House has 259 Dems 176 Republicans. Steny Hoyer says Dems got beaten on gun issue.

[madfloridian]

Steny Hoyer says Dems got beaten on gun issue. So dear Mr. Hoyer, at least be honest about it. We were not beaten, we were in agreement on guns in national parks.

We have an 83 vote margin in the House. We have a 9 vote margin in the Senate. Yet we can not seem to control a single agenda.

At least on this gun issue please be honest. The Democrats are just as much for guns in national parks as are the Republicans apparently. In order to win the Democrats have had to go along on guns, a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, and give in on the DADT issue.

That is not winning, that is giving in to the vocal minority.

Steny Hoyer says Democrats beaten on guns

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer all but conceded Tuesday that Democrats
have been beaten on the gun issue for now.

Republicans have been increasingly using pro-gun amendments to throw a wrench into Democratic legislation, attaching amendments to seemingly unrelated bills allowing for expanded gun carrying privileges in national parks.

The tactic seems to be working.

"There clearly is a majority in both houses that the Second Amendment rights ... that relate to the national parks are too restricted," Hoyer told reporters Tuesday. "The reality is that a majority in both houses agree with that position."

Republicans have slowed down a D.C. voting rights bill using the tactic, though a credit card bill with an amendment allowing for expanded ability to carry guns in national parks is widely expected to pass both houses.

It appears that the amendment to allow guns in the national parks that was added to the credit card bill is more extreme by far than was the Bush version.

Nothing is simple if you’re Harry Reid. This week the Senate was working on a consumer rights bill for credit card holders when Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, suddenly proposed an amendment to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

..."But one way or another, the Democrats clearly did feel trapped into placating the gun lobby. Twenty-seven of them wound up voting yes on an amendment that would arm the tourists and make final passage of the credit card bill more complicated. Including Reid.

Here is something on the issue from the New West Politics blog. Apparently Coburn's amendment for which 27 Democrats voted allows semi-automatic weapons in parks.

The most extreme version of a bill to allow guns back in national parks overturns a Reagan-era rule.

The blog mentions how it was tied to the credit card bill.

What no one was expecting was the attack to come from the far right in the form of Tom Coburn, who seemed to be doing the bidding of both the banks and the NRA simultaneously by attaching the most extreme version of an already controversial bill to allow guns back in national parks, overturning a Reagan-era rule. That’s where the cynicism comes in--tying such a hot-button issue as guns (one which Democrats have no interest in pursuing) in it’s most extreme form to a bill that is important to helping Americans.

Coburn’s bill goes far beyond what the Bush administration tried to do, which was to allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks for people with concealed carry permits. That was disturbing enough to former park officials and park rangers, and for a federal judge who blocked implementation on the rule because none of the required environmental review had been done before the government tried to enact it. Coburn’s bill goes as far as to allow openly carried rifles, shotguns, and even semi-automatic weapons in parks, depending on whether the weapon is in compliance with state law.

Coburn’s stated purpose for the bill is “to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges,” and about allowing park visitors to protect themselves from attacks from other visitors and animals. This is a somewhat specious argument considering “crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people.” On top of that, the proposed law does not alter the current prohibition on shooting wildlife in national parks and refuges.

Not surprisingly, a coalition of groups have organized against the effort, sending a letter to President Obama asking him to halt the bill. The National Parks Conservation Association, The Humane Society of the United States, Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence are among the groups signed onto the letter. Most compelling is the argument from Scot McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and current president of the Association of National Park Rangers, which represents 1,200 current and former park rangers.

Semi-automatic weapons in national parks?

Democrats can not control the agenda even with such good majority margins.

[JohnnyBoots]

1. I agree this totally sucks. Just wait till some nut does something stupid with a semi auto......

[aquart]

5. And then absolutely NOTHING will happen to change it.

[JohnnyBoots]

20. Isn't the Mall a National Park as well as Dupont Circle in DC. Can you bring a gun there now?

[X_Digger]

24. Nope, and this law wouldn't change that.

States that disallow carry in parks wouldn't be affected.

[Demobrat]

183. We'll all shed crocodile tears about the tragedy,

have a nice dicussion about how tragic it was that victim wasn't armed and go on making guns more and more easily available.

[madfloridian]

2. Do the Dems realize the bill allows semi-automatic weapons in parks?

Just wondering if in their eagerness to be bipartisan they forgot to read all of Coburn's amendment.

[NeedleCast]

8. What's wrong with semi-auto weapons in state parks as opposed to everywhere else they're allowed?

[madfloridian]

9. Semi- Automatic weapons.....why not? Good for national parks.

We can have faster shoot outs.

[NeedleCast]

13. Who's suggesting we allow in automatic weapons?

Personally I think it's smart to carry a gun in areas where other mammals may consider you food. There are plenty of good reasons to carry a gun, semi-auto or not, in an area where you face an increased chance of getting lost. I don't follow your argument that a shoot-out is more likely to occur if guns are allowed into state parks.

[madfloridian]

15. Could you read my post before you comment? Thank you.

.

[virginia mountainman]

21. Your posts are very confusing...

Your the one using "Automatic" and "Semi Automatic" interchagably...

They are two different things you know that don't you??

I wonder, since you obviously don't understand the subject at hand, what makes you THINK that your qualified to make such posts about it?

[madfloridian]

26. I am not qualified to post about guns. I just have opinions.

You have yours, I have mine.

Why would you need a semi-automatic in a park setting?

[virginia mountainman]

32. Easy one, for those of us that actually live in the forest....

[NeedleCast]

34. Do you understand what a semi-automatic rifle is?

Semi-auto means you fire one round every time you pull the trigger. This is the case with many types of hunting and sports shooting rilfes. This is *NOT* a machine gun.

Why would you need a semi-auto rifle in a state or national park? Protection from things that may consider you food is the first and most likely reason.

Secondly, in large state or national parks, with lots of wilderness area, if you get lost, a gun is an excellent way to signal your position.

It's also a good way to kill food if you become lost for an extended period. The powder used in the ammunition is also a good accelerant or fire starter if you have limited wildreness survival skills and cant start a fire on your own.

[rucognizant]

151. Gee......

Really necessary items at the Independance HAll NAt monument in Phila. or Hyde Park NY. Lots of wild animals there.
Now all the drug dealers in Phila can run over to 6th & Chestnut streets and use their guns with impunity.

[cherokeeprogressive]

215. They can? I didn't know that. Wow, the things I learn here at DU...

Or is it possible that what you posted is pure, unadulterated, hyperbole?

"Now all the drug dealers in Phila can run over to 6th & Chestnut streets and use their guns with impunity."

Um, Otay

[uberllama42]

218. Nothing is now legal at Independence Hall that is not legal elsewhere in the city

If you shoot someone at the 5th and Market subway stop, you'll go to jail. Walking up the stairs and shooting somebody on the Mall is not now magically legal.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Opinions based on facts are usually more convincing

Maybe that's why the vote in the House went the way that is did.

[konnichi wa]

83. Perhaps you could actually find out the difference before you publicize your 'opinion'.

:grr:

[MicaelS]

148. If you're NOT qualified to post on guns why do it?

You don't know the differences about guns, and apparently you do not want to take time to educate yourself.

[earcandle]

202. go back and read again, miss. I am not making any such comments about anything automatic or semi

sounds like guns to me.

