great day!


mark

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

6. If the town had been following state law...

it never would have been an issue.

Had the town council not been a bunch of priggish Mrs. Grundy's, there never would have been an issue.

Congrats on winning todays prize for confirmation of Godwin's Law.

Exercise of Civil Rights is NOT "push(ing) their weight around", and the fact that you equate the two does not speak well of you.

P.S. If you don't intend to be a threat to my safety, my gun is not a threat to you.

[notadmblnd]

8. It's an open air festival People walk around with alcohol in their hands

Do we really need any of the potential conflict that could arise because some redneck full of beer gets bumped into by someone and takes it as a threat? We're not allowed to drink and drive, why should anyone be allowed to drink and carry?

[shadowrider]

10. Drinking AND carrying will get you thrown in the pokey. It's illegal everywhere.

and if some drunk guy runs into a SOBER guy who's carrying, 5 gets you 10 there is no incident as the SOBER guy will have his wits about him.

[spin]

20. Drinking is a choice. If you are carrying you just don't drink alcohol.

No big deal.

[PavePusher]

32. Why do you assume bearers of firearms will be consuming alcohol?

I assure you that the people carrying legally, who wish to remain non-criminals, will not be.

Criminals, I can't vouch for them, of course.

[cleanhippie]

36. They shouldn't, but driving is not a right.

So try another analogy, 'cause this one is bunk.

[SteveM]

50. A lotta sound & fury signifying nothing...

At Eeyore's Birthday, the nation's oldest regularly-scheduled celebration of counter-culture (Austin, since 1963), the admission is free, and over 10,000 folks show up to drink, play and wear costumes. There has never been an endorsement, nor a prohibition concerning the carrying of arms. And there has rarely been any trouble beyond FUs who beg for free beer (it's sold). The regular armed security and LEO take care of that anyway.

[louis-t]

9. When you encourage people to challenge a ruling by

showing up en masse with guns, you are pushing your weight around. And AB&E is the wrong forum. "Exercisin' our Civil Rights" is not an excuse to act like a bully in a public place. By the way, nice little NRA talking point in the P.S. I imagine the NRA will have people there shoving pamphlets in people's faces, too. I wish you would stay away. I have to be there. It's not that I don't like guns. I don't like gun people.

[shadowrider]

11. What type of person, other than a gun person, would have a gun there?

Just curious.

[cowman]

12. So what other

civil right would you restrict?
And BTW, using the term "gun nazi" shows your prejudice towards lawful gun owners who exercise a civil right and will get your post deleted. So what if law abiding citizens want to carry, what is your problem with that? What, are you afraid that their gun will jump out of its holster and start blasting away?

[louis-t]

14. You guys are full of NRA talking points.

How does someone automatically become a "law-'biden cit-zen" just because they carry a gun. Cracks me up every time I read that. See, this post is exactly the reason I don't like gun people. Come out screaming, armed with NRA talking points. The vitriol in the posts tells me you don't have the temperment to own a gun. Good luck with your 'rally'.

[cowman]

16. LOL

Us vitriol? Thats funny, but if you have proof that the vast majority of gun owners are not law abiding then lets see it by posting links. I'll wait.

[spin]

22. True just carrying a gun does not make you a law abiding citizen ...

criminals carry guns and they are not known for obeying the law.

The comment is often used by pro-RKBA in reference to those people who have a concealed firearms permit issued by a state that requires a background check. Statistics show that this particular category of gun owner rarely misuses their firearms.

Some states allow concealed carry without a license and many do not require a license for open carry. I haven't found any statistics for citizens that fall into these categories.

[shadowrider]

25. LOL

I've been carrying for years and years and have never pulled it, brandished it or fired it at anything other than a paper target and I don't have the temperment to own one?

Good one.

[SteveM]

52. You speak of vitriol, yet you are the one who "doesn't like gun people...",

who blows mightily about "NRA talking points" and "law-'biden cit-zen." And constructs a straw man by asking: "How does someone automatically become a 'law-'biden cit-zen' just because they carry a gun." That last one is a construct.

Your's.

