Dispute over guns threatens Senate vote

[Jack_DeLeon]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - An election-year dispute over whether to allow loaded guns in national parks is holding up a vote on a massive bill affecting public lands from coast to coast.

Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to score political points by injecting a "wedge" issue like gun rights into a noncontroversial bill.

Republicans counter that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to protect the two leading Democratic candidates for president by shielding them from a politically difficult vote on an issue that many rural voters consider crucial.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the leading Republican contender for president, is a co-sponsor of the amendment, which would allow gun owners to carry loaded, accessible firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. Current regulations ban gun owners from carrying easy-to-reach firearms onto lands managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_go_co/guns_national_parks

---

The laws need to be changed. I have a concealed handgun license in Texas, and I like visiting places like Big Bend National Park, I would like to be able to legally carry my handgun when I'm there camping with my friends and family.

If not a change to allow concealed carry in all national parks, it should atleast be changed to allow it for parks that are withing the borders of states that allow for it, so that way it is atleast up to the states.

[LeftyMom]

1. You don't need your security blanket when you go camping, Linus.

Jesus. :eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

4. We dont "need" alot of the stuff we have in our lives...

what is wrong with having something by choice?

I choose to own and carry a gun. So far I havent "needed" it, but I choose to carry it none the less.

I think when you are outdoors and semi-isolated its always best to take extra precautions. When I'm taking a trip I always keep extra water and such in the trunk of my car for example. A gun is just an extra precaution.

Also FWIW a blanket is pretty useful when you are camping out. It was pretty chilly last time we stayed at big bend.

[primavera]

29. What if I choose to carry around a vial of Hanta virus?

Or maybe a canister of Sarin gas? Should it be my choice to carry such items?

[slackmaster]

35. Straw Man

This is about allowing people who have been vetted and licensed by their states carrying handguns for self-defense.

[primavera]

49. Not at all

Just demonstrating that "choice" isn't an absolute right. Whether or not guns constitute a hazzard warranting restriction of an individual's right to make choices is a separate question upon which reasonable people can - and quite obviously do - disagree. But to assert, as Mr. DeLeon does, that his perceived right to own and carry guns is supported by some inalienable right of the individual to choose to possess anything they want is obviously absurd, as there are plainly items sufficiently hazzardous that individuals do not possess such a right. Therefore, freedom of choice has nothing to do with this discussion, as no such freedom exists; what matters is whether guns constitute a public safety hazzard warranting regulation.

[slackmaster]

50. Jack has it right about rights

All rights exist except those that have been curtailed by due process of law.

Your right to have WMDs has been curtailed.

Therefore, freedom of choice has nothing to do with this discussion, as no such freedom exists; what matters is whether guns constitute a public safety hazzard warranting regulation.

Have you read the proposal, or even the article linked to in the OP? Do you have any idea what this is about?

[primavera]

56. We're talking apples and oranges here

Jack asks "what is wrong with having something by choice?" In response to that specific question, the only answer can be: "what does 'choice' have to do with anything?" There are a great many "choices" to which people do not possess a right. It follows logically that "choice" is not an element in this discussion.

[zanne]

58. What's wrong with having a "choice"?

What's wrong with you having the choice to carry a loaded gun in a national park is that I don't have a "choice" to be safe from you.

[primavera]

61. Sorry, you lost me

I'm not understanding what you're saying. What are you asking/saying? :shrug:

[zanne]

63. Gun toters want a "choice" to carry a gun in national parks...

But unarmed people don't have a "choice" to be safe from people who "choose" to carry guns. It's a safety issue that gun toters don't like to think about. I have rights as a citizen to be safe from gun violence.

[dysfunctional press]

64. conceal-carry laws DO keep you safe from gun violence.

areas that institute conceal-carry laws generally show a marked DECREASE in violent crimes against individuals.

[zanne]

71. Prove it. With FACTS, not speculation or a few isolated events. nt

[dysfunctional press]

85. no problem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry

"Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.<20><17>"
17.^ a b Tennessee Law Review, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?", 1994.
20.# ^ Gary A. Mauser, Simon Fraser University, Don B. Kates, retired; Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence

"In Florida, which first introduced "shall-issue" concealed carry laws, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,<18>"
18.^ Frank Espohl. The right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense. Southern Illinois University Law Journal.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

Major crime fell dramatically in states which have legalized the carrying of concealed handguns, according to a comprehensive new study at the University of Chicago.

For the first time, researchers analyzed crime statistics for all 3,054 counties in the United Sates between 1977 and 1992, according to one of the authors of the unpublished study, Professor John Lott. After adjusting for a general fall in crime rates, the study found that:

* In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

* Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

* In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.

According to the study, the fall in crime did not result from an increased use of guns, but from potential criminals avoiding confrontations. Other findings included:

* The most dramatic falls in murder rates were in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high.

* The study found that for every woman who carries a concealed hand, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would have if one more man had carried a concealed gun.

* If states with concealed handgun bans had allowed them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

In addition, the researchers found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides in states with concealed carry laws.

Sources: Ian Katz, "'Gun Law' Cuts Crime Rate, US Study Finds," Guardian, August 3, 1996, and Dennis Cauchon, "Study: Weapons Laws Deter Crime: Fewer Rapes, Murders Found Where Concealed Guns Legal," USA Today, August 2, 1996.

[primavera]

86. LOL! University of Chicago, why doesn't that surprise me?

The famed bastion of neocon thought, I think I'll look elsewhere for reliable sources of information, thank you.

[dysfunctional press]

90. ...

:eyes:

there are none so blind as those who will not see.

[primavera]

79. Thanks for clarifying

I understand and agree wholeheartedly.

It's interesting reading these posts and seeing the underlying difference in philosophies. I think slackmaster said something bigger than he perhaps appreciated when he stated that "All rights exist except those that have been curtailed by due process of law." Think for a minute about what that's saying. That attitude sets as the starting point for all future discussions that individuals are morally and leaglly entitled to perform any action their hearts desire, and that any constraints upon that presumed entitlement reflect governmental interference requiring justification. For me, that puts the cart before the horse, as I tend to look upon what slackmaster views as "rights," to which anyone is automatically entitled without any burden of responsibility, more as "privileges," for the exercise of which one bears responsibilities. I don't perceive, for instance, that I have an inalienable "right" to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. Rather, operating a motor vehicle on roads which belong not just to me personally, but to all, imparts an obligation upon me to demonstrate that I can do so safely, without harming others. It therefore seems altogether reasonable to me that the burden of proof should lie upon me to submit myself to examination, pay taxes and licensing fees in order to maintain those public roads, and accept constraints upon the extent to which my vehicle has the potential to cause harm (through excessive emissions or mechanical faults) to others.

For me, therefore, it's a short trip to perceiving a parallel responsibility for ownership of firearms. Since slackmaster and others who share his views tend to look upon such privileges as absolute rights to which any and all are automatically entitled without any constraint, obligation, or responsibility, it makes sense that he would arrive at a very different conclusion.

[slackmaster]

83. You have totally misstated my position on rights, Kevin

...I tend to look upon what slackmaster views as "rights," to which anyone is automatically entitled without any burden of responsibility...

The exercise of rights INHERENTLY carries responsibilities. People are always responsible for their actions (except people who have been lawfully declared not to be, and we don't let them have guns).

[primavera]

84. Okay, then maybe it's just different points on a sliding scale

But the emphasis of all of your posts is not on the responsibilities, but upon the perceived "right that shall not be encroached upon." For me, it's the other way around - I share no presumption that a person can and will utilize a firearm in a manner that does not cause harm, so, like driver's licenses, I expect citizens who wish to use firearms will bear the burden of proving that they are able to do so safely. The greater the potential harm, the greater the burden of responsibility. And in light the piles of bullet-ridden corpses in this country, that potential harm is pretty high.

[krispos42]

155. Do you have a right to be safe from gun violence in particular?

Or violence in general?

[Turbo Teg]

157. Actually you don't have that right.

What you do have is a right to defend yourself if you can. Also, no law is going to stop someone from taking a gun into a park, or anywhere else for that matter, unfortunatly, that's something that anti-gunners don't like to think about.

[slackmaster]

66. That's just nonsense, zanne

A person who has a license to carry a handgun for self-defense does not put you in any danger.

