Gun Fetishists Guns South Carolina

What Could Go Wrong?


South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is supporting a bill that would remove the permit and training requirements for carrying a concealed weapon.

The permit and training requirements would also be removed for anyone who wants to sling a weapon over their shoulder and carry it openly.

The bill is sponsored by state Sen. Lee Bright (R), who is mounting a primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

“Criminals are dangerous, and I think that every resident should be allowed to protect themselves from criminals,” Haley said when The State asked her to respond to some lawmakers’ fears that eliminating those requirements could threaten the public.

Criminals may be dangerous, but people who have no idea how to safely handle or fire a gun waving a gun around are also dangerous.

The bill is shamelessly titled the “Constitutional Carry Act” even though gun fetishists toting their rifles to Wal-Mart without a permit are neither a militia or well-regulated.

  • aynwrong

    Of course she is.

  • Ipecac

    Like others here, I just don’t get it.

    Why would these people be comforted by seeing more people walking on the street with guns? I work in DC and the only people I see carrying guns are police or security personnel. If every second or third person had a gun on his hip or over his shoulder, I would be incredibly uncomfortable. It would reduce my quality of life as I’d be afraid that any social gaffe could result in me getting shot. Or I’d be caught up in a crossfire between two packing idiots.

    Why does this Old West nonsense seem like a good idea to these people? Are they that afraid?

    • Norbrook

      The truly pathetic part is that even in the Old West, people didn’t walk around armed all the time. In fact, one of the first things most sheriffs did to keep a town peaceful was … institute strict gun control. You turned in your guns on the way into town, and picked them up on the way out.

    • bleedingheartliberal6

      Yeah, look what happened when the old retired police officer had his life threatened with popcorn in the movie theatre? No worries…..everyone who carries a gun around must be level-headed — right? As a result, we don’t need to get guns registered, or require people to learn to use them properly, or adequately regulate them in any way.

  • villemar

    You’ll no doubt notice Greenwald Cultists like Jason silent on this issue. Nope, not a single fuck to be found among them.

    • IrishGrrrl

      Hard for bullets fired in the US to reach Greenwald way down there in Brazil, but he’s so sure that Uncle Sam’s electronic eyes can reach him anywhere he goes. Guns are a “I live in this country” problem. /snark

  • moelarryandjesus

    Why is there a much higher percentage of stupid people in red states?

    Is there something in their water?

    • bleedingheartliberal6

      Because, over the years, the GOPers have been systematically cutting any support for education. Just like in Dictatorships and third world countries, an uneducated electorate is much easier to control.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    I swear, I’m done with guns.

    Look at the comment thread under my last Daily Kos gun diary, another discussion of gun-rights-as-property-rights and why gun strokers are so butthurt by that characterization. All they do is prove my point, and when I point that out, they get even nastier. One nut even tried to “prove” me wrong, by “proving” that the phrase “bear arms” actually means “wage war,” which it doesn’t, and which every item of “proof” (s)he linked proved that it doesn’t. (Every source (s)he cited proved the exact opposite of what (s)he said.) You can’t win with these people, who so desperately need to believe their own myth and just hate the fact that I/we don’t admire them as much as they admire themselves.

    So I say the heck with it; bring on the guns. Bring on the open carry, bring on the assault rifles slung over everyone’s shoulder, bring on the daily shootings and shootouts. I don’t care anymore.

    • 1933john

      And this is what they are looking for, Mr. Airship.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Yes, yes, I know, and I’ve said and acknowledged that before. But trying to reason with the Heroes of the Next American Revolution™ is depressing.

        • IrishGrrrl

          Graf, you do such an excellent job of eviscerating those nuts. Just remember you’re not converting foaming at the mouth folks, you’re trying to convince the person who is middle of the road and you’re educating them. That’s what matters.

