Packing now Legal in National Parks!!!

[TPaine7]

At least in enlightened states.

Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.

Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.

Source:http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

B-) B-) B-)

Let's hope Obama doesn't pick the wrong fight.

[wilt the stilt]

1. These repubs must get

hard packing heat or because they can't get hard they pack heat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. What about the dems that have carry permits?

[hoplophile]

6. Good point! Good common sense gun laws that will save innocent lives

[gorfle]

42. One post in and we have penises.

One post in and we have the penis talk already.

What is it with anti-gun folks and the sexual imagery?

[SteveM]

53. He [/she] who first smelt it, dealt it -- Freud (nt)

[ZombieHorde]

110. What do you have against penises? I love my penis, I think that it is fabulous!

(I know your point, I am being silly)

[SteveM]

190. Ah, the erect penis argument "rears" its ugly head; right off, too! (nt)

[Xenotime]

193. Pugs now see it as open season on wildlife.

[maxsolomon]

2. Are there Grizzlies in the particular national park?

then i wouldn't mind having a firearm. every other use in a NP is unneccessary.

[hoplophile]

5. No, but there are plenty of rapes and murders in National Parks.

And the occasional cat mauling. (cat does not mean house cat but the large kind)
Google is your friend:)

[RamboLiberal]

11. Gee I'm glad you consider use against 2-legged predators unnecessary

[maxsolomon]

13. griz often stand on 2 legs.

so your point is inaccurate.

[RamboLiberal]

15. Yeah but griz have 4 legs

You knew what I was saying.

[maxsolomon]

31. of course i did

griz are the biggest threat to humans in the NPs. cougar attacks are as rare as hen's teeth. griz are the only thing that makes me want a gun. all the other threats - rape, murder - are statistically unlikely. at least no more likely than in non-NP life. where the vast majority of us don't carry guns. or get raped & murdered.

regardless, the point is moot - there have always been a shit-ton of guns carried by campers in the NPs. americans love guns. i don't expect any of that to change because it was made legal for state residents. is a yellowstone visitor licensed to carry in wyoming going to abandon their gun when they cross into idaho or montana? no, they'll just hide it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. I've never heard of grizzly attacks in the Great Smoky Mountain NP, Everglades NP....

Biscayne NP, Arches NP, Canyon Lands NP. Do you have a single statistic to back up your assertion the Grizzlies are the greatest threat to humans? My personal guess would be that cars kill more people in National Parks than anything. I can almost guarantee more people are killed by other people in National Parks, than people are killed by grizzlies inside or outside of National Parks.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. 3 fatal brown bear attacks in NP's in the last 20 years.

[S_B_Jackson]

79. Au contraire mon frère....

cougar attacks are as rare as hen's teeth.

Data from California alone

DATE
TYPE ATTACK LOCATION COUNTY VICTIM SEX AGE
March 1992
Nonfatal Gaviota State Park Santa Barbara Male 9 yrs.
Sept. 1993
Nonfatal Cuyamaca State Park San Diego Female 10 yrs.
Apr. 1994
Fatal Auburn State Recreation Area El Dorado Female 40 yrs.
Aug. 1994
Nonfatal Mendocino County (remote) Mendocino Male 50s
Nonfatal Female 50s
Dec. 1994
Fatal Cuyamaca State Park San Diego Female 56 yrs.
Mar. 1995
Nonfatal Mt. Lowe (San Gabriel Mtns.) Los Angeles Male 27 yrs.
Jan. 2004
Fatal Whiting Ranch Regional Park Orange Male 35 yrs.
Jan. 2004
Nonfatal Whiting Ranch Regional Park Orange Female 30 yrs.
June 2004
Nonfatal Sequoia National Forest Tulare Female 28 yrs.
Jan. 2007
Nonfatal Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park Humboldt Male 70 yrs

Attacks from mountain lions may not be an everyday affair, but they are not UNcommon and have been growing in frequency. In speaking with my uncle, they've had several cougar attacks on livestock in Sierra/Plumas counties in the last few years.

As for the hypothetical Wyoming resident licensed to carry in his home state, there is no need to "hide it in Montana or Idaho.....he/she is still perfectly legal there as well as in 25 other states.