[Kolesar]

78. The issue is the distinction between leaving an assembled gun in the trunk or out of it

It is not question of someone having a license to carry a concealed firearm

[slackmaster]

82. You can't carry a "loaded, accessible" firearm in California or most states without a permit

So we are indeed talking about people who have permits.

[Thothmes]

123. Virginia is an "open carry" State

if the qun is readily visible you can carry it anywhere in the state with on permit required. Excepts are schools, churches, govt buildings and places that serve alcohol.

[sabre73]

142. You are absolutely safe from me.....

And I will even go out of my way from time to time to keep you safe from the real threats out there. Unless you wish me to leave you to the guy who has a gun that should not..... Maybe you can "reason" with him. That is, IF he his not off of his meds?

Just a thought. Not all gun owners are a threat. If they were you would never call the police to help you.... Because we cops all own guns!

[gorfle]

167. You are quite safe when I carry a gun, Zanne.

What's wrong with you having the choice to carry a loaded gun in a national park is that I don't have a "choice" to be safe from you.

It has already been demonstrated that CCW permit holders, the people we are talking about being allowed to carry firearms in national parks, are already many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to commit crimes than your average citizen.

You are less likely to encounter trouble from a CCW permit holder than a non-CCW permit holder. You are actually safer in the presence of a CCW permit holder.

[SteveM]

107. "Taking life may be a duty...

Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- Mahatma Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, Navajivan, Trust, 1960.

Gandhi chose confronting those who would threaten his life, family, property and religion. He chose the highest form of non-violence -- stopping the threat without harming those who were threatening -- but recognized that we are not perfect and most will not reach his highest form, hence the choice for the rest of us: self-defense by force if necessary or turning away from the threat and letting the deal go down. The latter he called cowardice. I won't choose the latter.

[Recursion]

135. He was also decorated for valor three times in the British Army

He was a corporal in the Zulu wars.

[gorfle]

166. Not the right to choose anything...

But to assert, as Mr. DeLeon does, that his perceived right to own and carry guns is supported by some inalienable right of the individual to choose to possess anything they want is obviously absurd, as there are plainly items sufficiently hazzardous that individuals do not possess such a right.

This discussion is not about the right to choose to possess anything they want. Further, the right to own and carry guns is not a "perceived" right.

We are talking specifically about the right to keep and bear arms, and the only "choice" being suggested is the choice of whether to carry arms or not.

Therefore, freedom of choice has nothing to do with this discussion, as no such freedom exists;

The freedom of choice of whether or not to bear arms most certainly does exist.

what matters is whether guns constitute a public safety hazzard warranting regulation.

Concealed carry is already heavily regulated and requires a permit. Such CCW permit holders have been demonstrated to be among the most law-abiding in the country, being many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime.

[llmart]

106. Yeah, like the vetting process.............

is so strenuous and fool proof. It isn't. If you're afraid of being out in a national park then don't go. Sit in your Barcolounger in front of your TV where you can be safe from the big bad world.

[sabre73]

143. Are you saying that we are not allowed to leave our homes?

If you think that we should stay at home because we are going to be prepared (should we encounter a degenerate) then I say BITE ME. I will go out when I damn well feel like it and if the BIG BAD WORLD tries to threaten me I will not back down.

It is called having a spine. You should try it.

[Boomer 50]

163. doesn't apply and here is why

Chemical and biologics have what is known as uncontrollable or unintentional fallout. The effect of the weapon goes far beyond the controllable, intended use of the weapon. This is not the case for firearms or even conventional explosives. NBC weapons are not covered by the 2nd Amendment though all smallarms are.

[spoony]

100. So when you go camping, I trust that you

don't carry a cell phone, right? Or a first aid kit? After all, nothing is likely to happen.

[Tejas]

145. She doesn't camp

so, like the rest of the antis here, is not qualified to answer your question.


She'll probably claim she doesn't lock her doors at night either.
(LOL!)

[Turbo Teg]

156. Just because

You don't feel the need to take responsablity for your personal safety doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't have the right to. If YOU don't feel you need a gun when camping, then great, but that's your opinion. Some of the rest of like having our "security blanket" when out in the middle of nowhere. Since there is no need for a gun in the woods, what's the problem to you?

[seriousstan]

2. Agreed!

[ingac70]

3. The Dems need to let this one pass...

McCain already has a "f" rating with the NRA, and we need to make damn sure they aren't a factor come November.

[zanne]

65. Ah, yes....the good ole' NRA...

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[villager]

5. yeah, we definitely want a bunch of assholes with guns in wildlife refuges!

I mean what the fuck, do they think it's a "refuge" or something?

[Jack_DeLeon]

6. This is about concealed handguns for self defense...

not people who might poach wildlife.

[villager]

7. And I'm sure the poaching won't be affected *at all* by allowing guns in refuges!

Let a thousand rifles bloom!, etc.

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. No more so than now...

if someone wants to poach illegally they are probably already doing it. People who get a concealed handgun license arent very likely going to be poachers.

If you read the article you would see that this issue is about allowing people who are already licensed to carry concealed handguns to do so. This is not about allowing everybody to bring firearms into the parks.

This issue is not about hunting or rifles. Its about concealed carry and self defense.

[beevul]

9. And I'm sure we can stop school shootings if we decree schools "gun free zones"...

NOT.


The only people that this may enable is people that would not have brought a gun otherwise...and if those are the people you are worried about, it betrays your agenda.

[villager]

92. yes, I'm sure murder rates will plummet with *more guns* around, since, you know

there are hardly any guns available anywhere now...

[Turbo Teg]

158. Well

Pretty much anywhere that CCW has been implemented, crime has gone down. That's a fact.

[krispos42]

20. Are you operating under the impression that the Park Police frisk people when they enter?

Because I'm pretty sure they aren't.

However, under current law, if you do carry a gun into the park and have to use it to stop, say, a mountain lion from eating you, you get busted for illegal weapons posession.

Even though the fact that you had to use the damn thing justified carrying it, you're still in trouble.

And there's a lot of illegal activity going on in the woods, too. Mostly drug-related.

[bluerum]

37. Fear monger much?

[krispos42]

88. Wild West: Drug cartels thrive in US national parks

By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, CALIF. –
Even Br'er Rabbit couldn't make it through this briar patch. With their M-16 rifles and their backpacks snagging on every bramble, three national-park rangers in commando gear spit out mosquitoes on a pathless mountainside of manzanita thickets and dense brush. Gun barrels raised to give each other cover, they advance using hand signals, pausing only to sip water in the 100-degree heat and gasp for air through mesh masks.

After 2-1/2 hours, one mile, and a thousand-foot gain in altitude, they come across evidence of large-scale activity that officials call the biggest threat to national parks since their creation over a century ago. Beside an abandoned camp scattered with trash and human waste, lie empty bags of fertilizer, gardening tools, irrigation tubing - and spent rifle casings. Illegal marijuana farming, once the province of small-time growers, has become big business on the nation's most visited public land: national parks.

<snip>

But since Sept. 11, drug farming has increasingly spread from remote forests to more-public national parks. Tighter security on US borders has raised the incentive for domestic cultivation. That makes for more armed growers - and potential clashes with those traipsing into the wilderness for nature at its most pristine.

As well as growing more common, the enterprise has become more organized. International drug cartels - made up largely of Mexican nationals - seem especially drawn to the bounty. And their harvests can be huge: last year, officials here seized the biggest stash of all, with 34,000 plants in five locations at an estimated street value of $140 million. Complicating the task for law enforcement is the strain on resources. Park budgets have tightened, and many of the available rangers have been shifted to more popular haunts.

<more>

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0610/p01s03-usgn.html

[villager]

91. Yes, the terrible plague of man-eating pumas must be stopped with a free fire zone!

It's obvious, I tell ya!

[Kolesar]

45. park rangers and park service retirees say the amendment could jeopardize public safety

Bollocks. There is no problem to be solved here. This is just a RW wedge issue. Read the article:

"But a coalition of park rangers and park service retirees say the amendment could jeopardize public safety and make it more difficult to stop poaching."

That is the opinion of LAW ENFORCEMENT

[jpak]

48. I have visited many Texas state parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Big Bend

and never felt the need to carry a firearm for any reason in any one of them.

Nor I did ever read or hear of any gun-play or criminal attacks in these areas over the 5 years I lived in Texas.

Now, I did see people brandish handguns during traffic disputes in Texas - all perfectly legal I guess - but completely infantile.

