NY Times on Guns in National Parks: "Whose Senate is This?"

[villager]

The gun lobby and its all-too-willing political accomplices have struck again. The Senate’s version of urgently needed legislation to protect credit card users has been saddled with a dangerous and utterly nongermane amendment allowing visitors to openly carry loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges.

A disappointing 27 Senate Democrats, whose party once led the fight for gun control, eagerly signed on with 39 Republicans — fawning together before the lobby’s lethal diktat.

None of that 66 dared to ask: What on earth does laissez-faire gun toting have to do with credit card fairness? And why should the national parks, which are supposed to be peaceful preserves, be filled with loaded AK-47s and other war weapons?

The House has passed a gun-free credit card measure, and members must muster the courage to strip this amendment from the Senate’s version.

The gun lobby already has poisoned the proposal to let the District of Columbia have a voting representative in the House. The Senate’s gun lackeys tacked on a vindictive amendment to strip the district of basic gun control powers, inviting assault and sniper rifles designed for military battlefields into homes and businesses.

The House passed its own clean version of the District of Columbia bill, but the lobby is threatening retaliation if members dare to do their duty and strip guns from the final version negotiated with the Senate.

Turning the national parks into fields for firearms has been an obsession of the gun lobby. The Bush administration catered with disgraceful regulations that had to be struck down in federal court for ignoring public safety and environmental standards. The Obama administration has been hedging on the issue, as if further review might justify a terrible idea. And now Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma, happily rehauls the same water, imposing it on to the vital credit card bill.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/opinion/14thu3.html

[HowHasItComeToThis]

1. FOR SHAME

[paulsby]

48. yes, god forbid

our congress should respect civil rights inside our national parks.

good for them.

[RandomThoughts]

2. This may be an attempt at a poison pill amendment, or a wrecking amendment

"What on earth does laissez-faire gun toting have to do with credit card fairness? "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_amendment
In legislative debate, a wrecking amendment (also called a poison pill amendment or killer amendment) is an amendment made by a legislator who disagrees with the principles of a bill and who seeks to make it useless (by moving amendments to either make the bill malformed and nonsensical, or to severely change its intent) rather than directly opposing the bill by simply voting against it.

An important character of wrecking amendments is that they are not moved in good faith. The proposer of the amendment would not see the wrecked legislation as good legislation and would still not vote in favor of the legislation when it came to the final vote, even if the amendment were accepted. Motives for making them include allowing more debate, delaying the enactment of the legislation, or just sometimes a straightfoward attempt to make the initiator of the legislation give up.

By putting in an amendment that is not relevant to the bill, but makes it harder for people to vote for the bill, an attempt is made to hurt efforts to give American people relief in the credit card sector.

Edit: It should be said I support gun owner rights, although I am not sure about gun ownership in parks, personally I don't see a purpose in owning a gun, but that is just my personal choice for me. I do support the second amendment. It is possible that the added legislation was to get votes or form a coalition to get support. It just seems that the inflammatory thought of ak47s in national parks does not fit in with a bill on consumer credit protection.

[Optical.Catalyst]

3. Ding - Ding - Ding We have a winner here

Poison Pill Amendment is 100% correct.

The obstructionist Republicans have no power in Congress. They can only delay, obstruct, and add amendments to our legislation to hurt us.

We have to be on the lookout constantly for the amendments slipped in by Republicans in the dark of the night.

Better yet, we should just banish the Republicans to the corner and not let them participate in the legislative process at all. The Republican Party will be replaced by an new right-of-center party after the 2012 elections anyway, let's help with their demise any way that we can.

[Demeter]

4. If Reports of Mexican Drug Cartels Growing Pot in US National Parks is true

then bringing loaded guns into the parks is lighting the match in a dynamite factory.

[X_Digger]

7. So it's okay for the pot growers to have guns..

(and they do).. but not okay for a hiker to have a gun?

Meth Lab Discovered In National Park
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900810&slug=1087159

[cadaverdog]

32. Hey, where's the mention of a gun in your article?

One drug lab in one national park means we need guns in all our national parks?