[hoplophile]

16. hiker attacked by a bear in Glacier National Park

http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/Injured.html

Kelly M. Krpata, 26, was hiking with a friend near Many Glacier on the park's east side when the couple surprised the bear on the trail. A pile of bear scat found nearby will be analyzed in the hope its DNA will reveal whether it was a black bear or grizzly that attacked the hiker.

About 30 minutes after the mauling, a park ranger walking the trail heard calls for help and responded to provide initial treatment. Because the injuries were not life-threatening, officials opted to evacuate Krpata without use of a helicopter.

[iverglas]

18. obviously, grizzlies don't attack if they can see the gun

So obviously, one needs to carry a CONCEALED weapon to protect one's self against those grizzlies.

No, wait, that didn't make sense ...

Anyhow, that is actually the news here, isn't it? --

The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges ... .

Is there really a need to conceal a firearm from bears?

Is a handgun the best choice of weapon against a charging grizzly?

Does one's firearm-carrying status need to be concealed from other hikers?

[hoplophile]

20. Ha Ha Ha. That's funny!

[RamboLiberal]

28. There are a couple of handguns that can take on a grizzly

S&W 500 for one. Not that I'd want to take on a grizzly with a handgun. But that and bear spray sure would beat being completely unarmed.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Keeps some people happy.

I prefer to carry concealed outdoors. It's not so much for the animals, we do have big cats where I live, and black bears, but attacks from either are extremely rare. It's the meth makers that worry me the most. As long as I am not confronted by a hostile person, I prefer no one know I am carrying at all.

Makes for a more pleasant experience for all.

[gorfle]

43. You're missing the point.

So obviously, one needs to carry a CONCEALED weapon to protect one's self against those grizzlies.

The issue here is not that you need a weapon, concealed or otherwise, to protect yourself from grizzlies. The point is that if concealed carry permit holders can already carry their concealed weapons around town, there's no reason why they can't also carry them in a state park.

[Testament]

44. I prefer open carry because it's more comfortable, but eh...

Most carriers think that people will get weirded out by open carry. Never had anyone be surprised or scared, just sometimes ask if I was a cop, and then are only mildly surprised to find out open carry is legal. I get more comments of what kinda gun are you carrying and do you like it, than questions about it, and I've never had any get mad or scared or try to lecture me.

Personally, against a grizzly, I'd like a suppressed .50 Beowulf, but that's a little cumbersome to lug around. .45 will take one down with a few quick shots to the heart.

[jeepnstein]

87. That means you give me a...

head start while you shoot and I run? All I've gotta do is outrun you, not the bear. }(

Seriously, the only reason I pack when I'm out in the woods is because there are some serious freaks wandering about these days. I've had them approach my camp site looking for something to steal or whatever opportunity they can find. Also, if you spend enough time in the woods you will run into either a marijuana grow or the growers. Feral dogs, dumped by their careless owners are another constant source of danger.

Lawful citizens aren't a problem with their concealed carry. Perhaps if some of us in government would spend as much time worrying about criminals as they do trying to strip lawful citizens of their rights we wouldn't have an entire culture of lawlessness that is thriving in this country?

[iverglas]

92. ah, what was I saying in post 71?

Lawful citizens aren't a problem with their concealed carry. Perhaps if some of us in government would spend as much time worrying about criminals as they do trying to strip lawful citizens of their rights we wouldn't have an entire culture of lawlessness that is thriving in this country?

Ta.

[hoplophile]

17. double-murder committed in Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma

http://directappeal2.blogspot.com/2008/02/murder-committed-in-national-forest-in.html

[iverglas]

21. yeah?

Read the facts, did you? Didn't think so.

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2008/02/05-7128.pdf

Edward Leon Fields killed Charles and Shirley Chick at the Winding Stair Campground in the Ouachita National Forest on July 10, 2003. He had seen the couple there days earlier and drove there the evening of July 10 with a homemade ghillie suit (a covering for head and body made to resemble underbrush that Fields referred to as his sniper suit) and a camouflaged and powerfully scoped rifle in his truck. He found the Chicks on a vista some distance from their campsite. He retrieved the rifle, put on the ghillie suit, and hid near their campsite as it grew dark. In time, the Chicks came back to the campsite and sat at a table. Fields waited and watched them for about twenty minutes. When Charles told Shirley he was going to the tent, Fields shot him in the face. As Charles slumped to the table, Shirley got up and began running toward the couple’s van. Fields shot at her and a bullet tore through her foot. She reached the passenger door of the van, but was shot again, on the side of her head. Fields caught up and shot her once more, in the back of the head, in the doorway of the van. Shirley died as a result of both head wounds. Fields returned to the table and shot Charles a second time in the head. Charles also died as a result of both of his wounds.