[Kolesar]

67. Candidate McCain is showing his "border security" chops

As presidential candidate, McCain has made statements that are outside of the nativist, xenophopic politics of the Republican party. This is his way of getting in good with the "Hate the Mexicans" caucus.

[gorfle]

170. This is really not about NEED.

I have visited many Texas state parks, National Wildlife Refuges and Big Bend and never felt the need to carry a firearm for any reason in any one of them.

This issue really is not about whether or not you need to carry a firearm in a State Park or not, because you are right - you probably don't need to carry a firearm in most State Parks.

The issue here is easing restrictions on the places where Concealed Weapons Permit holders are not allowed to carry their weapons.

There is no reason why a CCW permit holder should have to disarm himself before going into a State Park. If he can walk down main street with his concealed weapon, surrounded by hundreds of pedestrians, why not out in the woods, with hardly anyone around?

[zanne]

53. You ALWAYS argue self-defense...

BUT WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT ME FROM PEOPLE WITH GUNS? I have rights, too and your attempt to bully all of us non-gun carrying people just shows us your arrogant natures. I don't want arrogant people with loaded, concealed firearms in our National Parks. They're places where families go to get some peace and quiet, not a place to recreate the Wild West.

[SecularNATION]

134. Arrogant?

zanne, what makes them 'arrogant'? Also, are you saying states that have CCW laws have become something akin to the "Wild West", where gunfights are common?

[Dimensio0]

140. Why do you fear people who posess firearms?

Your concerns do not appear to have any basis in fact. Have you considered that your fears may not be rational?

[EricTeri]

171. Protecting yourself...

...is YOUR responsibility - and ONLY yours.

If you feel a need to be protected from "people with guns" you are being irrational as the vast bulk of those people certainly do not wish to harm you. If you're afraid of someone because they are merely carrying a gun, again, that is your problem. Do you run in fear from the police, for example?

It certainly appears the only arrogant ones here are those like yourself - you insist upon believing that your view, and ONLY your view, is the correct one, in spite of the mountains of data to the contrary.

[gorfle]

172. You.

You ALWAYS argue self-defense...BUT WHO IS GOING TO PROTECT ME FROM PEOPLE WITH GUNS?

First of all, your personal protection is first and foremost your responsibility. The police bear no particular responsibility for your safety.

If everyone else is carrying the best tool for self defense and you choose to opt out, that's fine, but stop whining about it.

I have rights, too and your attempt to bully all of us non-gun carrying people just shows us your arrogant natures.

What Constitutional right of yours is being violated?

I don't want arrogant people with loaded, concealed firearms in our National Parks. They're places where families go to get some peace and quiet, not a place to recreate the Wild West.

CCW permit holders are among the most law-abiding, responsible citizens in the nation. You would be safer in a National Park full of CCW permit holders than you would be in a National Park full of average citizens.

CCW permit holders do not recreate the Wild West. If they can walk down mainstreet armed, surrounded by hundreds of people, why not out in the woods, with hardly anyone around?

[Xenotime]

126. This is about people brining thing where they don't belong.

[Tejas]

146. yeah, like

ourselves to begin with. It's not like the bears, cougars, and rattlesnakes like us you know!

[Pavulon]

103. May make me legal

you see when I go backpacking MILES from any law enforcement I ALWAYS carry a handgun. Got nothing to do with the 4 legged creature.

One of those laws that is better to break until you get caught. Then pay the fine.

[SteveM]

104. Actually, refuges and nat'l forests have allowed guns for years...

Every year I hunt deer at the Balcones Canyon Lands Wildlife Refuge in Central Texas; the feds sponsor the hunt. And most nat'l forests also allow hunting. In both entities, the feds often defer to the states on what is hunted and by what means, but usually the means are archery, center-fire rifles and/or shotguns.

Thought you'd like to know, Villager.

[SecularNATION]

133. Villager, take the time to learn something...

...about what it is you want to ban. Otherwise, STFU. Citizens with CCWs are responsible and law abiding. What makes them 'assholes' to you. The simple fact they own a gun?

[gorfle]

169. Why are CCW permit holders assholes?

yeah, we definitely want a bunch of assholes with guns in wildlife refuges!

CCW permit holders are among the safest, most responsible citizens in the nation.

Why are they assholes?

I mean what the fuck, do they think it's a "refuge" or something?

They are indeed wildlife refuges. The weapons would be carried for personal defense like anywhere else - not for hunting.

[Redneck Socialist]

185. Almost all of the National Wildlife Refuges are open to hunting.

It's mainly National Parks that disallow John Q. Public from carrying firearms.

[beevul]

10. And so it begins.

This is just the beginning.

Lets hope the Heller decision takes this issue out of the election.

It wont go well for Democrats if it doesn't.

[SaSa]

11. Guns in parks

Please tell me WHY you think you need to carry your gun
EVERYWHERE you go?  WHY would you need or want to carry a
loaded weapon into a place where people go to get in touch
with NATURE when you can't even legally hunt with it there? 
Do you plan on killing someone inside the park?  Do you plan
on hunting animals illegally in the park?  Or is your gun
simply an extension of you P*N*S or V*G*N*?
Please don't ruin my good time communing with nature with the
threat of you going ballistic on me or my loved ones or some
innocent animal because you can't walk this earth without a
firearm to make you feel like a real MAN/WOMAN!

[beevul]

12. Grow up.

"Please tell me WHY you think you need to carry your gun EVERYWHERE you go? WHY would you need or want to carry a loaded weapon into a place where people go to get in touch with NATURE when you can't even legally hunt with it there? Do you plan on killing someone inside the park? Do you plan on hunting animals illegally in the park? Or is your gun simply an extension of you P*N*S or V*G*N*?
Please don't ruin my good time communing with nature with the threat of you going ballistic on me or my loved ones or some innocent animal because you can't walk this earth without a firearm to make you feel like a real MAN/WOMAN!"

Concealed carry people (CCW holders) are more law abiding as a group than law enforcement is. That after all, is the group of people at issue here that would be carrying the guns in the parks.

So unless you are saying that LEOs and park rangers shouldn't have guns there either because they present "the threat of you going ballistic on me or my loved ones or some innocent animal", then you really have no point. Now, please explain why CCW in parks is a bad idea. Provide statistics, links, cites, and facts. If your going to take a position, back it lest it and you be ignored.


Meditate on that.

[SaSa]

14. Grow up?

I'm not really sure how "growing up" could possibly
change my views on GUESTS in national parks carrying firearms.
 I'm also not surprised that I would get such a vitriolic
response from someone who is a proponent of carrying concealed
weapons.  I suggest that you continue to "ignore"
me...

[beevul]

17. Yeah. Grow up.

"I'm not really sure how "growing up" could possibly change my views on GUESTS in national parks carrying firearms. I'm also not surprised that I would get such a vitriolic response from someone who is a proponent of carrying concealed weapons. I suggest that you continue to "ignore" me..."


See the thing about national parks...is they they belong to the PEOPLE. And as such, I dont think I would be calling one or many of "the people" that visit those parks "guests". Visitor perhaps, but not guest.

That said, You have not made any coherant argumants against carrying of concealed weapons in parks. All you have done is spew vitriol of the most ignorant sort possible, and vitriol - albeit without the ignorance - was returned in kind. The days of gun haters spewing mindless drivel on DU and not getting called on it are over. That includes you. "Grow up" was not meant to deliver a message to you that you should change your views. Its meant to give you a hint that acting like a grown up in expressing them might get you listened to and debated with rather than ignored and ridiculed, and in the end, marginalized.


If you wish to make an argument against carrying concealed and debate its merits, then do so.

If not, what is your purpose of posting on a DISCUSSION BOARD?

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. Sounds like you need to calm down.

as I stated earlier there are alot of things in this world that we dont "need," I do however choose to carry a handgun.

You seem to think that owning a gun has to do with hunting? Most people who own firearms do not hunt. I dont hunt, althought I'm not opposed to it and would like to try it someday. Its just not high on my list of priorities right now. I've carried a handgun for about 2 years now, I havent planned on killing anyone, but I'm not opposed to the idea if I have to.

I dont go "ballistic," but my bullets tend to do so when I've go target shooting. Anyways the kinds of people you need to worry about are the kinds of people who do far worse things in thier lives than illegally carrying a firearm, such as theft, rape, or murder, and this little prohibition will not deter them.

[SaSa]

15. not opposed to the idea of killing someone?