Next thing you'll want to have Boy Scouts packing... what's that you say?

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/14-1

But at least one "scout" cut through all the b.s. from the pro-gun crowd and went straight to the reason Americans love their guns:

"I like shooting them," Cathy said. "I like the sound they make. It gets me excited."

Makes you feel in control, doesn't it Cathy? Power. Real butch. Yeah. Protecting America. You go girl!

Hell, you'll probably just shoot your dog.

[X_Digger]

36. Do I really have to find stories..

..of people shot when they find a pot field or meth lab in the middle of nowhere?

Luckily this guy got away..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103866520

Still, their growing presence in the backcountry intimidates people who spend a lot of time there, people like Chris, a graduate student who asked not to share his last name. In 2007, while doing fieldwork in California's Plumas National Forest, he accidentally uncovered a hidden irrigation hose. He looked up and saw an armed man heading his way.

"He held the gun at his side, and he said, 'Come here,' " Chris said.

[cadaverdog]

46. Guess that means you can't find

any stories of people "shot when the find a pot field or meth lab"

You gun nuts will use any excuse to allow more and more guns into our society, regardless of who you kill.

I'm fed up with all your phony rationalizations, and I will do everything I can to end this cycle of mindless gun violence.

[X_Digger]

51. That was the first google result..

..this was the second..

Pot growers engage hunters in shootout
http://usmjparty.blogspot.com/2005/09/pot-growers-engage-hunters-in-shootout.html

Daily Sound — Armed marijuana growers chase campers
http://www.thedailysound.com/042109MarijuanaBust

Three Biologists who find pot garden held at gunpoint by Mexican drug cartel
http://science.iflove.com/biologists-pot-garden-gunpoint-mexican-drug-cartel/

[Chemical Bill]

54. Anecdotal evidence is facinating.

Do you have anything that says that you are more likely to be held at gunpoint by pot growers than, say, die in a plane crash? Besides, if we legalize pot we have no problems with this. As the saying goes, if guns make us safer how come America isn't the safest country on earth?

Bill

[X_Digger]

57. So.. move the goal posts.. check

"Nobody has guns in national parks.." "Okay, they have guns, but did they actually shoot at someone.." "What's the risk vs a plane crash.."

Face it, there is just as much of a justification for protecting oneself with a gun inside a national park as there is outside it. Crime in national parks is just as dangerous as outside them. National parks (along with national forests and state parks) have some peculiar criminal activity that is more likely than elsewhere, too (pot growers and meth labs).

[Chemical Bill]

63. Justification...

is the issue, isn't it. I don't agree that several news accounts of pot growers with guns is justification for the amendment. If more guns make us safer then why isn't America the safest country on earth?

Bill

[X_Digger]

68. Over-Simplification..

More guns in law-abiding citizens hands, or less guns in criminals hands- both are equally relevant to me.

Crime is on the rise in national parks, per a recent story on NPR- here's a graphic covering up to 2006, can't find the stats mentioned up to 2008.

[winyanstaz]

9. oh yes, of course, it is much better to be unarmed if there are crooks and thugs around.

sheesh

[Doctor_J]

11. Heh. Yes, please point me to a link tht describes where drug cartels

have been thwarted by honest, legal gun-toters.

[winyanstaz]

13. It works the same as with your house :)

For example...if you really think not having a gun where there are crooks helps..then please post your address and the fact that you have no guns on craig's list and prove to us all how safe you are by being unarmed.
If criminals know their victims are armed they are less inclined to climb in your window...or build drug labs in your woods.
The reason there are drug labs in the woods is the criminals feel safe there..because they know there are few police or anyone with guns.
Name a single mass murder)such as those like in our schools and shopping malls) that took place where it was known the people were armed?
Now name the schools and malls and churches where guns are not allowed that have been attacked.
Imagine being under your desk while a mass murderer is rampaging around and bodies are falling. Will you feel safer armed or unarmed?