Now, the point at which being in possession of a concealed weapon would have saved their lives was ... ?

Yeah. Shirley could have pulled out her pistol and started firing wildly at wherever the shots had seemed to come from, while the camouflaged guy with the rifle took aim and killed her as she stopped to do that.

Oh yeah.

Nobody commits murder with a rifle. So the story's just bogus to start with.



typo fixed

[hoplophile]

23. Yeah.

Nuff said. Ha Ha Ha.

Say, does your posting after every one of my posts on this thread constitute cyber bulling? Just asking as you seem to know all the rules here.

[iverglas]

25. if the post needs a response

It may get it.

It may seem unusual that three of yours in a single thread needed responses.

I'll leave it to you to contemplate the possible reasons for that.

But I'll give you a clue. Misleading posts often need responses.

[hoplophile]

27. Is it not against the rules to say someone is misleading?

That after all is synonymous with lie? I'm just curious as you seem to be so up on the rules here?

[iverglas]

36. Nope.

There ya go.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

26. here's an even more interesting thing

In the case of both of the posts in which I directly addressed claims you were making by presenting situations that allegedly supported your claims, demonstrating that the facts did not support your claims at all (one does not need a concealed handgun in order to protect one's self against grizzlies, and a concealed handgun would not have protected the victims of a stalker with a rifle from death), you failed to address the substance of my posts in any way.

Hmm. Just here for a good time, are you?

[hoplophile]

29. Sorry, I couldn't read that gobbled sentence structure. Please use a period and take

a breath. Ha Ha Ha. Your are very funny. But I bet you knew that already?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Anecdotal evidence rarely proves anything.

Sort of bit you on the butt there, didn't it?

That you resort to sarcasm and insults is unsurprising.

[iverglas]

35. "gobbled"?

Perhaps you meant "garbled".

Nothing either garbled or gobbled about that sentence structure.

And yes, I am aware of just how very funny I am. I doubt that you are.

[hoplophile]

33. Actually FBI statistics show that just under 3% of all homicides are

committed with a rifle. Of course this is a response to your statement:

"Nobody commits murder with a rifle. So the story's just bogus to start with."

And of course if NOBODY commits murder with a rifle then why is there such a debate about banning semi-automatic rifles?

[iverglas]

37. oh no paco!!

It's the FBI statistics!!!

Somebody should have told the Chicks about them. They'd still be alive now.

A concealed handgun wouldn't have done the trick, but those FBI statistics surely would have.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Please don't bother the gun grabbers with the facts, they don't like to change their opinions.

Sorry I meant to post this in response to #33.

David

[hoplophile]

4. Finally, real common sense gun laws!!! About time the Feds caught up to the states.

[katandmoon]

7. Gun nuts will not be satisfied until every living thing is riddled with bullets

[benEzra]

9. Anti-gun nuts will not be satisfied until every gun thread has a plurality of straw men.

What this does---and all it does---is to allow individual states to set the policy within their own borders. Don't wan't people authorized by the state to carry firearms to carry when they're camping with their families in National Parks? Then talk to your state legislators about it. But this ruling prevents you from shoving your state's policies down the throats of people in other states who don't want them.

It has always been up to the states with National Forests and BLM lands, and used to be this way with National Parks.

[hoplophile]

10. I think the term you are looking for is: Hoplophob

Political usage

Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons".<2> Cooper employed the clinical-sounding term as an alternative to slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not (explain this behavior)." Cooper attributed this behavior to the irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."

Despite the clinical term, the word is generally used to describe gun control advocates. It is mildly derogatory, less so than similar slang terms such as those mentioned above. It is most commonly used as a pejorative by gun rights advocates.