I think that you said it all with that line.  You are
"not opposed to the idea" of killing someone.  Good
for you.  I sure hope that I don't run into you on the trail.

[beevul]

18. If he has to. Can you not read? N/T

[zanne]

57. Sounds like you need help with paranoia issues. nt

[krispos42]

21. Penis. Vagina.

You can use those words here.

Do you plan on killing someone inside the park? Do you plan on hunting animals illegally in the park?

If someone did, then I doubt the current prohibition would stop them. I can't IMAGINE the number of times murderers have driven up to a national park with the intent of shooting some random hiker, only to be foiled, FOILED, I SAY, by the warning on the back of the pamphlet the ranger gives them!

Please don't ruin my good time communing with nature with the threat of you going ballistic on me or my loved ones or some innocent animal because you can't walk this earth without a firearm to make you feel like a real MAN/WOMAN!

Oh, that's right, I forgot that everybody that owns a firearm is a bloodthirsty maniac who's liable to shoot you dead if you blink at them the wrong way.

Try giving your little lecture to any crystal-meth makers or pot-growers you might happen to stumble across while communing. I guess you could try it with a mountain lion, but I doubt it will be coureous enough to let you finish.


And as an aside, what part of "Use for posting code snippets" don't you understand?

[RamboLiberal]

25. Too bad these people had their communing with nature

so harshly interupted. I'm with the Repubs on this one. As a CCW holder and a female I'd like the right to carry my firearm legally as self-defense against 2 and 4 legged predators,

A Maryland man has been indicted for the hate crime murders of two lesbians near the Appalachian trail in Shenandoah National Park in 1996. This is the first federal murder case in which hate crime legislation passed in 1994 will be used to seek harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias about gender or sexual orientation.

Darrell David Rice, age 34, has already been in jail since 1998 because he pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted abduction of another woman in the Shenandoah National Park. The hate crime legislation has been called into use because he allegedly told officials that he deliberately targeted women for harassment and assault because "they are more vulnerable than men." He is also reported to have said that he "hates gays" and that the two women "deserved to die because they were lesbian whores." He will probably face the death penalty if convicted of either the hate crime murders or the simple murders of the two women.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_200205/ai_n9033669

Two women were shot to death on a popular hiking trail in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington State this past week. Mother and daughter, Mary Cooper and Susanna Stodden, were avid hikers who often enjoyed this trail. The killer has not been found and no motive is known.

While I want to believe that this incident was so extraordinary that it couldn’t possibly happen again, reality is that it could easily be repeated, particularly since the killer has not been found.

http://wanderlustandlipstick.com/female-hikers-murdered/

Two local residents say they saw confessed killer Gary Michael Hilton in Mills River before he was arrested in Georgia and named as a suspect in the murders of local retirees John and Irene Bryant.

Hilton, 61, pleaded guilty Jan. 31 to the murder of 24-year-old Meredith Emerson in the north Georgia mountains. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 30 years.

Hilton is also the prime suspect in the murders of Irene Bryant, 84, and her husband, John, 81. The Horse Shoe couple disappeared Oct. 20 after going hiking along Yellow Gap Road in Pisgah National Forest.

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20080216/NEWS/802160328/0/OPINION02

Meredith Emerson, who had a green belt in judo, put up such a fight against Gary Michael Hilton that he
dropped his police-style baton while trying to kidnap her in the mountains of North Georgia on New Year's Day.

A diminutive but scrappy woman who stood 5-foot-4, Emerson continued to resist Hilton during the next three days, repeatedly giving the 61-year-old drifter incorrect pass codes for her ATM cards.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/01/31/threedays_0201.html

The Leon County, Florida, sheriff's office said the man charged with murder in the death of 24-year-old hiker Meredith Emerson can be considered a prime suspect in the death of Cheryl Hodges Dunlap.

Her body was found December 19 in the Apalachicola National Forest, southwest of Tallahassee. Sheriff's Major Mike Wood said today that authorities have confirmed that Gary Michael Hilton was in the area at the time of Dunlap's disappearance.

A state law enforcement source told WSB-TV that Dunlap also was decapitated, as was Emerson.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15011719/detail.html

A handyman who worked in Yosemite National Park in the United States has confessed to several grisly murders. He says he killed four women -- a park naturalist and three sightseers.

Cary Stayner confessed to a San Francisco TV station Monday night in an off-camera jailhouse interview.

Stayner said he was responsible for the murder of a Yosemite National Park worker who was killed last week and three park tourists who were killed in February.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/1999/07/27/yosemite.html

A mountain lion attacked at least one bicyclist in an Orange County wilderness park, critically injuring a woman and possibly killing a man found nearby.

Authorities shot and killed a 2-year-old male cat hours later near where the man's body was found, and were "pretty confident" it was the animal that attacked, said Steve Martarano, a spokesman for the California Fish and Game Department.

Following Thursday's attack, the 13th such incident in California since 1890, the 110-pound mountain lion was to be taken to a laboratory where a necropsy will be performed.

Shortly after 4:30 p.m. Thursday in Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park, a mountain lion pounced on a woman who was riding a bicycle with her friend, said Capt. Stephen Miller of the Orange County Fire Authority.

The lion grabbed Ann Hjelle, 30, by her head and began dragging her. Her friend, Debi Nichols, began screaming for help and grabbed the victim's legs in a struggle to free her.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/2752128/detail.html

A little more than two weeks after being badly mauled by a black bear while riding his bike in a park in Washington State, Anthony Blasioli says he wants to ride the trail again — this time with more than his two dogs as sentries.

“I’ll probably go back, maybe with a group of people,” Blasioli told TODAY co-host Matt Lauer via satellite Wednesday. “I want to go back again — if my arm will work. I don’t know if it’s going to work, yet.”

Blasioli, 51, lost part of his right ear and his lip was almost torn from his face during the unprovoked Sept. 2 attack. The bear, which has not been tracked down by wildlife officials, also mauled his back and tore his left arm so badly doctors initially feared it might have to be amputated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20870622/

[bluerum]

40. Oh jeez. An NRA cut and paste job. Good one.

You seem to believe that a handgun is really going to deter a black bear.

[SteveM]

109. So are these facts wrong, 'rum?

I believe that bush pilots in Alaska are required to carry a powerful handgun for use against bears much larger than black bears. .357 magnum is a minimal caliber for black bears; .44 magnums are preferred for larger bears. But you miss the point: parks, forests, refuges, etc. are not free of criminals with bad intent; some even cruise these areas. If you really fear law-abiding gun owners in these lands, then say so. But realize you are merely exercising great animosity based on stereotypes and irrational fears.

[RamboLiberal]

114. No a Google cut and paste job

and real crimes and attacks! Not your oh if we just ban guns in parks nirvana!

[gorfle]

175. Yeah, tell it to Emerson.

"Emerson was not the first hiker Hilton approached on a trail on Jan. 1. He considered another potential victim, but "she was with other people."

Emerson became his focus for two reasons: She was alone on Blood Mountain, and she was female.

He wanted her money. And he knew that he would eventually kill her.

[bluerum]

39. Fear

[zanne]

55. Welcome, Sasa...

And thanks for fighting the good fight! We need more people like you on DU.

[1monster]

60. Welcome to DU SaSa!

Ignore the person who concludes that you need to grow up just because you believe differently than him/her...

The gun issue is so volatile that some people forget their manners.

FWIW, I think you have legitimate concerns.

After all, we have just learned that the man who shot up NIU and the man who shot up VATech both legally obtained their guns from the same place...

I mean, it's not like unstable or criminal type people could EVER get a concealed carry license. :sarcasm:

Before we were married, my husband got a concealed carry permit and started wearing his handgun everywhere. He gave a few cops nightmares when they caught a glimpse of his .357 peaking out from his jacket.

These days, the cops shoot before they ask questions... I was able to talk him out of renewing the permit when it expired and neither of us regret that.

[beevul]

93. Who might that be?

"Ignore the person who concludes that you need to grow up just because you believe differently than him/her...

Are you having trouble reading perhaps? Heres what Sasa originally posted:

Please tell me WHY you think you need to carry your gun
EVERYWHERE you go? WHY would you need or want to carry a
loaded weapon into a place where people go to get in touch
with NATURE when you can't even legally hunt with it there?
Do you plan on killing someone inside the park? Do you plan
on hunting animals illegally in the park? Or is your gun
simply an extension of you P*N*S or V*G*N*?
Please don't ruin my good time communing with nature with the
threat of you going ballistic on me or my loved ones or some
innocent animal because you can't walk this earth without a
firearm to make you feel like a real MAN/WOMAN!