I am against the use and carrying of guns anywhere.  

they harm people, places and things.

[NeedleCast]

23. No, I read your post

Maybe I don't understand what your position here is?

You seem to have an issue with allowing guns, and in particular, semi-auto guns, in state parks along with having an issue with the position democrats took on this. I am wrong or missing something?

I'm saying that a state park, especially a large one with extensive areas of wilderness, is about the best place in the world to be carrying a gun, semi-auto or not.

[quiller4]

161. Absolutely. I would consider going unarmed to a wilderness area. n/t

[bobbolink]

208. No longer, if there are idiots with guns running around!

[TheWraith]

51. Excuse me, but you're either lying or misinformed.

Automatic weapons and SEMI-automatic weapons are not the same thing, and never have been.

[rucognizant]

150. It's one way

to decrease the surplus population!
Have they banned smoking in the NAtional Parks yet? Bet they have!

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. Because some asshole is bound to try to see what it can do to a

grizzly, and get himself - and the bear - killed.

[bobbolink]

207. If you read the OP, it is about NATIONAL parks.

You know, like Yellowstone, etc., where families take their children to camp...

Often times, in TENTS.

Nylon doesn't offer a lot of protection against bullets.

[X_Digger]

22. Do you realize what semi-automatics are?

A double action revolver, all modern pistols, most modern long firearms other than bolt action rifles and pump shotguns- are semi-automatic.

[madfloridian]

28. Do you need them in national parks? Gee, from the anger I guess so.

[X_Digger]

33. Anger? Project much?

I see the same need for guns in national parks as elsewhere. Crime happens in national parks, there are meth labs and pot farms popping up in the now with armed growers protecting them, and there is wildlife that can consider you a preservative filled happy meal.

[madfloridian]

37. No, I expected the gun lobbyists to converge on this post.

But I felt it was important to point out that Hoyer is saying we lost although we control congress.

But then again when the word gun is mentioned, it hits the fan and reason goes out the window.

[X_Digger]

41. True, emotional issue all around..

Funny thing is, 50 years ago, the roles were reversed.. the left was talking about arming union organizers and the right was talking about gun control to stop 'undesirables' from 'getting uppity'.

[Lasher]

139. And why do you think it is that you expected controversy to ensue?

It is because all Democrats are not in favor of gun control. This reality is in contrast with the framing of your argument. 'We' didn't lose this one. 'You' gun control advocates did. There was nothing sinister about it.

[madfloridian]

163. I am not a gun control advocate. I don't think it belongs with credit card rates.

But you have to admit that people do love their guns more than anything. Congress just sold us down the effing river on credit cards and nobody cares cause they got their guns in parks.

I said the party did not "lose". Did you read my post well? I did not think so.

Good grief, I don't care who owns guns.

Do YOU care about credit card rates?

[Lasher]

173. Unrelated ammendments get tacked on all the time.

Whether to add the ammendment or not was subject of a public vote. It passed according to majority rule. That's the way it works. How else would you have it?

The 15% limit on credit card rates should have passed regardless of the gun ammendment. It didn't. You are trying to blame gun rights proponents for that. If you are not a gun control advocate you certainly do a good impression of one.

[madfloridian]

177. You think it is okay. For congress to work that way.

I don't. Since you now appear to consider me unworthy because I questioned how they got the gun amendment through, that tells me a lot about this party and this country.

I see people in this thread defending congress as usual.

I see people like me put down for questioning.

People I respect are bowing down to the way congress does business because the gun amendment got through.

That is just sad.

[Lasher]

181. If unrelated ammendments are wrong, it is a failing of Congressional process.

FWIW I don't approve of that practice. But instead of focusing on that and the gun ammendment I think it's best to reflect separately on the proposal to limit credit card APRs to 15% - who killed it and who supported it. We can thereby focus more appropriately on the main villans in this case, the credit card companies and members of Congress who are beholden to them. To be more direct, I don't like the way you framed your OP.

I am not alone in the sentiment and you seem to be taking this personal. I speak only for myself, but my views are not intended to be taken as a personal attack. And if I thought you unworthy I would not bother to engage you in fair debate.

You're OK, I usually like what you have to say. Grow yourself a little thicker skin and you'll be even better.

Nothing personal,

Lasher

[madfloridian]

182. It is getting personal.

When a person can not post the word "guns" without being jumped on.

Yes, it is personal.

My post is framed to show the utter stupidity of getting a bill through by piggybacking it on one of the most serious issues we have right now.

We know who killed the bill. Our Democrats did it.

Yet no one is complaining about that. They are complaining about it because I posted the blog about the gun bill being more loose than Bush's was.

I am the bad guy, yet I did nothing.

The gun advocates have little tolerance for other views.

[Lasher]

185. You expected controversy when you brought up the gun issue.

You said so. Don't act surprised about it now. If you can't stand the heat, stay our of that particular kitchen.

[madfloridian]

187. Oh, my....so I am not worthy to post about guns and credit cards?

Are you reading what you are writing?

I am not anti-guns, yet you guys in this post are treating me like a pariah because I am not gun savvy.

Something is wrong with that picture.

[Lasher]

191. I agree, something is wrong with this picture.

Bye for now.

[quiller4]

162. There is nothing unreasonable about taking precautions.

Carrying a gun into the wilderness is akin to keeping flares in your trunk when making a long driving trip. The chance that you will need either is not great but taking them along anyway is prudent.

Some of you post like you believe that only Republicans support gun rights or that no Democrats are gun owners and support gun rights. Neither is true, thank God.

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. As the article said -

"This is a somewhat specious argument considering “crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors."

You have a better chance of being mugged at your kid's kindergarten school.

[X_Digger]

62. So what's your threshold?

What level of crime is acceptable to you before you concede that allowing folks to defend themselves is okay?

10 murders? 20 rapes? 50 assaults?

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. Why are you so afraid?

Seriously, do you really quail in fear at walking out your door?

The national crime rate is @465/100,000 for violent crime. National parks, 1.65/100,000.

WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID?

[X_Digger]

68. Not afraid, prepared..

I have two fire extinguishers and three smoke detectors in my house; a first aid kit, seat belt cutter, snacks and a bottle of water in my car; speed dial #9 on my cell phone is 911; a gerber multi-tool, rescue disc, and flash drive backup in my laptop bag; and tylenol, antacids, and band-aids in my desk at work. Am I scared of fire, accidents, catastrophic hard drive crash, or fevers? No. Just prepared.

Seriously, what level of crime would it take for you to concede that national park visitors are okay to be armed if their state has licensed them to do so?

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. National parks are not governed by state law.

With an absolute prohibition of firearms in national parks, they have a crime rate that would the be envy of the safest community in the nation.

this just fucked that up.

And yes, from that list you are a frikin paranoid. That ain't normal, dude. Trust me.