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

[iverglas]

19. I think the concept you are looking for

is that it is AGAINST THE FUCKING RULES OF THIS WEBSITE, and the rules of civility, to claim that other people are mentally ill and that their mental illness is the basis of their public policy positions.

I suggest you grow a sense of decency fast.

If you were not aware that the use of this stupid, bogus, pig-ignorant term and "argument" by people like you is not permitted in this forum, you are now.

[hoplophile]

22. Thank you for your assistance (vulgarity aside) but I'm trying to help.

It is a much better term to use that "gun - nut" don't you think? Gun-nut seems to be accepted here so I figured a clinical term such as hoplophob would be perfectly acceptable. I'll trust to the mods on that.

Oh, Is that vulgar laced rant of yours considered within the rules of decorum? Just curious as I will be happy to adjust my written responses accordingly as you set forth. I'm new here and just want to go with the flow don't you know. Ha Ha Ha.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[hoplophile]

30. And bit by bit you

Bite. Please stop the cyber bullying. It is very unbecoming of a person with over 1000 posts. LOL

[hoplophile]

40. You seem very selective in which rules you follow:

DU rules say: Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member

Yet you stated this to me: The rule has been explained to you, and your post reported.

[iverglas]

41. there ya go

I didn't say I was "hitting the alert link", did I?

I reported what I had done. No threat to do it. Surely it is civil to inform someone of something like that.

When I practised law, it was contrary to the code of ethics to threaten to report another member of the bar to the Law Society.

It certainly was not contrary to the code of ethics to inform another member of the bar that one had reported him/her to the Law Society.

There ya go.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. How did you report the "violation" then?

[Hoopla Phil]

195. I'm back!!!! And with a new, improved, and less offensive name.

I was asked to change my name by a mod as it was deemed "offensive". After much consideration I have decided to return with this new and "unoffensive" (hopefully) name.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

38. Really

it is AGAINST THE FUCKING RULES OF THIS WEBSITE, and the rules of civility, to claim that other people are mentally ill and that their mental illness is the basis of their public policy positions.

I may agree if the word 'members' or 'posters' were used in the place of 'people'. To claim people, in general, who are strong advocates of gun control to be motivated by hoplophobia, is IMO, no different than claiming people, in general, who advocate a literal/liberal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and believe strongly in RKBA to be racist misogynists. I have reread the post you responded to and the post hoplophile responded to and can't see where there is any name calling going on at all, merely general speak. Of coarse I am not a Mod and will gladly yield to their interpretation of the post(s) in question. Just my $.02.

[iverglas]

39. I think that if you follow the dotted lines

your confusion might be alleviated.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Iverglas you have lost this argument. Quit while you are behind.

[one-eyed fat man]

101. from all places, the London Times.................

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article5299010.ece

Now, there is an observation that makes sense.

[iverglas]

104. phew

And they say advocates of firearms control are delusional.

I'll bet you thought your post fit into this discussion somehow.


Just to follow your tangent: no, dear, that opinion isn't "from the London Times". It was an op-ed opinion piece published by the London Times. My local right-wing rag carries a regular op-ed opinion column containing incisive left-wing opinion. Maybe you're not used to this phenomenon: newspapers that do not restrict their readers to a steady diet of ideologically homogeneous pablum.

The op-ed piece you cite was written by the author of an obscure book much beloved and oft cited by the gun militant brigade on line. He is what is known in his place of residence as a "crank", from his oeuvre as revealed by a google search. Predictable op-ed pieces and letters to the editor about firearms and the odd other right-wing cause. Reminds me of the guy who used to write reams of letters to my local editor as representative of the Catholic Defence League. The editor finally figured out that said CDL consisted of said crank and his typewriter, and stopped publishing the weekly yammerings. Then the paper got bought out by Conrad Black, right-wing RCer extraordinaire, and said crank immediately got a two-page spread in the editorial section to yammer on about Easter or some damned thing ...

So a right-wing crank in the UK said something. So I say: big whoopety whoop.

[one-eyed fat man]

105. why do you

characterize virtually every progun advocate as a right wing crank?

When George Orwell makes a statement like, “THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER’S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.” does that make him a right-wing hack as well?