[Doctor_J]

15. And you imagine what would have happened if

the the school auditorium at NIU, if all 120 students had pulled out their weapons and started firing at the SUICIDAL spree shooter. I am sure he would have been deterred by other students in the room carrying weapons, since he went there intending to die anyway :sarcasm:

As for the drug labs in the woods, as you say they go there because they are left alone there. Do they draw attention to themselves by terrorizing innocents? No. Is a law-abiding citizen likely to go meth-lab hunting in the woods? No again.

Sorry, your logic isn't.

[Jakes Progress]

23. You can't win this.

It's a religion. It's a fetish. It's two things in one.

Otherwise, logic would work.

[paulsby]

49. do 4th amendment rights go out the door in national parks?

no.

neither should the 2nd amendment.

[Jakes Progress]

61. Setting aside the blindingly narrow

interpretation of that document, we have limitations on all sorts of "rights" and "entitlements".

Do you really want to run through a list of logical and practical limitations that a society requires? I suspect you know exactly what I mean. You may not want to think about it, since that would make your point less plausible, but that doesn't mean it takes a brilliant mind to understand that we put limits and restrictions on almost every aspect of the bill of rights.

But you knew that, didn't you? You want guns? Then just say you wanna shoot some guns. Don't hide behind flimsy phrases and leaky logic. It's your right to want to play with guns. It is my right to not want the kids in the tent next to me playing with rocket launchers. (See, i can willfully exaggerate too. Or would your desire for unfettered rights mean those children should have phosphorus grenades with them to protect them from bears?)

[paulsby]

70. spare me the strawmen

the 2nd amendment is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment

we can talk about limitations all you want.

i don't want to "play with guns".

i supported the 2nd long before i even OWNED a gun.

when you can drop the strawmen, like "phosphorous grenades", then get back to me.

we don't give up 4th amendment rights, 5 th amendment rights,etc. merely because we enter a national park.

the 2nd should be no different.

this has NOTHING to do with "playing with guns". it has to do with the right to bear them

[Jakes Progress]

72. Calling it a strawman

doesn't make it a strawman.

You said you wanted a gun in a National Park because of the second amendment. Does the second amendment limit the kind of gun? Does it limit what arms? Why is is preposterous to suggest a grenade if you believe that your interpretation of the second amendment means you get to bear arms? I know you don't like the comparison, but it is exactly the kind of limit implied in civilized society. Or do you believe that the government does have the right to limit and regulate arms? That is what you imply by your suggestion that the grenade argument is a strawman. You know that though, don't you.

No one said anything about giving up rights. You threw that in as if I said you should give up your rights. I didn't, but it begs sympathy for your very weak argument. You were hoping that that would slip by also. That is called intellectual dishonesty,

What I mentioned was the limitations that are put on the exercise of those rights. There are limits. They come primarily in the definition of terms. You yelp about the forth amendment, but you have to define the term "unreasonable" to find areas of dissent over limits. Then there is how you define the the term "excessive" in the eighth. Will you try to say we don't limit the unfettered exercise of portions of the first amendment. Try to have a parade without a permit.

No. You're arguments do not support your position. The discussion is whether you should get to tote a gun in a National Park. Your original argument is that you have the right to do so under the second amendment, that you shouldn't be limited in where you get to pack. Then you destroy your own point by wanting to limit others exercise of your definition of the second amendment. Then you fall back on the old "Don't take my guns away" or "I have the right to bear arms." Of course no one said you didn't.

This kind of scattered and flailing thought is why I suggested that Dr. J shouldn't bother since this was a matter of religion and fetish. Logic is not going to be advanced from the side that wants their guns with them 24/7.

So a real discussion could take place if you would answer whether you believe the government has the right to limit your carrying privileges. Do you believe that gun regulations are consistent with constitutional law?

(I own two guns. Both are registered and locked in cases. Neither goes camping with me.)

[benEzra]

52. Since about 2% of the population holds CHL's...

you'd be looking at maybe two or three armed responders at most.