[X_Digger]

74. National forests follow state law..

Why not national parks, too? Especially when you have national forests, state parks, and national parks connected to each other.

http://gis.fs.fed.us/r9/mnf/general_info/Laws_%20Regarding_%20Firearms_%20NF_Lands.pdf

Laws Regarding Firearms on National Forest Lands

First, the primary laws governing possession of firearms and other weapons on National Forest are State Laws. These laws were developed by the states following establishment of our Cooperative Wildlife Management Agreements. Most notable of the state laws concerns controlling firearms on the National Forest are “cased gun laws”.
Cased Gun Laws: As the name implies, this law requires that all firearms on National Forest be unloaded and kept in a case. Virginia and West Virginia have similar “cased gun laws”. In order to allow hunting, these laws make an exception.
• It is legal to have loaded firearms on National Forest during the authorized general firearms and muzzle loading gun seasons for bear, deer, grouse, pheasant, quail, rabbit, raccoon, squirrel, turkey, or waterfowl. This exception is very specific and applies only during the period when it is legal to take these listed species and doesn’t include carrying the loaded weapons in a vehicle.
• The second exception to this law allows people with a concealed weapon permit to carry a loaded, concealed, handgun either on their person or in their vehicle while on National Forest. This does not apply if the person is engaged in a primitive weapons season or chase only season.
• People muzzle loading or bow hunting may carry a concealed weapon as long as they possess a concealed weapon permit.

Prepared != afraid != paranoid. You're one of those guys who come asking for help when they screw up, aren't you? The kind that come to my desk asking if they can borrow my tools to fix their computer, or a band-aid when you cut yourself on the sharp edge of your computer case, or a tylenol when you whack your knee in the break room. That's okay, I'll help you too, even if it means stopping to offer aid when you flip your car and can't get out.

[proteus_lives]

82. +1

I agree with you, when did prepared become afraid?

"Prepared != afraid != paranoid. You're one of those guys who come asking for help when they screw up, aren't you? The kind that come to my desk asking if they can borrow my tools to fix their computer, or a band-aid when you cut yourself on the sharp edge of your computer case, or a tylenol when you whack your knee in the break room. That's okay, I'll help you too, even if it means stopping to offer aid when you flip your car and can't get out."

:yourock:

[proteus_lives]

81. That's a little judgmental.

"And yes, from that list you are a frikin paranoid. That ain't normal, dude. Trust me."

I have smoke detectors and FE's too. In my car, I keep an emergency kit with flares, flashlight, water, an umbrella and coat. Etc.

I carry a bag around with my work stuff, sinus/heartburn meds, a gig-drive, breath mints, extra batteries, pencils/pens/paper, a little penlight, tissues.

At my place, I always lock the doors, turn off the lights when I leave and make sure everything turned off. I always keep extras of emergency stuff.

I also have a pistol in a lockbox.

I'm not paranoid, I was very forgetful when I was young, always forgetting homework, money, keys etc. So I trained myself to overcome it. Now I always leave the house with everything I need.


Also, if I have no criminal record (which I don't) there is no reason I shouldn't be able to take my pistol with me.

[rucognizant]

153. I have to say ......

I appreciate the "prepared" above, too many today are happy go lucky screw-ups who clog the smooth running of society. Because if they are casual about emergency preparedness they are also casual about my insurance records or whatever when I have to deal with them, which always costs me TIME! Unpreparedness wastes time................
( Greatest Gen people tended to be prepared people and they ran the country as a very tight ship WITHOUT being paranoid.)
My Dad used to give us things like flares & fire extinguishers for our cars at Christmas time, yet he had a great sense of humor, and 'played " like one of the kids when we were together for holidays.
But I do think carrying a gun to a Nat Park is a little over the top! We have coyotes here in Maine....guess I'd better buy a gun before I go to Acadia to sketch!

[proteus_lives]

205. preparedness is the way to go.

My dad was an influence on me as well. My dad always calls me when he hears about new safety tips or he calls to about ask me how I'm approaching a situation.

"But I do think carrying a gun to a Nat Park is a little over the top! We have coyotes here in Maine....guess I'd better buy a gun before I go to Acadia to sketch!"

I agree it's not a huge deal but I also say, "if you want to, why not?" I'm not a criminal, I won't be taking drunken potshots at trees. It's not a fetishized item for me. It's like taking a tent, a frying pan or a first-aid kit. I'd rather have one and not need it then need one and not have it.

:-)

[DainBramaged]

109. Paranoia, it infects most gunnies

glad to see the same people in this thread defending guns (as usual). On the NRA payroll? You can tell us.

[konnichi wa]

110. Actually, the NRA is now on my payroll. I owned guns for 58 years without being a member

but decided to join about a year ago after seeing assholes publicly admitting they want to take my guns away.
Good job.

[DainBramaged]

111. No one wants to take your guns away, and if you ARE a Democrat and progressive you'd know that

Now I have you figured out. Goodbye.

[konnichi wa]

113. Yes, I am a Democratic.

With a brain.
Bye.

[Mithreal]

121. Who says "Yes, I am a Democratic." If you want to fool anyone,

"Yes, I am a Democrat" will suffice.

[fascisthunter]

127. democratic huh....?

sure you are a "democratic" and with a "brain".

bye bye

[X_Digger]

120. Something you never seem to understand..

We 'gunnies' talk to each other, across websites, blogs, forums, sporting goods stores, practice ranges, and association meetings. We're informed, connected, and knowledgeable about firearms, the firearms industry, the laws of our counties, cities, states, and country.

There are 12 million of us who are involved with one organization or another, 4 million who belong to NRA. We tell the NRA what to do, not vice versa.

[DainBramaged]

136. Wow, if the Democratic party had the engine of the NRA, we'd ALWAYS be in power

basically talking about death and nothing else. It's amazing how you all feel the steel penis is more important than any other issue. Says a lot about your imperatives, which really is death before all. And don't respond, I don't care for your efforts to impress us with the wonder of the blue steel penis. Some of us spend our lives working for others and not implementing death.

[X_Digger]

142. The point went right over your head, didn't it. *sigh* n/t

[spin]

196. "The wonder of the blue steel penis"...that's a first...

You gave me a good laugh. My compliments on an ORIGINAL gun = penis insult. (The old ones were so predictable and boring.)

I guess you would say my favorite handguns are stainless steel penises. Stainless steel is superior in the heat and humidity of Florida.

I'm glad you spend your life working for others. Where did you get the impression that those of us who own firearms and post on DU spend our lives implementing death?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

210. Why are you so infatuated with male genitalia?

[RaleighNCDUer]

144. Twelve million. Of three hundred million.

Obviously, your opinion is of the majority.

:eyes:

[X_Digger]

145. 12m compared to 150k

The brady bunch, VPC, etc have about 150k members.

And on a larger scale, need I remind you of the CNN & gallup polls that show that gun control is a less than majority position today?

[MicaelS]

152. Squeaky wheel and all that

Don't blame us if you can't organize a bottle party. Fact is many men regard the RKBA the way feminists regard the right-to-choose. You may not like that, but that's the way it is. People who have their freedoms threatened to react fairly vigorously.

[spin]

198. My daughter supports RKBA and the right-to-chose...

she has a concealed carry permit and years ago used a revolver to deter a man who was attempting to break into our home.

[MicaelS]

204. Excellent, congratulations!

You obviously did a great job of raising your daughter.

[spin]

209. Thanks, now I have two great grandchildren to spoil. (n/t)

[Caliman73]

60. What anger are you seeing?

I don't believe that anyone typed anything angry. Challenging someone's assumptions does not imply anger. You have stated that you are not informed about firearms but you have an opinion about them. That causes the assumption that your opinion about firearms is based on a reaction to information presented in the media, or an emotional response to personal experiences. Either way, you asked why some people would consider carrying self loading firearms in a National Park and you were given reasons. If you do not accept those reasons, that is your right, but they are not being presented with any anger. Perhaps the challenge is irritating you and you are angry about it? As another poster stated, that is called projection.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Yes, they do

Next question?