Is he no longer a progressive thinker? How did the notion that only the state is to be trusted with firearms get to be a progressive policy decision?

Some pigs do seem to be more equal than others. Used to be disarming the peasants was the darling policy of Colonial Empires, Fascists, and benevolent or malevolent despots of every stripe. Only the government was wise enough to be trusted with firearms. If we were important enough to deserve protection, the government would provide us with armed bodyguards.

I don't see where the author's premise is invalid. He said that armed terrorists tried to shoot up London in 1909 only to be met with return fire from ordinary citizens. He surmises that a similar attack in London today would fare no more difficulty from the citizenry than the the shooters in Mumbai.

I suppose that being part of a target rich environment, there is the chance that the thug will run out of ammo before he gets to you. Whatever blows your skirt up!

[iverglas]

106. easy

why do you characterize virtually every progun advocate as a right wing crank?

BECAUSE THEY ARE.

I don't do it randomly. I investigate. The Internet is a wondrous thing.

When I find a person writing op-eds and letters to the editor spouting away about both guns and immigration, in this case, on just a quick google, I know what I'm looking at. So does everybody else.


When George Orwell makes a statement like, “THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER’S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.” does that make him a right-wing hack as well?

No, but it does make anybody attempting to use what he said to support gun militancy in the US in the 21st century disingenuous beyond belief.

Is he no longer a progressive thinker?

Eric Blair, you likely don't know, was an informer. His efforts resulted in people like Michael Redgrave being blacklisted and unable to work for years. An interesting and complex individual, but not an authority for anything much.

How did the notion that only the state is to be trusted with firearms get to be a progressive policy decision?

Here's the real question: who will win this epic battle of wits, you or that straw thingy?


I don't see where the author's premise is invalid.

I don't see where this whole thing has anything to do with this thread.

He said that armed terrorists tried to shoot up London in 1909 only to be met with return fire from ordinary citizens. He surmises that a similar attack in London today would fare no more difficulty from the citizenry than the the shooters in Mumbai.

And I say he's either a dishonest demagogue or a moron. Possibly both.

[one-eyed fat man]

107. it still bears on the topic

THAT George Orwell makes a statement like, “THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER’S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.” does that make him a right-wing hack as well?

No, but it does make anybody attempting to use what he said to support gun militancy in the US in the 21st century disingenuous beyond belief.

In the context in which he made that statement, during the opening days of World War Two, he was making the point that England could arm her citizens whilst the Fascists couldn't afford the risk. Now somewhere 'twixt then and now, no 'Lefty' worth his/her salt would espouse arming the masses.

"Your starting assumption is no reasonable, decent person would ever consider carrying a concealed firearm."

Actually, that is pretty much my belief.

Since you pretty well believe that no decent person would ever consider carrying a concealed weapon, then it also 'perfectly clear' why anyone who disagrees MUST perforce be a right wing hack.

Right wing hack or no, seems to me the fellow's argument is spot on. He states if you disarm the whole populace then the bad actors are free to commit their mayhem unencumbered, until such time as there is an effective response from the authorities. He points out that when a similar incident occurred at a time when the Edwardian Englishman routinely carried his revolver or sword cane, that a spontaneous hue and cry among the citizenry brought the malefactors to ground.

Since ostensibly the whole of England is without handguns (save the holdouts in the IRA) what sort of response to Mumbai-style shooters in London would you envision? Maybe like the Iranian embassy business until the SAS finally went in?

Thus far, experience has shown that since permitting persons to carry a concealed weapon in cities and towns has been neither a panacea nor an abject disaster. There is no reason to think that the invariably predicted bloodbath will occur in the National Parks either. Your characterizations that anyone who makes the decision to carry a misogynist troglodyte, paranoid dupe of the right wing (or at a minimum, unreasonable and indecent) makes about as much sense as portraying everyone opposed as some wizened crone who will reflexively dash off a profanity laden screed in response.

[iverglas]

108. yeah, if only

Your characterizations that anyone who makes the decision to carry a misogynist troglodyte, paranoid dupe of the right wing (or at a minimum, unreasonable and indecent) makes about as much sense as portraying everyone opposed as some wizened crone who will reflexively dash off a profanity laden screed in response.