The point isn't to deter a suicidal killer who wants to take as many people with him as he can before being confronted. It is to STOP him, just like the CHL holder did to the spree killer wannabe in the Colorado church shooting. The murderer didn't stop shooting, drop his rifle, and fall to the floor because he was "deterred," but because she shot him several times.

My own father had a "save" on Croatan National Forest land with a lawfully carried pistol when I was a child. No shots fired; his would-be assailants saw he was armed, backed off, and left.

[Chemical Bill]

34. If I have a gun in my house...

it's 3 times as likely to kill me or someone I know than an intruder. So that works as well in National Parks? I feel much better, thank you.

Bill

edit: spelling

[X_Digger]

37. That's a questionable stat..

See here for a discussion-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x221485

[Chemical Bill]

53. .

That discussion challenges Kellerman with gun statistics not limited to home events. Oh, and there's one poster who I know from another board as a repuke who only hangs here to troll, he loves the gun forum and runs up his post count there. Meanwhile, Kellerman cites studies that were not his own that show a much higher ratio of guns used to kill owners over intruders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html

Granted, most of the deaths were suicides. That in no way debunks the assertion that he made and I repeated. I think that that is the problem, the debunking is of a statement not made. If you don't count suicides then more gun deaths were caused by others rather than the gun owners. Of course, you still have to account for the fact that more guns are stolen from a home than used to defend a home. Speaking of defending a home, gun proponents claims about the incidents prevented are a little shaky under scrutiny:

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2746

Notice that a survey claimed that 2.5 million guns were used to defend against home intrusion in a year that less than 200,000 awake gun owners suffered home intrusions. Sorry I can't just trust you on the debunking stuff.

Bill

[X_Digger]

59. That assumes..

.. that all attempted crimes are reported, or that every incident that is reported is reported correctly. If I confront a prowler and he runs away when he sees that I'm armed, how is that logged? 'attempted robbery'? 'trespassing'? (assuming that the intended crime was a home invasion, how would the cops know that?) It could have been an attempted rape, or a peeping tom. There's no way to know.

[Chemical Bill]

62. That's exactly why...

I don't see any use in anything but death statistics. It's rather hard to not report a death. OTOH, my brother threatened me with a pistol, which was unreported. That's why anecdotal evidence is unconvincing to me.

Bill

[X_Digger]

66. Yup, damned hard to quantify

But it does call into doubt the article you posted's claim of the problem with the numbers.

I tend to go with the middle of the road estimate on defensive gun uses, which puts it right at 1m per year (dropping off both the high and low estimates as one comes from the nra side and the other comes from the brady bunch.)

As I've said elsewhere, "Man not shot, non-film at 11."

[TheWraith]

40. Actually, that's simply false.

It's an urban legend which is completely unsupported by scientific study.

[jehovas_waitress]

58. the reality is..

There is zero chance of an inaminate piece of steel (your gun) jumping out of your night stand / gun safe and killing you-- UNLESS and UNTIL it is picked up by a human with murderous intent, at which point he or she makes it perform the very simple task for which it was designed.

[GTurck]

5. It's a poison pill..

and also big-time pork barreling. We live across the road (actually we share a boundary but school buses use the space)from Army Corps of Engineer land that is also a wildlife preserve. Shotguns are allowed for hunting deer in season but now we can expect rifles, handguns and probably assault weapons. Wow I moved for the peace and quiet but now I can have a front row seat on war and mayhem! ONLY IN AMERIKA :puke:

[X_Digger]

6. Not necessarily the place for this measure, but I support it..

Unlike the hyperbole in the opinion piece above, the regulation is not about 'open carry' (it's about concealed carry by those who are already licensed to do so in the states in which the parks reside), it's not about 'war rifles' (concealed carry again), and it doesn't force guns into national parks, it lets the states decide.

[villager]

8. so if it's only about letting states decides, why are pro-proliferators against states restricting

...where guns can be toted?

It seems this argument is only dragged out when it comes to aiding the cause of proliferation -- the usual half-assed "state rights" approach: "States have the right when they agree with me!"

And further, what if states wanted to override other aspects of national park protections -- for species, wilderness areas, etc.?