    • nathkatun7

      Pretty soon, under right wing Conservatives, the U.S. will quickly resemble Somalia. If that’s is what the right wingers want, they should advocating getting rid of all the law enforcement people (Police, Sheriffs, State Troopers, Boarder Patrol, U.S. Marshals, ATF, FBI, etc.) now that every man will be armed, able and free to fight criminals. And, since right wingers believe, and advocate, that every man, woman and child should be free to carry guns, including military like assault weapons, why the do we need the Army, Navy, Marines and the Coast Guards?

      By the way, despite all their claims, these rabid right wingers are the ones who are truly against the U.S. Constitution. Here is what the founders set out to do when they wrote the Constitution in 1787:

      1. Establish Justice
      2. Insure Domestic Tranquility
      3. Provide for the COMMON (not individual) Defense
      4. Promote the General Welfare
      5. Secure the Blessings of Liberty ( to themselves) and their Posterity.

      I am not sure how arming everyone, including the untrained, the mentally ill, and those who worship guns and violence, will honor the goals of the revered “Founding Fathers.” Even in the “Wild West” local, state and federal governments, in order to “Insure Domestic Tranquility” and “Promote the General Welfare,” enacted laws that regulated the ownership and use of guns. And we are talking of the time when no individual had any access to automatic and semi automatic assault weapons that caused instant mass casualties when fired.

  • muselet

    The Consitushun don’t say nuthin’ ’bout no trainin’ or permittin’, so them things ain’t allowed!


    The only bright spot is that, according to The State, this idiotic law is unlikely to pass.


    • nathkatun7

      So what did the framers of the 2nd Amendment mean when they wrote:

      “A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free state….?

      • muselet

        According to the Supremes (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago), what you just quoted is just meaningless language the framers tossed in to dazzle the rubes.


        • nathkatun7

          Amazing! This is from Justices like Scalia and Thomas who purportedly believe in “strict construction,” i.e. the literal interpretation, of the words of the framers. Right wing hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking!

      • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

        It was to appease the southern states so they could continue to hunt down escaped slaves with their militias.

        • nathkatun7

          If this was about appeasing Southern States “so they could continue to hunt down escaped slaves,” why didn’t the framers of the 2nd Amendment simply adopt the language of the 1712 South Carolina Statute that authorized every able bodied white person, and not just the militias, to be involved in apprehending runaway slaves?

          • IrishGrrrl

            Plausible deniability and legal reasons….Because the federal government didn’t want to come right out and explicitly state in writing that the militias were for catching slaves…that would have been tantamount to legally approving of slavery. So they used the generic term “militias” instead of slave hunting posses. This wording appeased the Northern abolitionists enough because militias could be used for other activities and it kept the Southern states in the Union. It’s also one of the reasons we hate lawyers so much because they make some ugly, ugly compromises for society just like this.

  • IrishGrrrl

    Oh, if only it was so simple to point to the stats and say, “see no training, means more deaths”. But the gun lobby has made it almost impossible to get stats on gun deaths due to accidents….And the laws are structured to be not very clear in order to make it harder to do research and get clear cut studies. Arizona is the perfect example. If you get a concealed permit then yes,you must have training. But you don’t need a permit to conceal carry in any previously open carry areas. Thus you can conceal carry in most public places without a permit or any training whatsoever. Oh, did I mention the fact that in 2009 Arizona had more deaths caused by guns than deaths by cars? I would lay bets on how fast SC’s gun death rates go up too but that would be crass and cynical. But babies with guns, now that’s just positive thinking!

  • WiscoJoe

    I’m old enough to remember when the NRA actually promoted itself as an advocacy group for responsible gun ownership and promoted gun safety laws and requirements for proper training. I suppose that gig probably wasn’t as lucrative or easy as their current racket selling ammo to conspiracy theorists.

    • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

      Today I only hunt with a camera but grew up on a farm and hunted with my Dad and Grandad when the season came around till I was about 17. We always cleaned and ate our quarry just like when we fished. That was in the 60’s and I can tell you that neither one of them would ever entertain the thought of owning a handgun or an assault weapon.
      They were tough men who I admired. Personally I think they were comfortable with the size of their dicks, unlike the paranoid pussies of today’s gun nuts.