Is that what passes for good manors in your mind? Perhaps good manors in your mind includes saying someone did or said something that they really did not?

Nevermind that I replied with:

"Grow up" was not meant to deliver a message to you that you should change your views. Its meant to give you a hint that acting like a grown up in expressing them might get you listened to and debated with rather than ignored and ridiculed, and in the end, marginalized.

After all, we have just learned that the man who shot up NIU and the man who shot up VATech both legally obtained their guns from the same place...

Yeah, and right after that we also learned that the shooter was in a psych ward for like a year and was legally disallowed from poissessing firearms. Don't let that cloud any ignorance you might have on this issue though.

[Jack_DeLeon]

101. Sounds like your husband...

needed to learn to better conceal it, perhaps a better holster and carrying inside the waistband would have worked better.

Statistically the police are more likely to commit murder or other crimes than concealed carry weapon holders.

You should not restrict your rights because you fear what the police might do.

[1monster]

108. Fine, you walk into a shopping mall with your concealed carry permit and your gun and

the bulge that goes along with the gun and take your chances. Why restrict your rights. (But remember, if the rentacop/security guard does start shooting first and asking questions later, you are not the only one who will be in danger.

My husband has never needed a gun to protect himself... even the night when a druggie came at him with a knife wanting to rob him.

He just stood there and told the guy (in his inimitible style which has scared more than one drunk, who was interfering with his job, away) to have at it 'cause he wasn't afraid to die. That disturbed the guy with the knife more than a gun would have. He backed away stating, "You're crazy man!" and took off running.

[RamboLiberal]

117. Good for your husband but some of us aren't physically

or verbally going to intimidate someone. BTW when I taught Martial Arts I did say act like you're crazier than the criminal.

Oh and I'm female been carrying for at least 10 years both on my person or in a gun pack. Never been made or stopped by cop, store security, etc.

Most of the rent-a-cops don't have a clue. And most regular cops have no problem with CCW holders.

[1monster]

128. My husband is five feet, four and a half inches tall and weighs 140 pounds.

He isn't in any way physically intimidating.

[Pavulon]

129. Luck is nice

I prefer solid control of a situation. Betting on the outcome of a person with a knife is unwise.

[Jack_DeLeon]

144. I do...

and if someone attacked me or a loved one with deadly force without provocation, regardless of the uniform they wore or not I would try my best to defend myself.

FWIW most security guards in public places are not armed atleast the ones I have seen in my area.

I do carry my handgun into most places I do business at, 1911 style firearms dont have too much of a bulge they are fairly slim pistols. Concealed means concealed.

Well good job for your husband, he is a fortunate man. Not everyone though is fortunate enough to have an inimidating appearance and/or a commanding voice though.

[Turbo Teg]

159. Good for your husband.

Unfortunatly the people around here would have just stabbed the shxt out of him and taken his wallet if he tried that. As for either of you never needing a gun, that's great, and I'm happy for you. Some will go there entire lives without ever needing to use a gun. Others won't be so lucky. I got my permit when I turned 21, I had to use it six months later. I'm fine, and the other people who were in the room when it happend are fine, bad guy off the streets, and I got my gun back. Better believe I'm glad i carry a gun.

[SteveM]

105. "...extension of P*N*S or V*G*N*" WOW! A gender-neutral gun controller!

I don't agree with you, but I respect your attempt to eject (sort of) the more hateful spew directed toward men on these threads. Thanks. FYI, I hunted Fort Boggy State Park in Texas, a public hunt sponsored by Parks & Wildlife, there. I nice, under-utilized park plagued by chronic deer over-population. We were confined to taking only deer with certain antler characteristics in an attempt (which is slowly working) to better balance the habitat in that park (deer browse vast amounts of foliage, including young oaks, which harms to flora and fauna of the area). I also hunted a Nat'l wildlife refuge and a Nat'l forrest. Legally.

My P*N*S needs no extension, and I passed up a young yearling who couldn't figure out who/what I was anyway.

[Redneck Socialist]

186. Looks like that poster is anti vowels too

Is there no end to the things they want to ban?

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[lancer78]

136. I bet

that woman murdered in the smoky mountain NP had a gun with her. Lets get one fact straight here. A CRIMINAL WILL CARRY A GUN IF IT IS LEGAL OR NOT. BREAKING THE LAW IS WHAT MAKES HIM OR HER A F***ING CRIMINAL. HE OR SHE DOES NOT GIVE A RUSTY F**K ABOUT YOUR LITTLE LAWS. ANYONE THAT THINKS A GUN BAN WILL KEEP THEM SAFE HAS THEIR HEAD SO FAR UP THEIR A** THEY WILL NEED MAJOR SURGERY TO GET IT REMOVED.

Listen, I hike on the Appalachian Trail all the time. I ALWAYS carry my handgun with me. I have had to shoot it a couple times to scare away black bears. I was caught once by a ranger, but once he heard my reason, he left me off with a warning.

I am just sick and tired of the party of protecting the rights of law abiding citizens refusing to protect the rights of law abiding gun owners. It is the main reason i left the ACLU. The discrimination of that organization against law abiding gun owners was too great for me to tolerate.

[EricTeri]

173. How about you tell us...

...where on earth you got such an overinflated sense of self importance combined with such a nasty attitude? I mean, since you're incredibly ignorant about this topic, you're certainly not justifying your position with facts.

[gorfle]

174. Why you need to carry a gun everywhere you go.

Please tell me WHY you think you need to carry your gun EVERYWHERE you go?

One of the problems with being a CCW permit holder is that you are constantly encountering places where you are not allowed to bring a firearm. So you must either leave it at home, which defeats the purpose of having the CCW permit, or you must leave it in your car when you go to such places. I personally feel that leaving firearms in a vehicle unattended is irresponsible. I would not leave my firearms off of my person and out of my control when away from home.

WHY would you need or want to carry a loaded weapon into a place where people go to get in touch with NATURE when you can't even legally hunt with it there? Do you plan on killing someone inside the park?

It happens. Just recently there was a girl outside of Atlanta who was out hiking when she was beat over the head and killed by a human predator. I believe I have read of such stories before.

The fact is, you are probably perfectly safe out in a National Park. But why should we restrict CCW permit holders from carrying there, when they can walk down main street with their concealed weapon?

Do you plan on hunting animals illegally in the park?

Concealed Carry Weapon permits are not hunting licenses. Someone wanting to illegally hunt is not going to be concerned with obtaining a CCW permit or even obeying the current ban on firearms in such State Parks.

Or is your gun simply an extension of you P*N*S or V*G*N*?

Ah, the old sexual innuendo argument. Yes, all of us gun owners feel sexually inadequate and that is why we own firearms. Be thankful you have a big wiener or tight twat.

Please don't ruin my good time communing with nature with the threat of you going ballistic on me or my loved ones or some innocent animal because you can't walk this earth without a firearm to make you feel like a real MAN/WOMAN!

No CCW permit holder is going to run your good time communing with nature. CCW permit holders are all around you in public, you just don't know it. You likely will never know it in a State Park, either. CCW permit holders are among the most law-abiding in the nation. They are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than your average citizen. It is unlikely that a CCW permit holder is going to "go ballistic on you".

Being committed to our constitutional freedoms and taking personal responsibility for our safety should be the duty of all real men and women.

[Dumak]

16. It sounds like you have misdirected worries

There is always going to be some extra risk of death when you leave your house, but I would suggest that your family is a lot more likely to die in a car crash on the way *to* the park, than by a stranger or animal who attacks you in the park.

What will happen is we will see people shooting animals, and claiming self-defense.

[Jack_DeLeon]

19. It sounds like you have the misdirected worries...

I am well aware that dying in a car crash is more likely than dying violently for the average american. I've know people who died in car crashes, I dont know anyone who was murdered.

Yet we have alot of people who want more restrictions on firearms, yet they as for automobiles they dont give them a second though. They will say things like "well we NEED cars, we dont need guns." When in reality neither is are true "needs," they are both just tools that make doing things easier. However all humans have the right to defend themselves, and the document that our government is founded on protects the right to keep and bear arms for that use.