[X_Digger]

12. It's not as flat as you would have it seem..

There are two different issues at work, both with their own concerns.

1) the confusion over where you can and can't carry concealed- varies by state already, but is especially hard to comply with when you mix in national forests that abut state parks that abut national parks. This isn't a states rights issue so much as simplifying what a concealed carrier has to know in order to stay legal. With this measure, if you stay inside your state, you only have one set of regulations to learn and comply with.

2) intra-state concerns on concealed carry- which states have reciprocity with other states' licenses, what are the differences in concealed carry in a vehicle between states, what are each state's requirements for where one can / cannot carry (ie, in Texas, a business must have a certain kind of sign to prohibit concealed carry, but in other states, the requirements are different.)

With your last statement, are you trying to assert some slippery slope? 'if states can decide this for themselves, then omg, they can decide this other thing'? In this case, the states wouldn't be overriding anything- federal legislation would be changed to allow the states to decide.

[benEzra]

31. Umm, states CAN restrict where guns can be carried, and can require a license to do so.

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

Only two states allow concealed carry without a license--Vermont and Alaska. The others all require carry licenses, and all set conditions on where guns can be lawfully carried.

[paulsby]

50. not correct

it is specifically about carry.

in states where open carry is legal, it will be legal to carry openly in national parks within that state.

ditto for concealed.

iow, it doesn't specify the type of carry iiuc, but merely says that if it's legal OUTSIDE the park boundaries under that state's laws, it's legal in the park.

makes perfect sense.

[Doctor_J]

10. It should be very clear by now that it's not "the voters'"

No torture prosecution, no cramdown, no Franken, no universal health care.

And of course no help from the gun culture on taking back the rest of our rights.

[villager]

14. Funny ain't it? The rationale for Americans being so heavily armed is that it "protects our rights"

and those taking away our rights say "yeah, sure, whatever," sell 'em some more guns -- and continue to take away their rights...

I don't exactly see the powerful elites in this country quaking in fear (and suspect, really, that Americans shooting each other actually helps their agenda....)

[konnichi wa]

16. Do you only care about the rights you personally choose to exercise.

Thanks a bunch.
:grr:

[villager]

17. There's a "right" to prance around armed in National Parks?

As for your question, how often to do you pose the exact same query to pro-gun groups?

[konnichi wa]

26. I don't know any pro-gun people who think the other 9 rights in BOR deserve pissing on.

Since I'm gay, I really appreciate your characterization of my movements as 'prancing.' Sounds like something Limbaugh or some other asshole would say.

[villager]

28. "The leaders of the NRA are well aware of the growth of the Pink Pistols...

...and it presents them with something of a dilemma," Brown writes. "On one hand, they are happy to see a traditionally anti-gun segment of the population swinging over to the pro-gun side. However, if they embrace this new group, they risk alienating some of their current members who actually do fit the right-wing stereotype." Stallard echoes this sentiment."

Presented FYI!

Why the hell join the NRA, then?

http://www.alternet.org/rights/50039/

And surely, as het up as you are about guns (and probably as het up as I can get over the corrosive effects of their proliferation in urban areas), you must realize that even my own remarkable mind reading powers could not have sussed out you were gay, from my perch thousands of miles away...

I chose "prancing" since gun folk seem rather absorbed in showing off -- indeed rhapsodizing about -- their wares...

[X_Digger]

29. Selective quoting again?

Michael S. Brown, a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, has written about the controversy for the politically conservative website Enter Stage Right.

"The leaders of the NRA are well aware of the growth of the Pink Pistols and it presents them with something of a dilemma," Brown writes. "On one hand, they are happy to see a traditionally anti-gun segment of the population swinging over to the pro-gun side. However, if they embrace this new group, they risk alienating some of their current members who actually do fit the right-wing stereotype." Stallard echoes this sentiment.

"Privately, the NRA have been supportive of us," she says, "but internally there is squabbling."

The NRA has long resisted including other issues in its agenda.

"We are a single-issue group," says NRA spokesperson Ashley Varner. "We support every law-abiding American's Second Amendment rights but we don't take any position on other specific groups."

