Another Reason People are Leaving Big Cities

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=64314

Restrictive Gun Laws Pushing People Out Of Big Cities, Three States, Says SAF

4/20/2006 5:22:00 PM

BELLEVUE, Wash., April 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Census Bureau has reported what amounts to a "domestic migration" from three large cities in three key states, and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) blames much of this population flight on repressive gun laws.

The Associated Press reported Thursday that, according to the Census Bureau, states losing the most people are New York, California and Illinois.

"This is no mystery," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "Those states are infamous for their anti-gun attitudes. Countless times have we heard from people who have moved from those states because they wanted to escape the Draconian gun laws.

"The Census Bureau reports that New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles lost the most residents between 2000 and 2004," Gottlieb continued. "Anti-gun politicians and their restrictive gun laws have made it virtually impossible for average law-abiding citizens to get a concealed pistol license in Los Angeles or New York City. In Chicago, you can't own an unregistered handgun, and they no longer register handguns.

"Americans prefer to live where they can enjoy freedom and liberty, rather than depend upon an oppressive, disinterested municipal bureaucracy for their safety," he said

"It's not enough just to have a job anymore," Gottlieb noted. "Americans are choosing to live where their families are secure and where sensible gun laws allow them to protect themselves and what's theirs. They're tired of being treated like criminals for exercising their civil right to own a gun. They're tired of taking the rap for crimes they didn't commit because gun-hating politicians are powerless against predatory thugs, or have sold out to political correctness, and refuse to crack down.

"They're tired of being scapegoats for governments that do more harm than good," he concluded. "They want to live where owning guns is respected rather than reviled, and where criminals think twice about attacking someone who may be ready and willing to fight back."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,018 • Replies: 15

No top replies

Seems like awfully simplistic reasoning to me. There are more illegal handguns in most major cities than ever before in the past. I could just as reasonably suggest that people are moving away from cities to avoid guns and gun violence, rather than to be nearer to the firearms they adore.

Realistically, neither argument holds much water.

0 Replies

That article smells of conservative/libertarian/pro-NRA bias.

0 Replies

People around here are leaving the cities because the cost of living here (in the cities) can't be justified in this stinky economy.

0 Replies

Odin2006 wrote:

That article smells of conservative/libertarian/pro-NRA bias.

This country BELONGS to those
who support the original philosophy upon which it was founded,
to wit: PERSONAL FREEDOM from interference of government.

Liberals are DEVIANTS therefrom,
whose philosophy is not legitimate.
The NRA shares some of the philosophy of the Founders.

Note that there survives a letter from Thomas Jefferson
to his 12 year old nephew whom he advises never
to go walking without his gun,
and to work out with it, for proficiency.
He expresses a preference for it, over ball games,
opining that it builds " character ".

James Madison used to run gunnery matches,
but he did not articulate as much enthusiasm
for freedom to bear arms as Patrick Henry.

This country BELONGS to those of us who SUPPORT the Constitution
David

0 Replies

To those obsessed with firearms, every subject can be tied back into it. I have some friends that can relate every life event to something in Star Wars. I find them much more entertaining.

0 Replies

Quote:

This country BELONGS to those
who support the original philosophy upon which it was founded,
to wit: PERSONAL FREEDOM from interference of government.

Funny, I don't recollect seeing anything in the Constitution that says that. I'm under the assumption this country belongs to all of its citizens and not to those who have a narrow point of view.

I bet your a secret Al Sharpton supporter.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Odin2006 wrote:
That article smells of conservative/libertarian/pro-NRA bias.

This country BELONGS to those
who support the original philosophy upon which it was founded,
to wit: PERSONAL FREEDOM from interference of government.

Liberals are DEVIANTS therefrom,
whose philosophy is not legitimate.
The NRA shares some of the philosophy of the Founders.

Note that there survives a letter from Thomas Jefferson
to his 12 year old nephew whom he advises never
to go walking without his gun,
and to work out with it, for proficiency.
He expresses a preference for it, over ball games,
opining that it builds " character ".

James Madison used to run gunnery matches,
but he did not articulate as much enthusiasm
for freedom to bear arms as Patrick Henry.

This country BELONGS to those of us who SUPPORT the Constitution
David

So how's that manifesto coming since you moved to Montana? Laughing

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Odin2006 wrote:
That article smells of conservative/libertarian/pro-NRA bias.

This country BELONGS to those
who support the original philosophy upon which it was founded,
to wit: PERSONAL FREEDOM from interference of government.

Liberals are DEVIANTS therefrom,
whose philosophy is not legitimate.
The NRA shares some of the philosophy of the Founders.

Note that there survives a letter from Thomas Jefferson
to his 12 year old nephew whom he advises never
to go walking without his gun,
and to work out with it, for proficiency.
He expresses a preference for it, over ball games,
opining that it builds " character ".

James Madison used to run gunnery matches,
but he did not articulate as much enthusiasm
for freedom to bear arms as Patrick Henry.

This country BELONGS to those of us who SUPPORT the Constitution
David

Jefferson WAS a liberal. Rolling Eyes

Jefferson supported the liberty of the common man, not the liberty of the rich to scew over the rest.

And I am not anti-gun. I grew up in a rural area and I hunt often. Why do you gun nuts equate regulation with "the evul libruls are going to come and take our guns?" Rolling Eyes

And who cares about the "original philosphy" the US was founded on? what philosphers thought during the Enlightenment is of no relavence to the modern world. Such archaism get a society NOWEHRE.

0 Replies

If they're moving out of LA, judging by rush hour traffic you can't tell it!

Still, assuming arguendo it's true, that seems like a great argument for even STRICTER gun laws around here...

0 Replies

Well I am just glad that I am in the city -- I can't imagine having to drive to work and commute with these outrage gas prices...I just read that gas prices have increased $.25 over the last two weeks. CRAZY! I wonder what it will be in two more weeks.

Gas

0 Replies

I find it soooooooooo nice to be retired. I don't miss that traffic at all.

0 Replies

We're well over $3 a gallon and headed towards $4. Unless something changes, I assume $5 a gallon by summer will be the norm.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

To those obsessed with firearms, every subject can be tied back into it.

The Founders considered this freedom
to be PIVOTAL to the preservation of the Republic.
It was the issue of whether the people belonged to the government
or whether the government was only a lowly property manager,
an employed hireling, beloning to the citizens.

As Aristotle put it:

"the commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms:
the sword and sovereignty
ever walk hand in hand together"
David

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

If they're moving out of LA, judging by rush hour traffic you can't tell it!

Still, assuming arguendo it's true, that seems like a great argument for
even STRICTER gun laws around here...

STRICT is really not the right word.
That refers to the degree of deviation that is allowed from
some standard ( e.g., a curfew being strictly enforced )
but it merely ASSUMES that the standard itself is LEGITIMATE.

For instance,
if W were to take a liberal vu
of the constitutional prohibition against ( or DISABILITY of )
selling titles of nobility,
and he said: " well be reasonable; we won 't do it all the time,
but on alternate Tuesdays, I 'll sell a maximum of 30 dukedoms,
at auction, and support them with government land grants.
The new dukes can rent them out.
Surely, the Founders did not mean that prohibition to be ABSOLUTE. "
If the courts applied a standard of how STRICTLY
or how liberally, the standard of prohibition will be enforced
( rather than to consider the fundamental question of whether W
can constitutionally sell titles of nobility )
then the only issue to be decided will be
how great or small a deviation from the constitutional prohibition
will be tolerated.

Instead of * STRICT * a logically more precise word
is "severe" or " oppressive " gun law.

David

0 Replies

Another Reason People are Leaving Big Cities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know