I dont seriously think allowing concealed carrying in parks will increase the chances of poaching or people claiming "it was headed right for us." People who want to poach already do so, and carry weapons in the parks illegally, so do people who do other illegal things there such as smuggling drugs or grow operations.

[zanne]

62. The "automobile deaths" argument is a straw man.

Gun toters always like to point out how many people in this country die every day because of reckless drivers, etc. WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA? Are they saying that, because there are many other ways that people can die, we may as well ADD TO THAT NUMBER EVERY DAY WITH GUN DEATHS? Theirs is a stupid, nonsensical argument.

[krispos42]

22. To legitimately claim self-defense, you have to call a ranger

And there will be an investigation. And you sure won't get to take your "aggressor" home with you. So if you're shooting for meat or a trophy, plugging an animal and then claiming "self defense" is not the way to go.

If you want the meat or a trophy, then you have to shoot the animal and try to sneak it out of the park, which is poaching, regardless of whether or not the gun was legal.

[muyojoe]

23. ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS ARE FALSE

I don't own a gun, I don't need one. I grew up with them, and qualified excellent marksman on 9mm and m-14 in the Navy. You are allowed to own one, if the law says you are. You don't need them in the parks. If you do, you should be crying for more rangers, not your own gun. I don't want you to have it even to protect yourself. Asses your own life and weigh the consequences of were you go. If your not comfortable with it don't go, or like I said , get more rangers. If you are so worried that you might have to defend yourself in a park, then carrying your own gun, isn't going to fix it. Your hanging upside down to keep your nose from running, because you have a cold. Your not attacking the sickness.

All animal predators are opportunist. If you are worried about mountain lions, carry a stick and keep your kids close. You may be attacked; you take that risk. If you had the gun you still might be attacked. Either way you will probably survive. Were I live a man fought off a shark with his hands. He lost an arm, but he is alive. I don't think he needs a gun at the beach.

As far as the killing and poaching thing, it is true. I've been fishing with several people carrying hand guns, and I've seen them once in awhile get a hair up their ass and shoot alligators or other wildlife for no good reason. They weren't going to eat it, and the animals weren't bothering them. They are not my friends, they are relatives so I can't pick them. I also work with guys who brag on the same thing. You give an asshole a gun, in the middle of nowhere, and he's going to shoot something, it's a fact. I've seen it. Maybe your not one, but you can't speak for everyone. I'm just reporting facts.

If you get a permit to hunt something in a wildlife park, that's fine.

This amendment is only a political stunt for their purposes, not yours.

I'm not a gun hater, but they are only good for killing people or animals. If you have to pull your gun on someone, you'd better be shooting not talking. This is why I don't have one. If I die, I'll go to heaven. If my kids are killed, I'll hurt, but I hope they will go to heaven. If my wife was raped, it would be terrible, but she would probably survive, and I would help her heal from it as best I can. This is my way of being a man, knowing my limitations and living with them.

[Jack_DeLeon]

24. Thats your choice you are free to make that choice...

but I should be able to make my own choice. Each of us as individuals should be able to decide for ourselves.

As for crying for more rangers that is a not very thought out answer. Why should we put our own safety in the hands of strangers? Furthermore its impossible to have enough law enforcement to protect everyone at all times. We are each responsible for our own safety.

Well I'm glad you have strong religious beliefs. They can be a good thing that can help people through this thing we call life.

Myself I'm not exactly sure what I believe. If there is a caring, foriging God, and a heaven maybe things will work out in end. If there isnt and we simply cease to exist when we die then that is all the more reason to fight to survive against those that would harm you or your loved ones here in this world.

They say to hope for the best and plan for the worst, so that is what I do. I hope there is something better when we die, but all I know for certain is this world we currently live in, and I plan to do whatever I can to make sure myself and the ones I care for stay safe and continue to live and enjoy thier lives as long as I can.

[muyojoe]

28. YOU DO HAVE YOUR OWN CHOICE

You can follow the law or not. I'm telling you I know people who don't, and I know it. I see no reason to have everyone feel like they "can" take a handgun into the parks. It also makes people less likely to pull them out, when they know there are consequences. It obviously doesn't stop them. What jury in America is going to convict you of this kind of offense? If it is proven that you killed someone threatening you and your family and they are armed, or for killing an animal that actually attacked your family I won't. My mother has a handgun in her purse. I know this. If she pulls it out, someone is going to die. I know this, she's an excellent shot. It is between her and the jury whether she committed a crime if she does anything.

Maybe crying was a bad term, but I didn't say how many we need. It wouldn't take that many more rangers to make this drug problem you are referring to, to greatly diminish. If you take handguns, then unlawful people will just take automatic guns, it a vicious circle. Law enforcement officials and park rangers aren't strangers, they are supposed to be professionals. If they are not, then you have a separate issue to deal with.

What you believe in is your business, and how you deal with things is too. As long as how you deal with things doesn't affect me. When you take a handgun into a park to defend yourself, it affects me. If you want a professional qualified person there to moderate things or to go to when there is trouble, fine. I don't know if either of us is either of those things.

If all we have in life is all there is, then the example you set for your family and children and the people you interacted with is all that will be left. Unless you create monuments like rushmore, or something like that. There is a difference between teaching fear and teaching cautiousness, that is were our difference is. I know you don't think that is your position, but from were I'm at, it is.

[EricTeri]

150. Not really..

You're saying my choice is to break the law or be just like you. Hardly a choice there...

I guess Roe v. Wade wasn't really needed either huh? After all, women have the choice to break the law, don't they?

[Paladin]

26. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) Is Behind This

Yet another right wing knuckle-dragger, doing the gun lobby's dirty work. This is nothing more than a transparent ploy to throw a wrench into the Democrat's ongoing election process; guns in parks is a ridiculously minor issue that's being used for cover. Guns have not been an important factor in this campaign season, and they should remain that way. I wonder if you gun-obsessed "Democrats" will allow that to happen....

[Kolesar]

47. The Dems even say this is a political wedge issue in the article...eom

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Why?

Why the need for a gun in a national park? I cannot understand this. Can't there be somewhere safe from the threat of those things?

[-..__...]

30. I really hope this does becom an election issue.

Maybe it'll become the smarten the fuck up/shut the fuck up and sit down wake-up call that the anti 2nd amendment blowhards need in order to get their acts together.

[Paladin]

33. You're Just Interested In Seeing How Much Damage.....

....can be done to the Democratic Party, when the gun issue has played no important role in this election year. How about doing us all a favor and finding a discussion site that better reflects the kind of politics you're obviously into?

[-..__...]

44. Try again.

No important role?

I guess you haven't been paying attention to some of the suggestions and recommendations posted by the more drooling, fervent and bug-eyed anti-RKBA posters here (you know who you are).

I'm interested in minimizing the damage to Dem candidates.

Putting it out into the forefront will put the candidates on a track to come to their senses and support 2nd amendment rights and help win purple/borderline states. Supporting gun control a losing issue, dropping it is a policy is the right thing to do.

Hope and pray that the Heller case goes in favor of 2nd amendment adovcates, because if it doesn't, gun control will become an major issue.

[Paladin]

89. You're Trying To Knee-Cap Democratic Candidates.....

...by putting them in the position of being intimidated into supporting your stance on guns. "Minimizing the damage to Dem candidates" my ass.

And there's a huge amount of difference between expressing political viewpoints on a talk site such as DU, versus what's actually happening in a nation-wide campaign. I repeat: Guns have not been an issue so far this year. You obviously aren't happy about that, and you're doing your best to bring guns to the forefront....

[SteveM]

181. Both Hillary and Obama have broached the gun subject in recent days.

[johnbraun]

162. Indeed. Heller is March 9.

If it goes well for 2nd Amendment supporters by saying that the 2nd is an individual right, that will free up Dems and hurt Pubs - here's why.

If it goes well, Dems at all levels won't be obligated by the DNC to beat the gun control drums that lose them elections (Kerry, Gore, et al.)

Second, Pubs will lose because it means they can't use Dems' misguided gun control efforts as a stick to rile up their base with.

[Kolesar]

38. This reinforces my opinion that this bill is for exploiting a WEDGE issue for political reasons

Maybe a few more republicans will get elected on account of this. They can talk about this on the campaign trail instead of the real issues that they are avoiding.

[gorfle]

177. WHY is it a "wedge issue"

I'll tell you why. Because generally, the Democratic Party has been seen as the party of pro-gun control, while the Republican party has been seen as the party of pro-gun.