If only my characterization of any particular individual, like the one you brought up here, were based on prejudgment/stereotyping and not on investigation, as I said it was and as it was in this case. And as it is in the case of every other fish in the apparently deep barrel that someone here points to and adopts the opinion of.


Since ostensibly the whole of England is without handguns (save the holdouts in the IRA) what sort of response to Mumbai-style shooters in London would you envision?

Well, maybe you envision a bunch of people popping off pistols at Mumbai-style shooters as having some effect. I don't, really. I also note that the century-ago "terrorists" apparently weren't deterred by what was surely the well-known fact that there were people packing pistols all over the streets of London.


There is no reason to think that the invariably predicted bloodbath will occur in the National Parks either.

Me, I'm always curious who predicted this "bloodbath". I've never heard the word or notion come from the keyboard of any but such as yourself.

[gorfle]

112. No chance.

Well, maybe you envision a bunch of people popping off pistols at Mumbai-style shooters as having some effect. I don't, really.

So break out the assault rifles!

Anyway, some chance is always better than no chance.

[gorfle]

46. Question?

Is the word "homophobe" disallowed on this site, too? Is the word hoplophobe actually disallowed? I like it.

[Wickerman]

51. Yes

Is the word hoplophobe actually disallowed?

[jody]

59. Interesting policy. Why is homophobe allowed and hoplophobe prohibited? n/t

[Wickerman]

60. out of my pay grade n/t

[jody]

61. Thanks, have a great day! n/t

[gorfle]

63. I suppose

I suppose the reasoning is there are no non-phobic reasons to oppose homosexuality, but there are non-phobic reasons to oppose firearms. They may be illogical, but not always irrational.

[TPaine7]

65. Those who oppose homosexuality because it conflicts with their

religious traditions are not necessarily phobic.

[jody]

67. Good point or it could be selective enforcement of politically correct speech. It doesn't matter to

me because I'm Skinners guest and I'll play by his rules.

Facts are we pro-RKBA Dems won a stunning victory in D.C. v. Heller.

[iverglas]

70. you could try a wee smidgen of research

The word "homophobe" has never been used or understood to mean "irrational fear" of homosexuality or homosexuals. It was coined on the -phobia model, but it has always been used and understood to mean hatred of / prejudice against homosexuals, the notion being that such hatred/prejudice is based on fear.

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

The moronoic term "hoplophobia" is actually more in line with classic phobias: it refers to AN IRRATIONAL FEAR of AN OBJECT. It is therefore similar to arachnophobia (fear of spiders) and the like.

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

Arachnophobia (from Greek arachne (αράχνη ), "spider" and phobia (φοβία ), "fear" ) is a specific phobia, an abnormal fear of spiders and other arachnids. It is among the most common of all phobias. The reactions of arachnophobics often seem irrational to others (and sometimes to the sufferers themselves). People with arachnophobia tend to feel uneasy in any area they believe could harbor spiders or that has visible signs of their presence, such as webs. If arachnophobics see a spider they may not enter the general vicinity until they have overcome the panic attack that is often associated with their phobia. In some cases, even a picture or a realistic drawing of a spider can also evoke fear.

... Though many arachnids are harmless, a person with arachnophobia may still panic or feel uneasy around one. Sometimes, even an object resembling a spider can trigger a panic attack in an arachnophobic individual.

To suggest that an individual who advocates restrictive regulation of firearms acquisition and possession is suffering from an irrational fear that prompts panic attacks at the sight of a firearm or an image of a firearm is pig ignorant.


edited to remove incidental idiotfaces

[TPaine7]

72. A wee smidgen of bullshit

iverglas:

The word "homophobe" has never been used or understood to mean "irrational fear" of homosexuality or homosexuals. It was coined on the -phobia model, but it has always been used and understood to mean hatred of / prejudice against homosexuals, the notion being that such hatred/prejudice is based on fear.

wikipedia (iverglas' first source, in the first sentence):

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Now another quote from iverglas (post 21) for your contemplation:

Read the facts, did you? Didn't think so.

I trust that I have given even the newest members on this board the necessary information to evaluate iverglas' regard for the truth, her "research" capabilities, her consistency and the degree to which her condescension is justified.