[quiller4]

160. Semi-autos were allowed in parks prior to the Reagan ban without

any incident. Why is that problematic today? I'm a Democrat who has no problem with any of the language in the bill.

[Mojorabbit]

3. I am fine with this

As I posted in another thread my sister and I were camping when four inebriated men cane up on a four wheeler. They came back later that night and tried to enter our tent. we showed them our weapon and they left. Two women camping in a desolate area. We ended up staying up all night afraid they would come back and packed up and left the next morning.

[madfloridian]

6. You will have your semi-automatics, but so might they have theirs.

And we can have a real shoot out.

[virginia mountainman]

25. They ALREADY HAVE THEIRS...

No law ever took them away from "them"....

[madfloridian]

29. Well, now you got yours.

Shoot out

[TheWraith]

52. You know that actual shootouts are so rare as to be almost nonexistant, right?

Most defensive uses of a firearm consist of simply showing that it's there.

And out of curiousity, what scenario would you prefer? That the two women be unarmed against the four drunken men trying to assault them? That only the aggressor has a firearm?

[Caliman73]

65. I would like to see a response to that scenario too

The objection to law abiding citizens carrying as allowed by right and by law for fear that criminals might also be carrying a firearm and escalation might occur does not make sense to me. People who intend to do others harm are usually going to carry an implement that will give them some advantage. As virginiamountainman said, they already have theirs. Would you have preferred the poster in her camping scenario not to have had a self defense tool and have her and her friend face off four drunken men by themselves? Perhaps they could have run away into the wilderness? Perhaps they should not have been out there camping in the first place? What are you getting at?

Most rational citizens who carry or own a firearm for self defense do not go looking to use it. Just like jumper cables, or road flares, or emergency food, we possess a tool that might give us an edge in a survival situation. The media tends to portray people who have misused firearms more readily than people who possess them, but never have to use them.

[Mojorabbit]

77. Are you saying it would have been

better to be assaulted? Or perhaps my sister and I should have just stayed home in the kitchen instead of a vacation hiking and camping? What is your point? I was never so thankful to have had that weapon at hand at that moment.

[madfloridian]

84. I don't care who has guns. Don't pass it piggy back on a credit card bill.

And don't let the Dems pretend they have lost on the issue, when they have such a huge majority.

People get hostile when guns are mentioned. Have your guns, I don't care at all.

[Mojorabbit]

95. I admire you greatly fellow floridian

but I can't agree on your stand on this one.

[madfloridian]

96. Well, I don't disagree with your stance.

I just really don't have an opinion.

I just get very tired of the gun folks thinking the rest of us are not very smart.

It happens no matter how a post is worded, nor the effort that goes into it.

Say the word gun and you get jumped on.

I don't even disagree. I just don't care who owns one.

I don't like my party manipulating me and trying to make me think they were helpless.

[Demobrat]

154. Four drunken assholes in a four-wheeler and not one had a shotgun?

The NRA is falling down on the job. But with the help of this little bill you can be sure that the next pair of women out in the wilderness they run across won't be so lucky.

[Jakes Progress]

159. Sometimes you doubt a story.

This is the flaw in the one told. The four drunk assholes would have had a gun. The poster says so. The end of that scenario would have been the four assholes driving by an hour later and blasting the tent.

Having a gun doesn't protect you from others who do unless you are the one who is willing and eager to shoot first.

But then that is logic and reality. Not a big part of the "arm everyone" crowd.

[Demobrat]

168. I find it hard to believe also.

First, that four drunk assholes let themselves be run off by two little ladies with a big gun and didn't return, and second that the women actually sat there all night and waited for them to show up - with or without guns.

[Jakes Progress]

178. Was there a police report we can see?

If not, the drunken assholes in the poster's part of the country are pretty tame.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

217. Can you specify who is in the arm everyone crowd?

[Mojorabbit]

195. self delete because it isn't worth it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

211. Could you please be specific on who is in the "arm everyone" crowd?

[NickB79]

169. Do they give out free shotguns with each case of beer where you live?

Having grown up in a rural area, the vast majority of drunken assholes I have encountered did NOT carry firearms. That includes people out "mudding", tearing up swamps with their trucks and ATV's.

How many people have you personally encountered in the woods or field that were drunk and carrying a gun?

[Demobrat]

170. I'm sure I'll be encountering a lot more now that it's legal.

Just as I'm sure that drunken assholes everywhere have much easier access to guns of all ilks than they did when you were a kid. ANYBODY who wants a gun or guns can get one, as you know very well.

[NickB79]

172. How many people have you encounted and had problems with who were carrying guns so far?

You didn't answer my question in my previous post. Are you speaking from personal experience, or what?

The same people you might encounter in the parks are the people who are already legally carrying on the streets. You probably pass by them and never even know it. If you aren't having trouble with CCW permit holders now, why would you have more trouble with them in national parks in the future?

As for having easier access to guns now than "when I was a kid", I was just a kid less than 10 years ago. What has occurred in that time that has made it easier to get guns? The only major change in gun policy was the repeal of the AWB. And you know what kind of difference that made? In 2001 I could purchase an AK clone or AR-15 in the local sporting goods store. Today, I can purchase an AK clone or AR-15 in the local sporting goods store. Big difference :eyes:

[Demobrat]

176. We had a gun waving asshole on the BART train just the other day.

He pulled it out just as we reached the station, raved for a few moments about the poor kid who was shot on the station platform, and ran off when the doors opened. Of course, I don't know if you consider that "trouble", since nobody was actually shot. And no he wasn't out in a field, he was inside a crowded train car. So let's talk about the guy upstairs, the licensed firearms instructor, who threatened to shoot me if I complained to the landlord about the noise. Would you call that "trouble"? (Yes I complained anyway and no I won't be buying a gun).

What is your point anyway? That drunken assholes don't have or can't get guns?

[NickB79]

188. My point is that this new law won't put more of these assholes in parks

Because these same assholes are already out there breaking existing laws. Would the guy who has no qualms about illegally pulling out a gun on the train see a sign at the entrance to a national park saying "No Guns" and suddenly decide to follow that law? The only people this law affects are those that already obey existing laws.

[Demobrat]

190. Did I say anything about the new law

one way or the other? Nope. I made a comment that I found it hard to believe that the assholes didn't already have guns. Because most assholes do. According to you, nice country boys who like to have a few drinks and ride around harassing women on camping trips don't carry. Because the nice boys you grew up with didn't. It must have been nice to have had such an innocent childhood. Too bad everybody isn't so lucky.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

213. So you weren't referring to the new law 5 hours ago when you wrote this...

"I'm sure I'll be encountering a lot more now that it's legal."? It's really not hard to be honest if you just make a little effort.


David

[spin]

199. If you ever take a vacation in Florida...

and travel on the highways and do some shopping in the towns, you'll have plenty of encounters with people who legally have firearms in their vehicles or carry concealed. Of course, you'll never know.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Caving to the right wing gun lobby is a popular pastime for self-seving pols. K&R

[Historic NY]

7. When someone gets killed some good policy Attorney could have a field day.

Its not a matter of when this will happen but how soon.

[anonymous171]

10. Dems just need to drop the gun issue entirely. nt

[madfloridian]

12. They just did. They turned it over to the Republicans...again.

Did you read my post? Hoyer says we lost. No, we did not lose. We let the Republicans set the agenda.