You are right - this is a blatant attempt at creating a wedge issue.

The Democratic Part can, and should, deflate the whole issue by eliminating the place to drive the wedge. Adopt a pro-gun stance.

[onehandle]

31. What have Clinton and Obama said about this?

We need to hear from them quickly.

Change would be standing up to the gun lobby.

[Kolesar]

46. No. We need this B/S issue to die immediately...eom

[gorfle]

178. Do you want 4 more years of Republicans?

What have Clinton and Obama said about this? We need to hear from them quickly.

Change would be standing up to the gun lobby.

This is what cost the Democrats the congress after the Assault Weapon Ban. Do you want a repeat of that disaster?

[johnbraun]

182. Indeed. Bill Clinton said that the AWB cost us Congress at least.

Why do we play into Rethuglican hands by being anti-gun?!?

Adopt a pro-gun stance and the WEDGE goes away!

[Pab Sungenis]

32. Read carefully.

It's not so much about guns in National Parks (which I'm skeptical of, but can see being allowed), but it's about National Parks...and wildlife refuges.

It's a backdoor pass to opening up wildlife refuges for hunting.

[Jack_DeLeon]

102. Its not about hunting...

its about concealed carry. Most people who own guns do not hunt.

[SteveM]

110. Too late. They're already open for hunting. That's where I go.

[Pab Sungenis]

113. A wildlife preserve?

Open for hunting?

[SteveM]

180. You used the terms "refuge" and "preserve" interchangibly...

Wildlife Refuges are frequently open to hunts to control top prey animals (and feral hogs) which can cause tremendous destruction to flora and fauna; at the Balcones Canyon Lands Wildlife Refuge in Central Texas, a hunt is held every year to keep the whitetail deer from wreaking havoc on oaks, the Alabama croton (discovered there in the early 1990s) and to protect the Black Cap Vireo and the Golden Cheeked Warbler, both endangered. They nest in trees the deer eat. By the way, at least 5 hogs were taken this year (only 1 was taken in the preceding 5 years). The door to hunting in refuges has been open for generations.

I can't speak to "preserves."

[bluerum]

34. I for one, do not want to worry about a drunken/angry/frightened person getting their hands

on a loaded gun and spraying my tent/car/body with bullets.

I will take my chances with the psycho population that are already inhabiting the state parks.

[slackmaster]

36. That's a rather foul stereotype you have painted

With nothing factual to back it up.

[bluerum]

41. I have my fears, you have yours. Thats a fact.

[slackmaster]

43. I don't allow mine to be translated into broad-brush smears

I think it's ironic that someone participating in a "progressive" discussion forum would. I doubt that you've even read the article cited in the OP, or really have a grasp of what the proposal entails.

[Dimensio0]

141. Nonetheless, fears with no basis in fact are irrational (n/t)

[zanne]

59. I'm with you, bluerum.

I'd much rather take my chances with an unarmed drunk, angry person over an armed drunk, angry person any time.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

80. Ah, because that drunk, angry person would obviously have obeyed the gun ban

That's why "gun-free" zones like schools are never the scene of shootings.

[Turbo Teg]

160. Yeah,

Because the law is there no one will violate it.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Kolesar]

42. Only one person has been killed by a grizzly in the last few years &he was hiking alone in Glacier

...National Park. So there's your solution: don't travel alone. Talk while you walk. Carry bear mace (pepper spray fog). It has been effective.

I have met at least four grizzlies on the trail in my travels and I am still here.

I should note that I am referring to the data for Glacier National Park. I don't have data for Yellowstone NP, which is where the other grizzly population is. Wildlife biologists believe that the greater Yellowstone is at the "carrying capacity" for that species and there is not a big problem with grizzly attacks.

The best book I found about bears is "Grizzly Attacks" by Stephen Herrero. I recommend that everybody visit the parks, relax, enjoy nature and learn something.

[slackmaster]

51. I sometimes carry a weapon in the wilderness, for reasons unrelated to dangerous wild animals

This isn't about bears.

[Kolesar]

68. Who has been killed in Anza Borrego?

[slackmaster]

69. Where did I say it was Anza Borrego?

:crazy:

Try Otay Mountain. Or Imperial County. Plenty of people have been robbed there, some killed.

[Kolesar]

70. Data?

[slackmaster]

72. Google News - search for stories about border bandits

:hi:

I've lived in the area since 1962.

[Kolesar]

74. I have better things to do than explore your nightmares...eom

[slackmaster]

75. Then you have better things to do than worry about people carrying guns in parks legally

:hi:

[Kolesar]

77. You folded

[slackmaster]

81. Yes, I am giving up on this thread because some of you are blind to your logical disconnect

Why would someone who has been determined by their state of residence to be trustworthy to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, suddenly become untrustworthy when he or she crosses an arbitrary line into federal territory?

:shrug:

[villager]

124. because it's a *wildlife refuge*, and it's for *them*, not for humans

so I'm sorry, but you'll just have to leave your fucking toys behind...

[beevul]

138. If thats the case...

"because it's a *wildlife refuge*, and it's for *them*, not for humans"


Then keep all humans out.

:shrug:

[Kolesar]

76. delete

[1monster]

52. Why? Unless you are afraid of a grizzley bear coming up on you unawares, (and a hand gun wouldn't

be much help then) why do you want to carry an easily accessible, loaded even, hand gun?

[RamboLiberal]

115. There are actually a couple of hanguns that can handle

a grizzly. And can actually be carried in a holster. Be a bit of weight but can be done.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_reviews/monster_1103/

[east texas lib]

54. Consider this...

Since it's pretty much an undisputed fact that once you're dead you don't do much of anything
else(in this life, anyway), don't you owe it to yourself to stay alive so you may support
whatever cause you may believe in? And since firearms are the weapon of choice for the
criminals who prey upon the ordinary law abiding(and usually unarmed) citizen, and the choice
of the mentally unbalanced who make their "statement" by taking out their rage upon the
innocents(again, usually unarmed) around them, why wouldn't you want to able to arm yourself
when venturing out into a wilderness area where the nearest law enforcement or medical help
may be hours away?

[MadHound]

87. This is a bad, bad idea

Being an avid hiker and camper, I've seen way too many idiotic people who have no clue about being out in the woods do stupid stuff that not only endangers themselves, but those camping around them. Adding loaded, accessible guns to the mix is not a bright idea either.

I know all the old, tired fear inspired arguments, that people could be threatened by homicidal maniacs or wild animals, or what have you. Yet if you look at the actual stats, those are very rare incidents, and certainly don't justify the risk in allowing guns into national parks and forests. You're just asking for poaching to occur, or drunken stupidity. Besides, the vast majority of people in this country don't own guns, don't want guns around them, so why should their wishes be trampled on simply to cater to a small minority of the irrationally fearful:shrug:

Frankly, if you're that scared of what could possibly happen to you in a national park, I would say that you should stay home. The last thing we need is overly nervous and scared individuals packing heat.

[Turbo Teg]

161. I think

That if your scared of someone carrying a gun when hiking out in the middle of nowhere, then maybe you should stay home. What do you think? that would be safer for you.

[johnbraun]

164. Indeed.

Perhaps some therapy would help.

Seriously. I've seen more anti-gunners who have no experience with guns at all (as well as the corresponding irrational fears) have most of them cured by one trip to the range with a .22.

[gorfle]

179. Not your typical CCW permit holder.

The last thing we need is overly nervous and scared individuals packing heat.

Your average CCW permit holder is among the most law-abiding and responsible people in the nation.

Since they can already walk down main street surrounded by hundreds of people armed, and have demonstrated themselves to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders, what's the problem with them being out in the middle of nowhere with the same firearm?

[CANDO]

94. I know two people who have Conceal Carry Permits

My father has had one for years and never carries a gun. A friend of my brother was carrying his about 15 years ago and brandished his gun and threatened to "serve some justice" at a traffic dispute. My brother was riding with him at the time. I don't trust anyone who is paranoid enough to think he/she needs to carry a weapon day in and day out. I can understand an occasional hiking trip in case of an encounter with a venomous snake or something like that.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

99. You know what? Screw you

I've fought against every God-damned infringement of our rights by this administration.

Every.
Single
Fucking.
One.

I've been tear-gassed and beaten with tonfas and truncheons at protests (if I had to choose, I'd take the truncheons).