Yet Pistols founder Krick says the most controversy -- and, sometimes, outright hostility -- comes not from conservatives, but the gay community.

"We've gotten a lot of support from the gun community in general," Krick says, "but as for the organizations geared towards the queer community, that's where we've been getting a lot more static."

So take a quote from a conservative site talking _about_ the NRA, not the NRA itself, and leave out the fact that the pink pistols get more crap from the GLBT orgs than gun orgs.

[villager]

42. No -- I was giving one of your fellow gun nuts an option on gun groups

Jesus, you people really are clueless.

I provided the link, remember?

Anyway, you obsessive compulsive, it's ignore list time!

[X_Digger]

44. Obsessive compulsive to point out misinformation, eh?

Noted for future reference (not that you'll see this..)

[Doctor_J]

18. No, but the 2nd Amendment people do

They're a lot like the bushbots in that respect - the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments were de facto repealed during the Bush years, and now the gun culture is threatening to vote (R) because "obama wants to take away their guns". So they would vote for the party that decimated at least 4 amendments just because the NRA tells them that one other one is in danger.

[Recursion]

19. Actually, the NRA spoke out against 2nd amendment restrictions under W

I know this goes against DU's simplistic view of liberalism and conservatism about guns, but the NRA fought pretty strenuously against GOP-led attempts to curtail second amendment rights during the past 8 years, even coming out against the PATRIOT act because of it.

[X_Digger]

20. Shh, don't confuse them with accuracy

They have to have their two dimensional paper tigers to wave their sticks at.

[villager]

21. "Bush Signs NRA-bought bill into law"

Just one of numerous examples:

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2005/11/bush-signs-nra-bought-bill-into-law.html

Gosh -- I wonder what side of the political fence the NRA is really one, despite the naive views of gun-loving, NRA-apologizing DUers?

[X_Digger]

22. Nevermind that the NRA was against the patriot act..

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/08/04/798/71549

How does your link support the upthread assertion that the NRA supports infringements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments? Or was it just a non-sequitur to try to score points?

[konnichi wa]

25. Not that it will matter, but people like you convinced me to join the NRA

last fall after being a gun(s) owning NONmember for 57 years. Keep up the good work.

[villager]

27. ah, self-deleting

It's all just carping, and you wont change my mind by sniping at me.

Waste of progressive money joining the NRA, however...

[Paladin]

73. You're In The NRA? How Completely Unsurprising.... (n/t)

[Chemical Bill]

35. And yet pro gun people...

have loudly proclaimed that the 2nd amendment keeps the other ones safe. You would have thought that DC would have been swarming with gun owners before 2008 loudly demanding that the repuke dismantling of the constitution be stopped. I don't remember reading about this happening.

Bill

[X_Digger]

38. Ever hear of Heller?

DC resident who filed suit to get the ban lifted?

[Chemical Bill]

55. Please tell me...

all about his efforts using a gun on behalf of the other amendments. Follow that with all the other gun owners who used their guns to defend the BOR against the repukes under *. Not that I am advocating armed insurrection, I'm just pointing out a lack of truthiness.

Bill

[X_Digger]

60. There were many pro-gun folks in the crowds outside crawford

(me included), as well as the Texas House Bill 433 protests in Austin, and other patriot act related actions. The Texas State Rifle Association called out its members over proposed Texas legislation that would have infringed on multiple provisions of the state constitution. If the national ACLU were more like the Texas chapter, there'd be more gunnies at ACLU events.

[Chemical Bill]

64. I'm sorry...

I don't know about Texas House Bill 433. Was this a bill that had nothing to do with guns but dismantled other constitutional rights?

Bill

[X_Digger]

67. It was a bill that would have made

protesters at environmental rallies 'eco-terrorists'. It caused quite a kerfuffle between shooting / sportsmen groups- some loved it, some hated it (which demonstrates the reality that not all 'gun' groups are in lockstep- their members cross the spectrum.)