[virginia mountainman]

36. Than why is a significant number of Democrats voting for it??

Could be that their constituents are DEMANDING THEM TOO?!?!

[madfloridian]

38. Isn't that what I said in the OP?

That Hoyer should have admitted they voted for it because they wanted it?

[Lorien]

203. Their spinelessness is sucking out every ounce of hope I had for this term

HOW can we still be on the "losing end" of this crap with such a sizable majority? WHY are we still allowing the sociopaths to set the agenda?

[onehandle]

11. What could Congress do against a Constitutionally protected consumer item?

The Constitution gives the entity known as "arms" a life of its own.

Guns are citizens, if you ask me.

[madfloridian]

14. That was my point. Read the subject line.

Democrats love them some guns now.

[virginia mountainman]

16. Ahh, Excuse me...

Who said we are the minority????

I fully agree with this....And Support it..

[madfloridian]

18. Good. I feel so safe. Those semi-automatics are needed in parks.

Really

[virginia mountainman]

27. Why all hating on Semi Automatics??

They have been around for well over 100 years...

They are by far the most popular weapons in America???

You make it sound like its a dirty word??

[spin]

200. Well, if it would make you feel better, I carry a revolver...

depending on where I'm at I carry one of these concealed:


S&W Model 642 Airweight 38 special +P


S&W Model 60 3" barrel .357 magnum

[madfloridian]

17. In defending guns, you are missing the real point. Dems DON'T control congress.

Not really.

That was the point.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. I wasn't under any delusion that they did control Congress. So I'm good.

:shrug:

[virginia mountainman]

35. odd, I am a Democrat...It seems like we are to me...

I am completely happy with my DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS STANCES on this issue..

[madfloridian]

39. That's a good thing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. The Democrats who oppose gun control Congress

[blindpig]

59. The Money Party controls the Congress.

As they control the elections.

It's all a pleasant illusion.

You are getting sleepy.......

[Vinca]

19. Hey, you never know when you might be in the middle of Yellowstone

and have a craving for a mooseburger. Guns! Guns! Guns!:banghead:

[X_Digger]

30. Dems seem to be listening to their constituents..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html
Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

[madfloridian]

42. We have become a fearful nation.

As your chart shows.

[anonymous171]

46. It goes both ways.

However, nowadays people don't trust the government to protect them. If they did, I'm sure they would support the destruction of the 2nd Amendment. Fear makes people do stupid things.

[X_Digger]

48. Ehn.. read the cnn article linked above..

the decrease in the want for new gun laws has followed the downward trend in crime, and the increase in gun ownership. Causation != correlation, but interesting interaction in three different measurements.

[MicaelS]

149. Works both ways doesn't it?

You're fearful about OTHER people having guns. But apparently the only fear you see is the fear of the people that own, or want to own them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

58. Which has absolutely nothing to do with having ANY firearms at all

in NATIONAL WILDLIFE PRESERVES.

WHAT THE FUCK???

[X_Digger]

63. 61% (per CNN poll) want the same or lower amounts of regulation..

.. is that hard to understand?

The expansion of Concealed Carry (and gun ownership rights in general) is not a new phenomenon- it's been going on for 25+ years.

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. And what has that to do with keeping weapons out of wildlife preserves?

What is there to shoot, other than endangered species?

what the fuck, jack?

[X_Digger]

69. Keep the rose colored glasses on..

.. and hope that you're not the 1@100,000 who needs to protect yourself.

Me? I prefer to be prepared and not need it than need it and not have it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. And i prefer not to live in fear. nt

[benEzra]

87. The fear I see in this thread is by those who profess terror

that lawfully licensed individuals (with lower violent crime rates than even most police agencies) will suddenly become homicidal maniacs, drunks, and poachers when they cross the boundary from National Forest wilderness into National Park wilderness.

If I discreetly carry a firearm while camping or hiking with my family, I am not acting out of fear, merely what I would consider reasonable prudence. And since the James Watt/Reagan gun ban was always on the honor system anyway (with only the truly "square" volunteering to abide by it), I don't see the safety situation here changing at all.

[leftofthedial]

44. You're not criticizing a Democrat, are you.

Beaten on illegal wiretaps.
Beaten on immunity for the illegally wiretapping corporations.
Beaten on funding permanent war in Iraq.
Beaten on the effectivity of congressional subpoenas.
Beaten on bailouts for banks and buggery of workers.
Beaten on mortgage protection for consumers.
Beaten on protection of usurious credit card rates.
Beaten over and over and over again.



I feel so sorry for this poor man. He must just be shellshocked. I don't know how he can go on!

[madfloridian]

47. Be sure to read all of Joan's post at New West. DailyKos..McJoan

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_cynical_gun_debate/C37/L37/

That's the blog I linked to in the OP

[rucky]

49. This is his way of avoiding the Credit Card issue?

Cuck Fongress!

[Johonny]

50. I agree

Everyone will be talking about the pointless guns in national parks issue while ignoring the merits of the credit card part of the bill. Pointless distracting of the voters for an issue that really matters in their life.

[old mark]

53. First, many of the millions of guns in the USA are owned by...

...DEMOCRATS!~!11!! We like them, have a right to them and want to keep them. They are not just for Republicans!!!, and that attitude should dry up and blow away.

Second who or what is Steny Howyer?

mark

[madfloridian]

54. Steny Hoyer is a House Dem leader.

I think a Blue Dog favorite. He is quite powerful and he is not telling the truth when he says we lost. We didn't lose, he should admit it.

Dems know that they will lose if they say a word about gun control.

[AndyA]

56. Hey, if guns are OK in national parks, they should be OK in the Capitol, too, right?

I love how Congress protects itself from the possibility of people bringing guns in the areas where they work, but by and large the rest of America is supposed to be OK with it.

If it's good enough for national parks, it should be fine in the Capital, too.

[madfloridian]

61. Not only that...

We will go along on the "conscience clause" on women's rights and other issues for doctors and pharmacies...at least that is what I interpret from a "sensible" conscience clause that Obama mentioned.

We still have DADT.

We are not losing on those issues either...we are letting two groups of people hang out to dry to win.

But hey, that is better than not winning.

[bdamomma]

64. see what happens if someone shoots someone accidentally.

or shoots an animal. disgusting.

[benEzra]

79. Poachers and criminals are already allowed to have guns in National Parks.

The current Reagan/James Watt gun ban only disarms those so scrupulous about obeying the law that they wouldn't take a gun while camping with their family even KNOWING they would never be caught if they did.

[madfloridian]

72. Combining in one bill credit cards rates and guns...

they really do think we are stupid.

[anonymous171]

73. That's actually a pretty good way to get progressive legislation through.

[madfloridian]

76. Then why do we work so hard to have a majority in congress?

If we have to combine guns and credit cards?

[bridgit]

75. It was an inclusion designed to poison the bill, what I little understand is DU...

being taken by surprise http://neveryetmelted.com/2008/10/16/jim-webb-trusts-barack-obama Even Ed Schultz calls himself a "gun toting lefty", from a previous job requirement *I* still maintain a 'concealed'...Dems didn't get beaten on the gun issue imo, it isn't imfo a republican = guns/Dem = no guns, issue. The NRA is snookering Dems and the important buisness of America's econ recovery, which I believe will succeed in spite of them

[benEzra]

78. OMG, a "semi-automatic weapon!!!!!!1111"

Somebody is engaging in a little scaremongering for the terminology-challenged. I'll bet those evil CHL holders carry lots of dihydrogen monoxide and drive explosion-propelled internal combustion vehicles, too.