I protested the approval of Ashcroft as AG. And Gonzalez. I've done the work. Don't you dare call me a pseudo-Republican just because I believe in a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms. I've been there. What have you done?

I'm getting so fucking sick of this culture war. Nobody wins culture wars.

Gun owners are not bad people. We just aren't. Just fucking deal with it. I'm sick of this shit.

[SteveM]

111. Word up! Those of us who fight fascism don't wear it, we do it!

[Paladin]

119. Yeah, Dick Cheney Loses Sleep, Worrying About You Guys (n/t)

[Tejas]

147. and he dreams

of you and yours.

Very well thought-out post there skippy.
(not)

[SecularNATION]

132. Fascist Hunter?

Bullshit. You're just a big mouth who is too stupid to understand it is weaponry that will be the last firewall against fascism. I'm not saying it will definitely stop them, but if the hammer comes down, I'd rather be armed than not. Wouldn't you? Fascist hunter, my ass.

[KingOfLostSouls]

96. Shoot the hippies, keep the guns

sorry, with a republican anywhere near being allowed to declare "martial law" and begin rounding up dissidents, I'd rather keep my gun, thankyouverymuch.




and you never know when you're hiking and might meet a roving band of conservatives who want to molest some children and have to mete out some frontier justic.

[Recursion]

98. There's a reason Saddam tried (and failed) to have gun control

And we're seeing it played out every day, to the tune of a dozen American servicemen and servicewomen dead each week.

[Recursion]

97. Fellow Democrats: Please please please just listen for a second

As a party, we're wrong on the guns issue.

We're just wrong. We need to change our stance.

I hate to take a position of intellectual superiority when I discuss with people, but here I have to. I was in the Marine Corps for 8 years and I'm a competitive target shooter with Olympic goals in the future.

The simple fact is, and I really really hate to generalize but I've been forced to by what I've seen:

If you're for gun control you probably don't know much about guns.

I "get" that they are scary. I "get" that you associate them with bad people doing bad things.

But consider, I grew up as a (fairly progressive) Blue dog Democrat, and I grew up wth 10 rifles, 18 shotguns, and 6 handguns in the house.

I'm asking you to overcome your prejudice for a second. I'm not a crypto-conservative. I'm just not. Christ, I think Hillary's and Obama's healthcare plans are far, far, far too corporately-focused and don't do enough to guarantee coverage to all. I think neither candidate has sufficiently supported unions.

I'm not a freak. I own what you would call an "M-16" (it's not, but I've given up trying to argue with you guys on this). I'm not a survivalist (though I do know how to survive if it came to it). I'm certainly not a racist (my main arguments against gun control are the racist legacy of it in this country). (Anyone who wants to call me a racist can try growing up as a white guy in a black-majority town in Mississippi. I'm not. Really. And that's another reason I'm against gun control.)

My point is, you're all trying to regulate stuff that you don't know about.

There was a piece of legislation from 15 years ago called the assault weapons ban.

Its main effect was to discourage the production of rifles with both bayonet lugs and pistol grips.

Pistol grips are safer than traditional "hunting rifle" grips. I know you don't want to believe that but it's just true. They are safer. They are safer, and you want to ban them. That is where the backlash comes from: you don't know the first thing about the issue but you're banning things with all the moral superiority of a Temperance League advocate.

Like I said, I grew up in a house with 10 rifles, 18 shotguns, and 6 handguns. And do you want to know something? We weren't bad or crazy people. There is nothing wrong with owning guns. Or to put it another way, gun ownership is not the cause of violence in America. Shitty Republican-sponsored social programs are the cause of violence in America.

And I hate to be a bit personal and call people out, but I feel so strongly about this I can't help it:

If you support gun prohibition that you don't actually understand, you help Republicans get elected.

Period. Full stop. No refuting that.

And when you help Republicans get elected, you help the actual causes of violence.

So, frankly, DU'ers, before you call me a "gun nut", consider the blood on your own hands here.

[SteveM]

112. "Back, back, back.... and it's... OUTTA HERE!"

[Elmer1007]

116. Dmesg. Great post.

You are right on the button great post.

[RamboLiberal]

118. dmesg - Love you - couldn't agree more with you

thank you for a great and rational post.

And the AWB is one reason a lot of people I know who should be voting Dem would never vote for Hillary Clinton. They feel the Clinton administration was part and parcel of this stupid did little law.

I would love to see Clinton and Obama vote yes to allow CCW in national parks.

[beevul]

139. Wow man. Just wow.

Well said sir.

[Tejas]

148. No kidding, MUST READ for antis! n/t

[krispos42]

154. Good one! n/t

[bdamomma]

120. Guns in a National Park???

what they hell? isn't there enough death.

[Pavulon]

121. Yep, prefer it not to be mine

why should a person who legally owns a firearm not be able to carry it? There is no police to come to help you in the middle of pisgah national forrest.

[IsItJustMe]

122. Along with national parks, I think we should be able to carry guns in bars also. I feel real unsafe

in bars.


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[johnbraun]

152. My state lets me carry in a bar. We've had no problems.

I don't drink, of course. Why not just let people be?

[MiniMe]

127. I can't take my dog into many State parks in Maryland

This is taking away my dogs rights. And my rights. I feel much safer in State Parks with my dog by my side. I think they need to add that to the bill too.
:sarcasm:

[Pavulon]

130. And there is another law I break...

they should fix that while they pass this bill.

[SecularNATION]

131. Democrats should support it.

People who have CCWs are responsible law abiding citizens. There is no legitimate reason they shouldn't be allowed to carry in National Parks. This is another example of the stupidity of the Democratic Party. If it would stop this nonsense and drop gun control, we'd win the White House every election and would maintain control of Congress, too. Anti-gun Democrats are foolish and only serve to keep the GOP in power.

[Endangered Specie]

137. Well I see this thread has promptly gone down the drain...

can't believe it isn't in the Gungeon yet!

[virginia mountainman]

149. Wolves, Bobcats, and bears, oh my!

[johnbraun]

151. Democrats should support this.

If not, we wind up on the wrong side of the fence when <i>Heller vs. DC</i> is upheld. When SCOTUS tells the fedgov that they can't outright prohibit arms in a usable condition in federal areas like DC, we Dems are going to look like morons for upholding a National Park ban.

People already carry guns in state parks. A girl was killed on the trail in my state with an baton in a National Park this year.

This isn't about allowing carry in National Parks nationwide, it's about allowing carry in a National Park where the state already lets you carry. It's completely sensible legislation.

Additionally, the people that will benefit from this aren't so much the tourists camping, it's the people that drive through a National Park to go to work, they have to unload their carry weapon and place it in the trunk before entering, then take it out of the trunk and load it upon leaving. It's asinine.

And again, CCW holders in all states have shown themselves to be *more* law-abiding than the average citizen, better shots in an incident than cops are, and generally are good people.

[zanne]

165. I'm sure that most people would prefer concealed guns OUT of parks...

The national parks are family places. I seriously doubt that most people in this country want people walking around there with loaded guns. Just ain't kosher. If anything this will hurt the Republicans if they decide to push it.

[johnbraun]

168. Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Most of the country (39 states) already have shall-issue concealed carry of handguns. I as a Democrat think that us Dems should support this as it will remove a plank from the Republican platform.

And guns are already carried in "family places" like malls, amusement parks, public parks, theaters, etc. Problems with CCW holders in such places are virtually nonexistent.

[friendly_iconoclast]

183. Family places like Vermont?

Bluest of blue states Vermont.

Vermont with the US's only socialist congressperson, Bernie Sanders?

Vermont as in Howard Dean?

Vermont has *no* regulation on concealed carry, save certain locations.

In other words, 95%+ of Vermonters over the age of 21 can carry concealed handguns
legally without any explanation to, permission from, or intervention by the authorities whatsoever (if they've a mind to).

And yet there are not shootouts on the streets of Saint Jay.

Few "road rage" shootings on Route 100.

I wonder if you avoid going to your neighboring state because of this lack of regulation, and if you tell people why if you do avoid it?

For that matter, why on earth do you live in New Hampshire? Their gun laws are
pretty lax. All this anxiety over people packing heat will likely shorten your lifespan
far more than the armed citizens of New Hampshire and Vermont will.

[SecularNATION]

184. You think maybe zanne..

..moved to New Hampshire from Massachusetts? I'm aware that many have moved to southern New Hampshire from there. Natives have complained about the influx of busy bodies from Mass. I would to.