[cowman]

13. So by that standard

when you encourage people to show up at an anti war rally, your just pushing your weight around. Oh teh stoopid

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

17. Come on

is that the best you got? Pathetic, just pathetic. BTW, say by by to your post, can't personally insult another DU'er.
Buh bye

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

24. And of course

the usual "sexual inadequacy" canard, don't you anti's have ANYTHING new? At least try to be original with the insults.

[PavePusher]

29. When you stuff your strawmen that fast....

your quality control really drops off.

I know you can do better.

[PavePusher]

30. I don't carry for any of those reasons.

Assumptions, assumptions...

[Bold Lib]

21. "I don't like gun people." How open minded and tolerant of you.

[louis-t]

26. Not because they're gun people.

Because they constantly spout phony statistics from the NRA handbook and complain I'm treading on their rights by not approving of their stormtrooping into a family event because they're unhappy with a city decision. Protest in front of city hall if you want, protest in front of your Senator's office, protest in the doggie park if you want, but a family festival is not the place.

[cowman]

27. You said in an earlier post

you don't mind guns you just don't like gun people. And the stats. that are usually posted don't come from the NRA, if you had paid attention you would know that they come from tha FBI, the state of FL. and many other sites. And where I choose to carry my gun where legal to do so is none of your business. When you try to tell me where I can and cannot carry my weapon, at that point you are stepping on my rights.

[PavePusher]

31. Since you have posted no evidence...

you don't have a lot of credibility to talk about "phony statistics" from anywhere.

[Bold Lib]

33. You may want to go back and revisit post number 9. What you

said was very clear, and clearly close minded and intolerant.

[Bold Lib]

34. "phony statistics" Care to elaborate? Perhaps with "real" statistics?

Somehow I don't think you will, or can for that matter.

[louis-t]

38. Phony statistic #1

direct from the NRA playbook:"1.9 (substitute 2.9, 1, 2, or any other number out of thin air) million times a year, someone 'protects' them self with a gun", then a few years later, just to cover your ass, add a post script "most of the time without firing a shot". What the Hell does that mean? It's rhetoric.

Phony statistic #2: "statistics show" that when a person is legally carrying a weapon, somehow he is above committing a crime, or "rarely" commits a crime, as if the act of legally obtaining a weapon makes him a different person. If the person committed a crime before he applied for a gun license, he wouldn't be able to get one. So, how can someone assume that just by legally obtaining a weapon, he has become more law abiding? That is the inference. That is the rhetorical part of this talking point.

Phony statistic/rhetoric #3: "criminals will be afraid to rob or attack someone if they don't know who's armed and who's not". Bullshit. Desperate people take lots of chances. Criminals shoot at cops and know the cops are armed. Some cops are killed with their own weapons.

I've heard these and others from relatives and friends for many years. These 3 are the biggies.

You have a right to carry a weapon. You have a right to defend yourself. I just think the odds are against it. I think that anyone who thinks they can get the drop on someone who already has their gun drawn is delusional. Anyone who keeps a loaded weapon in their home, especially with kids around, thinking that gun will protect them is risking a lot. It is my opinion that that gun is more likely to be stolen from you and used in a crime, or used against you by an intruder, family member, ex-family member, or accidentally fired possibly injuring or killing someone, than actually used to stop an intruder or protect yourself from a crime. I rejoice when someone actually DOES protect them self with a gun.

When I was about 7, my Mom told my uncle that if he wanted to, he could come over and sleep on the couch after work if he was too tired to drive home. She forgot to tell my Dad. Of course, then she woke my Dad up in the middle of the night and said "someone's in the house". Only MY mother could...Anyway, my Dad grabbed his shotgun and nearly shot his own brother. He got rid of the guns after that. Much like the guy down south that shot his own daughter through a closet door because he thought she was an intruder when she was playing a prank on him, the only time in his life he ever used that gun to 'protect' his family could have turned out just as disastrous.

[cowman]

39. Your entitled to your opinion

as we are entitled to ours, don't own or carry one if you don't want to but don't ridicule those of us that do choose to do so. And nobody here has ever said that lawful gun owners don't break the law, what has been said and backed up by FBI stats. is that citizens lawfully carrying concealed are far less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen.

[PavePusher]

40. There is evidence to support those "phony statistics".

You have presented none in refutation.

You would not pass a high school debate class with tactics like that.