I have a NC carry license. To obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, mental health records check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI, take a class on self-defense and firearms law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, and demonstrate competence with the above handgun on a shooting range, live fire. Statistically, I am even less likely to be arrested for a violent crime than even a police officer.

I am licensed to discreetly carry a weapon down Main Street, at the mall, in crowds, and in state parks, but if I carry the same firearm while camping in the wilderness with my family, I'm suddenly a homicidal maniac in waiting? Please. Under the Ronald Reagan/James Watt gun ban you are defending, I'd be a felon for even crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway in my car.

My own father had a "save" with a lawfully carried handgun in the early to mid 1970's, when I was a child, in the Croatan National Forest; his would-be assailants saw the gun, backed off, and left (no shots even fired). I suppose it's a good thing he wasn't on National Park land.

[madfloridian]

80. I don't care who has guns....arm the whole nation.

Then we can shoot each other more easily.

Really, I don't care. I just don't see why our Dems let through a bill that was more extreme than even Bush asked for.

Could you tell me why they did that?

Getting so hung up on attacking me on guns is missing the point of what Hoyer said.

He said we lost. We did not lose. We have moved to the position of the far right and further.

[benEzra]

85. I agree that we did not "lose". But neither did we "move to the right."

Rather, the party realized that the Third Way strategy of being "tough on guns" to look tough on crime to right-leaning authoritarians was backfiring, and gradually accepted that reality.

Being pro-choice on guns is not a "right" issue, any more than being anti-gun is a "left" issue. It is correlated with one's view of Authority, not where one falls on the left-right spectrum. Russ Feingold is pro-gun, and William J. Bennett is rabidly anti-gun. The National Park no-carry rule was the brainchild of none other than James G. Watt and instituted by Reagan, whereas John F. Kennedy was a gun enthusiast who personally owned an AR-15.

I believe that those who characterize a more accepting stance on gun ownership as "moving to the right" do thoughtful progressives a disservice. The original hardline stance against gun ownership was a DLC/Third Way construct in the first place, not a progressive movement, so moving back toward the pre-Third-Way position can hardly be construed as pandering to the right, IMO.

[madfloridian]

86. We are pro-choice on guns, but not womens' right and gay rights.

Ain't it amazing how that works.

Don't get me started on the Third Way. They were formed by gun activists.

[benEzra]

88. I am pro-choice on all three.

And the Third Way was not formed by "gun activists"; the Third Way'ers were the most rabidly anti-gun wing of the party from the early 1990's through at least 2004. It was the Third Way communitarians who made banning popular guns the #1 legislative priority during the 1990's. THEY were responsible for the "talk up hunting, ban nonhunting guns" mantra, not the party's liberal wing.

Most of the legislators still pushing the "assault weapon" fraud are DLC corporatists.

[madfloridian]

91. They are the Third Way.

"A Note to AGS Visitors

Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) and the AGS Foundation (AGSF) have been folded into Third Way, an organization founded and operated by the former AGS and AGSF management team.

For Third Way’s latest gun safety policy and message guidance, please visit our gun issues page. There you can also find reports produced by AGS in a special sub-category.

For current gun safety data and other information, we recommend the American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Press inquiries:
Matt Bennett, Vice President for Public Affairs
202.775.3768 x212
[e-mail]"

http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/

I don't care if you own a gun or many of them. I think this bill goes beyond what even Bush asked.

Why is that?

[benEzra]

97. ALL of those were gun-control groups, ALL founded to support Third Way gun restrictions.

"Americans for Gun Safety" was a Third Way funded gun-control organization that attempted to reframe a pro-bans message in a less threatening way. After that bombed, a number of gun control activists closely tied to the DLC founded the "American Hunters and Shooters Association", which initially ran hard on a similarly pro-bans message, again in an attempt to reframe the pro-bans position.

One of AHSA's founders was John Rosenthal, one of the most "out there" anti-gun activists I am aware of. Much more recently, AHSA distanced itself from its Third Way origins, ditched Rosenthal and most of his pro-ban baggage, and has attempted to carve out an actual pro-gun, anti-AWB position, but they started out Third Way and anti-gun.

Thank you for very nicely demonstrating the "Third Way" obsession with new gun bans, and the immense amount of effort, money, and political capital the Third Way zealots wasted on the gun-ban albatross.

[madfloridian]

99. Well, there is no gun ban now.

And where did you get the idea I want to have guns banned?

Please stop assuming that.

Trying to have a dialogue, but it's impossible once the word gun is mentioned.

[benEzra]

103. Unless I have you confused with someone else, you favor the Third Way "assault weapon" bans.

"Assault weapon", of course, being DLC/Third Way speak for the most popular civilian rifles in the United States---rifles which more Americans own than hunt. That was the focus of DLC/Third Way gun ban efforts in the 1990's through 2004, that was what created the "Dems'll-take-yer-gunz" meme, and it was that to which I refer when I talk about DLC/Third Way gun ban efforts.

If you oppose the DLC's "assault weapon" fraud, then my apologies. But it was indeed the DLC/Third Way that made banning the most popular guns Priority One during the 1990's, and it is that DLC/Third Way position that we are now (thankfully) moving away from.

[madfloridian]

105. I think assault weapons fall into a more dangerous category.

But even then, that is not my issue.

[benEzra]

106. Creating that misperception was the intent of the label, of course.

But my point is that the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme stems primarily from the DLC/Third Way's militant drive for "assault weapon" restrictions during the 1990's through 2004, and we are only now getting past that.

FWIW, the difference between an "assault weapon" and a non-"assault weapon":



Same small-caliber rifle, three different stocks.

[madfloridian]

93. And you proved the point that the DLC/PPI/Third Way trio control our policy

completely and utterly.

We have little say.

Look at the other issues there. We are following the DLC and PPI to a letter.

[benEzra]

98. The DLC/Third Way position was the pro-new-bans position. That bombed.

It is the Third Way position on guns (chiefly the "assault weapon" fraud) that we are now abandoning.

[madfloridian]

101. A small group of people are controlling our party's agenda

They do not stand for what is right on women's rights or gay rights or anything.

They needed to say all people have guns to win...so they said it.

I don't care if you have your guns.

I don't like the party using and manipulating me.

[benEzra]

104. I do agree with you that the party leadership is WAY too insulated from the "little people."

If that is what you're getting at, we are on the same page.

I only disagree with the characterization of the party's softening of its anti-gun stance as moving to the right or pandering. To me, that softening is a manifestation of the party actually listening to its rank and file, i.e. becoming less ivory-tower and less manipulative. Something to chalk up on the positive, "We the People" side.

[madfloridian]

89. Our Democrats passed far more extreme gun laws than even Bush wanted.

"Coburn’s bill goes far beyond what the Bush administration tried to do, which was to allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks for people with concealed carry permits. That was disturbing enough to former park officials and park rangers, and for a federal judge who blocked implementation on the rule because none of the required environmental review had been done before the government tried to enact it. Coburn’s bill goes as far as to allow openly carried rifles, shotguns, and even semi-automatic weapons in parks, depending on whether the weapon is in compliance with state law.