[Chemical Bill]

71. I certainly agree that not all...

gun groups are in lock step, or at least the people in them. Thank you for providing an example of gun groups fighting for something other than the second amendment.

Bill

[TheWraith]

41. Not to mention the two largest gun-control groups are Republican.

Both the Brady Campaign and the Violence Prevention Center are wholly Republican owned and operated.

[Paladin]

74. And What Percentage Of The Memberships......

...of those oh-so-"Republican" groups are in fact Republicans? The Republican party has been carrying water for the gun militancy movement for generations. The Republican policy on guns is diametrically opposed to that of those two "Republican" groups you gun obsessives never tire of trashing. In a poll down in the DU Gun Dungeon, 45% of the respondents said they were prepared to vote Republican in this past election, to protect their precious guns. Trying to slap a Republican label on the Bradys or the VPC is wholly unconvincing, to anybody with a brain bigger than a small pistol primer.....

[konnichi wa]

24. I have many many friends who own guns. They are mostly Democrats and

aren't threatening to vote for Republicans over this. I love how the gun-grabbers say we 2nd Amendment supporters are "like bushbots." That's awfully offensive...which I imagine you well know.
Bottom line is, neither you or the other Bill of Rights hypocrites aren't taking away my guns so you might as well just suck it up.

[benEzra]

30. More faux hysteria.

This law (shock, horror) would allow those already authorized and licensed by a state to carry a weapon in public to carry that weapon on National Park lands, just as we already can while on National Forest and BLM lands if the individual state so chooses.

I hold a North Carolina carry license; as I've mentioned elsewhere, to obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, a mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's department, have my fingerprints run by the FBI, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range, live fire. In light of that, I don't think allowing me to carry a 9mm when I'm camping in remote areas with my family is the "OMG OH NOES!!" threat that some would make it out to be, since I'm already trained and licensed to carry that 9mm to the mall, grocery store, or down Main Street.

Given that my own father had a "save" on National Forest land with a lawfully carried pistol when I was a child (no shots fired, his would-be assailants saw he was armed and backed off), this issue hits close to home.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[depakid]

39. I thnik we can see with this and other actions whose Senate this is

it belongs to the highest bidder. Public interest need not apply.

[MasonJar]

43. Obama is hedging on allowing guns in national parks? So much for a lobby

free administration. I am shocked that even the gun lobby wants firearms in parks. What for? To kill the animals that live there? If Obama doesn't start forgetting his priorities and start standing up for what is right because it is the right thing to do whether his agenda goes through or not, he and I are fini. His agenda is not more important than many other things that he is folding on.

[Recursion]

45. Say you had a concealed-carry permit in your home state

There are lots of reasons people get concealed-carry permits, e.g. Dennis Kucinich got one because he was taking on organized crime and they threatened his life. (Actually, I think he just got a permit for a pistol, not for concealed carry, but at any rate...)

At any rate, you're walking in the park that's part of a state forest which runs up against a national park. The idea of this is to keep state laws about gun carrying in effect throughout that whole walk, so that people already licensed and approved to carry a concealed weapon in that state don't have to worry about several different jurisdictions' laws coming into play. You got your concealed-carry permit in Ohio, you should be able to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park in Ohio.

[krispos42]

47. The issue is about state-licenced concealed-carrying people, first of all

The tone of this editorial {guns are bad} is understandable, but the information presented in it is wrong and inflammatory. Way wrong and way inflammatory.

People can't make informed decisions based on this style of editorializing. This is why the right-wing masses are clueless; everything they read, see, or hear is in exactly this fashion.

[jehovas_waitress]

56. Meh..

Why should a park be off limits to self defense? I must disarm myself as soon as my car rolls into this wooded sanctuary?

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

[FloriTexan]

65. Steven Colbert would agree with me that a good

reason to be able to carry in a state or national park is BEARS!

[jehovas_waitress]

69. Agreed, but carrying a weapon with a caliber that starts with anything

smaller than a "4" will only make for a really pissed off bear lol.

[Vidar]

75. "Whose Senate is This?" The highest bidder.