[X_Digger]

41. Sources for "stats"

1. Clinton's DOJ- http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf - 1.5M defensive gun uses, a majority of which did not involve firing a shot. Funny it wasn't sponsored by the NRA.

2. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html (FL) / http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm (TX)

Those who choose to become licensed to carry concealed are rather law-abiding. You're five to twenty-five times more likely to be the victim of a crime perpetrated by the general public than by a person holding a concealed carry license. (eta: the 5-25x depends on crime.)

Funny, state data, and I don't see 'NRA' anywhere at either link.

Phony statistic/rhetoric #3: "criminals will be afraid to rob or attack someone if they don't know who's armed and who's not". Bullshit. Desperate people take lots of chances. Criminals shoot at cops and know the cops are armed. Some cops are killed with their own weapons.

First part: "criminals will be afraid to rob or attack someone if they don't know who's armed and who's not" -- it's called herd immunity. The proof is the comparison of so-called 'hot' burglaries in places without widespread gun ownership to those with- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613417/An-Englishmans-home-is-his-dungeon.html - "Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing."

Second part: Do you know how many officers were killed in 2008 with their own weapon? A grand total of four. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/feloniouslykilled.html

I think that anyone who thinks they can get the drop on someone who already has their gun drawn is delusional.

That one's debunked by real-world examples here on a regular basis. Here's one from today- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x335432#335435

[cowman]

42. And what do we hear from this poster

wait a minute, wait for it, damn, just the sound of crickets, amazing how when presented with facts and links, they run awaaaaaaaaay.
Not addressing you X_Digger, just to be clear
Peace

[X_Digger]

45. Yup.. sad, really.

But at least someone else reading this won't be bullshitted by the poster's assertions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. That's how you have to deal with the factose intolerant and citation impaired

Present them with solid, researchable evidence in rebuttal, and to paraphrase Bart Simpson:They'll fold like Superman on laundry day.

[Bold Lib]

49. You have presented no evidence that any of those stats are phone.

You simply SAY they are phone. Just because you refuse to believe the stats does not make them phony. Care to actually provide evidence that they are phony?

[X_Digger]

35. Where to begin..

1. Where are these 'statistics' and what makes you think them 'phony'?

2. Protest* only in certain areas? That smacks of the bush-tastic 'free speech zones'. I certainly didn't approve of those restrictions under the shrub regime, I damn well don't approve of it under our own.





* I doubt the concept of a 'protest' has anything to do with this.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

48. See post 41 for the 'stats' you deride as "NRA"

By the way, aren't you late for protesting a dead soldiers funeral?

Only if there's a phelps moran road show nearby, then I'll be counter-protesting. (The solution for bad speech is good speech.)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-- misattributed to Voltaire

[cleanhippie]

37. What phony statistics?

Please, point out the phony ones.

[one-eyed fat man]

43. Am I missing something?

".....unhappy with a city decision."

Aren't your knickers in a twist because the city grudgingly decided to follow state law?

Are there other laws the city should be able to violate with your approval?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Have to wonder how you felt when blacks stormed white neighborhoods

surely they had the right to, but they were making people uncomfortable...

[PavePusher]

28. Were lunch counter sit-ins "throwing their weight around"?

Are union organisers "throwing their weight around"?

Are gay pride parades "throwing their weight around"?

Are people who want to build a mosque "throwing their weight around"?



Not sure what NRA talking point you allude to, cite please?

Oh, and it seems people passing out pamphlets ("shoving...in people's faces"? Really?) is probably "throwing their weight around" by the way you say it.

[SteveM]

51. "I don't like gun people." We figured that...

Is there any evidence that anyone is bullying anyone else, or are you just speculating?

BTW, what is a "gun people?"

[spin]

19. The writer calls open carry "holstered carry" ???

Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson on Tuesday joined a heated -- but seemingly settled -- debate over whether holstered firearms should be allowed at the Arts, Beats and Eats festival scheduled for Labor Day weekend in Royal Oak.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/l_brooks_patterson_slams_gun-t.html

He needs to be reminded that people who legally carry concealed also use holsters. Usually the only people who avoid holsters are criminals who often ditch their firearm while they are running from the police. They don't want to be caught wearing an empty holster.

[east texas lib]

44. Hey, where can I get a 'gun tote' ?

And how many guns does the tote hold?}(