Coburn’s stated purpose for the bill is “to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges,” and about allowing park visitors to protect themselves from attacks from other visitors and animals. This is a somewhat specious argument considering “crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people.” On top of that, the proposed law does not alter the current prohibition on shooting wildlife in national parks and refuges."

That is from the blog link in the OP, and it is quite amazing that our Democrats got through a much more extreme bill.

I think they will also get through privatization of Social Security and Medicare during this administration, though we mobilized to fight it against Bush.

They can do it because we trust them not to do so. That's a shame.

Pro-choice for gun rights more than under Bush, but not pro-choice yet for women and gays.

We need to keep an eye out.

[X_Digger]

90. Thing is.. it's not

That may be what the blogger said, and the two measures were worded differently, but the result would have been / will be the same.

Namely, it turns over regulating firearms in national parks to the states in which they reside.

[madfloridian]

92. The only people who are allowed to be in the right on this issue...

are those who support the bill.

I don't especially care if you have a gun. I don't own one, neither does hubby. But what you carry is not our business.

I think we all pay when everyone is armed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. Who is arguing for everyone to be armed?

[spoony]

102. Probably because, as everyone but his voters knew, Bush

didn't give a half a shit about anyone's freedoms or rights and spent his entire administration undermining them, including the 2nd Amendment.

[MasonJar]

94. Now our parks' animals are in jeopardy from gun nuts and our parks are no

longer a place families can go to enjoy nature. Way to go dems. Why do we need a majority? It is useless.

[benEzra]

100. No.

The Reagan/Watt gun restrictions didn't affect poachers, nuts, or criminals; the "gun ban" was and is strictly on the honor system.

The new rules (actually a return to the original rules, which were in place until Reagan/Watt changed them) merely allow those already authorized by the state to carry firearms everywhere else (the mall, National Forests, Main Street), to carry them when on National Park land.

I hold a carry license; as I believe I mentioned upthread, to obtain it I passed a mental health records check, Federal and state background checks, an FBI fingerprint check, took a class on self-defense law and NC firearms law using a state-approved curriculum from a state-licensed instructor, took and passed a written test on the law administered by my sheriff's office, and demonstrated competence on a shooting range, live fire. I am no threat whatsoever to you or your family, and those who would characterize my wife and I as poachers, nuts, or wannabe criminals are simply fearmongering, IMO.

[konnichi wa]

112. If 'gun nuts' is an acceptable phrase around here, I propose to indemnify

the descriptive "asshole gun grabber" as being equally valid.

I assume that will meet with your approval?

[DainBramaged]

107. America, a gun on every hip no matter if there is a threat of crime or not

yes sir make sure everyone is armed in case the boogie man attacks you while you are hiking in a National Park, going to church, shopping in a Wal*Mart, or just minding your own business, better to have that gun loaded and ready to pull on any person you deem a threat especially if they are black or brown. Yes sir, those gun laws are JUST for White Christian Bible carrying mens and womens who believe that Jesus gave them the right to conceal carry everywhere. Not that it doesn't make them feel superior in spite of no threat, but it's always good to have your gun and Jesus by your side.

[benEzra]

114. No, just the 2% or so of the population trained and licensed to carry them.

But the "everybody with gunz!!!" meme is so much more fun to throw around, isn't it?

[DainBramaged]

115. Glad to see the NRA crowd flooding the thread.......

:eyes:

[benEzra]

119. Heaven forbid progressive gun owners should weigh in on a GUN thread...

I suppose we should just sit down and shut the hell up, like we did in 1994. Except that didn't work out so well, for gun owners OR the party at large...

[jmg257]

197. Why are the laws 'just for whites'? Are there race-specific provisions in there? n/t

[bottomtheweaver]

108. Yes, very odd.

But it's been an odd year.

[earcandle]

116. what is the point?

[madfloridian]

117. The point of what?

The point of my post?

The point of guns in the parks?

The point of our Dems having a majority?

My answer is that I am not sure on any of it.

[earcandle]

201. What point is being made that justifies having the public bear arms in national parks, given how raw

we are? 

[madfloridian]

118. Watch Rachel's show tonight about DADT....taking the pension away

from an 18 year fighter pilot.

And we are still going to have conscience clauses and women and doctors in legal trouble if they had to do an abortion to save the mother's life.

But we sure know how to win on the gun issue.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

122. Gun control is extremely out of favor right now

It's really not surprising that there are pro-gun majorities in both houses even if the Democrats are in control. What is surprising is that they aren't talking about stripping it out in Conference Committee. That's the vehicle usually used to undermine the majority vote in favor of what the leadership wants.

[madfloridian]

123. Again...make it stand on its own..not on a credit card bill that is useless anyway.

All the credit card companies have to do is tell us they are going to raise our rates as high as they want, and we have to take it.

There is no cap on rates.

The two bills are not equal. One is vital to our surviving this economy. One is not.

Gun ownership is now more important than an 18 year veteran losing his pension because he is gay.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. I agree but it's a lot easier said than done

Any Senator can introduce any amendment to a bill. In our 10 second soundbyte world, "I actually support gun rights but I voted against the amendment because I wanted the credit card bill to be clean" is too confusing of an explanation because most people don't understand nor do they care about senatorial procedure. John Kerry learned this the hard way.

The fact is that the pro-gun Congressmen and Senators have a better chance of getting re-elected if they just vote for the amendment instead of voting against it and having to explain the vote later. Nothing Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid do can change that fact.

I take it, however, that your problem really isn't with the guns. It's with the precedent and the message it sends to Republicans which says "go ahead attach whatever you want to our bills and we will probably approve it".

[madfloridian]

132. And they need to vote anti-choice and anti-gay to get elected as well.

Which means they stand for very little.

I nearly cried watching Rachel's show tonight about the veteran pilot being fired from the military and his pension taken away because of DADT.

There is no excuse for that.

But any votes on guns goes right through.

[Toucano]

124. Congress is the one who is losing.

How many voters went to the polls because they could or could not take a gun into a national park?

This isn't what they were sent there to do.

Both parties come out looking like fools.

[fascisthunter]

126. they caved to a Powerful and Wealthy Minority

the gun industry

[X_Digger]

129. You mean a majority..

..the 61% who don't want more gun regulation.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html
"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

[fascisthunter]

131. the gun industry=minority

tools not included.

Also, funny how dishonestly they passed this by lumping it in with another Bill. Almost as if they wanted to intentionally muddy the waters. If your numbers had veracity, the Bill would have been passed ON ITS OWN...

[X_Digger]

133. I agree, wrong place..

.. but hey, that's how a lot of stuff gets passed. What are you gonna do?

[Baby Snooks]

130. I think the point is the 259 versus the 176...

But then that might upset the fools who believe Democrats in Congress represent the interests of the Democratic Party.

[girl_interrupted]

134. No caps on credit cards but concealed weapons in national parks?

With the Democrats holding a majority, this is a "credit card reform" bill? What a joke. They had the opportunity to vote for Senator Sanders bill which would have put a 15% cap, instead of some of the current rates of 30%. How does combining the two promote "progressive" legislation? Sure didn't with this lame bill. I'm disgusted. Usury & loansharking continues.

[democracy1st]

135. weak a.. men wow these guys are weak

[madrchsod]

137. "i got guns-you got guns..all gods chillun got guns"

[feslen]

138. hah!

thanks for this photo mad, this made me feel slightly better.

[feslen]

140. oh no! a bear on a nautre hike, it looks like its foraging for food! let's kill it!

bears and other "dangerous" animals rarely bother humans.

the only truly dangerous animal on this planet is humans.

[Deep13]

141. Only the anti-gun D's. got beaten.

The ones who support gun rights and ran in part on that point of view won.

[Mnpaul]

143. Violent crimes in national parks?

During 2006, when 273 million visitors toured the parks, 11 deaths were investigated across the system. Two involved women who had been pushed off cliffs (one at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and one at Lake Mead National Recreation Area), one was a suicide (at Golden Gate National Recreation Area), and one was the victim of a DUI accident (in Yellowstone National Park).

National Park Service records also show that one of the 11 deaths, reported in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, involved a stabbing that was spawned by an alcohol-fueled altercation. Great Smoky also was the setting of a fatal shooting of another woman with three others arrested for the crime.

The suicide at Golden Gate involved a man who "began shooting at hang gliders. He did not hit any of the hang gliders, but then he shot a stranger. Then he turned the gun on himself."
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/03/violent-deaths-national-parks

That sure sounds like a pressing issue, 11 out of 273 million. Four of those deaths are the result of having weapons and I don't think guns will save the two that got pushed off the cliff.I don't think guns would save the DUI victim either.

[X_Digger]

146. How about the 35 rapes..

61 robberies, 16 kidnappings, or 261 aggravated assaults?

After all, isn't the mantra 'if just one could be saved..'?

[urgk]

156. What is that per capita?

How many people visit the National Parks?
Total recreation visitors to the National Parks in 2006: 272,623,980.

And how about applying that "'if just one could be saved..'?" ideal to accidental shootings? 1,134 corpses could have used that logic in 1996, according to what I've read. Now, I know you think more people were saved by guns, but that's a different matter. We're talking about saving just one, right?

[X_Digger]

157. Nah, I was making fun of the 'just one' BS

It ends up being an absolutionist's wet dream- there's no limit to how far they'll go, because of the 'if just one' and 'even one is too many' line of thinking.

Does crime happen in national parks? Absolutely. Is it lower than other places? Sure. Is it lower than in national forests or state parks where people can legally carry right now? Not substantially, no.

[jmg257]

147. "...we were in agreement on guns in national parks" And about fucking time.

Let's hope this pro-rights 'movement' continues. Maybe the rest of the anti-gun Dems will finally get the message basic secured rights.


Semi-automatic weapons make a great choice for personal possession, carry, and use.

[aikoaiko]

174. That's what I was thinking when I read the OP.

:applause:

[urgk]

155. The National Mall in DC is a national park.

Does that concern anybody?

[X_Digger]

158. Nope, because DC doesn't allow concealed carry in parks..

This doesn't override states' laws on carrying loaded firearms into national forests or state parks. Just brings national parks in line with the states in which they reside.

[madfloridian]

164. I AM NOT ANTI GUN. I am anti being spun by my party which is in power.

And you know what? If I were for gun control it would not be a sin. But now in America there is nothing worse than being perceived as being against guns.

We will accept the way they screwed us on the credit card rates (there is no limit)...because they gave us guns in the same bill.

How very sad.

[Mithreal]

166. Squeaks and squeals whenever guns are mentioned.

Hard to read the op when you are rubbing down and fondling your guns.

[madfloridian]

167. Even people I much respect have failed to get my point.

That our own party got through a more extreme gun bill than Bush had in the guise of making it about credit card rates.

They gave us nothing on credit card rates. Nothing.

Where are the squeals about that? None at all.

[X_Digger]

179. Thing is, it's NOT more extreme.

You keep repeating that but it's not.

[madfloridian]

184. Yes, it appears to be more extreme. Do you have links?

I will repost what was in the OP which I consider correct unless you can set me straight. I trust Joan's work very much, and she is being viciously attacked in the comments there. Perhaps I did her no favor to quote her blog post. :shrug:

"Coburn’s bill goes far beyond what the Bush administration tried to do, which was to allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks for people with concealed carry permits. That was disturbing enough to former park officials and park rangers, and for a federal judge who blocked implementation on the rule because none of the required environmental review had been done before the government tried to enact it. Coburn’s bill goes as far as to allow openly carried rifles, shotguns, and even semi-automatic weapons in parks, depending on whether the weapon is in compliance with state law.

Coburn’s stated purpose for the bill is “to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges,” and about allowing park visitors to protect themselves from attacks from other visitors and animals. This is a somewhat specious argument considering “crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people.” On top of that, the proposed law does not alter the current prohibition on shooting wildlife in national parks and refuges.

Not surprisingly, a coalition of groups have organized against the effort, sending a letter to President Obama asking him to halt the bill. The National Parks Conservation Association, The Humane Society of the United States, Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence are among the groups signed onto the letter. Most compelling is the argument from Scot McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and current president of the Association of National Park Rangers, which represents 1,200 current and former park rangers."

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/the_cynical_gun_debate/C37/L37/

[X_Digger]

192. Yes, one blogger post..

If you read the bush proposal: http://interior.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments. In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands. The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.

End result? States in which national parks reside set the rules.

Now compare to the operative clause in amendment 1067:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1067

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

End result? States in which national parks reside set the rules.

You've taken one bad blog post and repeated the misinformation in it as fact.

[madfloridian]

193. End result could well be changes in rules of the states.

So what the blog I posted said was true. Now it seems to be up to the states.

[X_Digger]

194. No difference between the two..

THAT's the point I've tried to make repeatedly.

*shakes head* Christ a-mighty, are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just dense?

[Mithreal]

165. That's just the way Dems do math. Even 60% isn't enough for majority.

I can't wait to hear how the excuses are framed when 2010 rolls around.

[Better Believe It]

171. But how else can we defend ourselves if attacked by raging buffalos at Yellowstone?

:)

[aikoaiko]

175. When Hoyer says "we", he means anti-gun, anti-rkba democrats

But you are correct that there is a growing group of pro-gun politicians that spans all parties.

[Wednesdays]

180. K&R

:kick:

[JNelson6563]

186. Could someone 'splain to ol Steny that we won??

Lunacy's still the norm in DC I see.

Great post though MF, as usual. :hi:

Julie

[SoCalDem]

189. Republicans NEVER compromise, and dems USUALLY compromise

republicans will line up like lemmings..behind the party leader because they have no scruples.

[bobbolink]

206. How can they be considered DEMS if they consistently vote with the RW?

We DON"T have a majority.....

The RW still has the majority.....

[librechik]

212. Yeah. And we're the only party that could lose with those numbers.

Why does the lizard-to-human ratio have to be so high in Congress? They're the REAL biggest party.

[madfloridian]

214. Exactly my point.

Love your car. :hi:

[librechik]

216. thx--gas is so expensive these days!

[w4rma]

219. I see no problem with this. Eventually the gun lobby will have enacted all they can enact.

And then the gun lobby will taper off and will hopefully become bipartisan. This nation has much bigger fish to fry than guns in parks.

[madfloridian]

220. I guess we all have to be ok with it.

It's just that they are not frying the "bigger fish". They have not controlled many agendas at all.

91 billion more today voted for the two wars....but bitching about health care for the people of our country.

Having the majority seems not to matter.