[gorfle]

75. Uh, I don't think your citation helps you much.

From the first line of your Wikipedia citation:

"Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

To suggest that an individual who advocates restrictive regulation of firearms acquisition and possession is suffering from an irrational fear that prompts panic attacks at the sight of a firearm or an image of a firearm is pig ignorant.

I honestly believe most of the anti-firearm folks I have talked to are in fact suffering from an irrational, or at best uninformed fear of firearms.

I think it's funny how you advocate that the word "homophobia" isn't really a phobia but is instead a pejorative (even though your citation says otherwise), but the other word is actually a phobia and is not a pejorative.

The fact of the matter is, they are both pejoratives most of the time.

[iverglas]

76. yada yada blah blah blah

I honestly believe most of the anti-firearm folks I have talked to are in fact suffering from an irrational, or at best uninformed fear of firearms.

I believe that. I also believe that pigs fly regularly over my house.

I think it's funny how you advocate that the word "homophobia" isn't really a phobia but is instead a pejorative (even though your citation says otherwise), but the other word is actually a phobia and is not a pejorative.

What the source said is what I said -- it was COINED ON THE MODEL of "-phobia", and it is USED TO MEAN a hatred of / prejudice against homosexuals. I don't regard that as "a pejorative". Do you? It is insulting to assert that someone hates / is prejudiced against homosexuals? Only if it is a false assertion, I'd say.

I do not "advocate that" the word hoplophobia is "actually a phobia and is not a pejorative".

I say that it is bullshit, and is used to insult and for no other reason.

[gorfle]

83. What you said.

What the source said is what I said -- it was COINED ON THE MODEL of "-phobia", and it is USED TO MEAN a hatred of / prejudice against homosexuals.

So it sounds to me like you are saying that it's not actually a phobia, right? Because it's about hatred and prejudice, not fear? It's just a word to describe anti-gay bigots, right?

I don't regard that as "a pejorative". Do you?

Did you even read your own citations?

Your Wikipedia citation seems to think that "homophobe" is a perjorative:

"It has been criticized as a pejorative against those with differing debatable value positions, with several researchers proposing alternative words to describe prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians."

Yes, I think it is a pejorative, though rightly so, because there is no rational reason to fear homosexuals. Thus anyone who is a "homophobe" is just a bigot and deserving of such an insulting label.

I do not "advocate that" the word hoplophobia is "actually a phobia and is not a pejorative".

I say that it is bullshit, and is used to insult and for no other reason.

Well if "homophobe" is an acceptable term to describe anti-homosexual bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against homosexuals - why isn't the other word an acceptable term to describe anti-firearm bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against firearm owners?

[iverglas]

85. you're the etymology expert, eh?

Well if "homophobe" is an acceptable term to describe anti-homosexual bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against homosexuals - why isn't the other word an acceptable term to describe anti-firearm bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against firearm owners?

Pick your horse and stay on it til you get to the other side of the stream, at least.

"Hoplo-" refers to firearms. Not firearms owners.

"Hoplophobia" means "irrational fear of firearms".

In the same way that "fairy" means "the magical entity that lives at the bottom of my garden".

[gorfle]

94. Okay...

OK, I'll revise my question:

Well if "homophobe" is an acceptable term to describe anti-homosexual bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against homosexuals - why isn't the other word an acceptable term to describe anti-firearm bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against firearms?

[iverglas]

99. how's about

why isn't the other word an acceptable term to describe anti-firearm bigots - people with a "hatred of / prejudice" against firearms?

Because it makes no fucking sense.

Only people with psychoses have a "hatred of" or "prejudice against" objects.

And those people are of no relevance in a discussion of public policy regarding firearms, any more than people with psychoses are relevant to any other discussion of any other public policy regarding something to which they have irrational / delusionary responses.

So all you've done is come full circle. It's a pig ignorant attempt to dismiss anyone who takes an opposing position on a matter of public policy, by ascribing a mental illness to him/her.

[gorfle]

103. You are simply wrong.

So all you've done is come full circle. It's a pig ignorant attempt to dismiss anyone who takes an opposing position on a matter of public policy, by ascribing a mental illness to him/her.

Well, you are wrong. The words "hoplophobe" and "hoplophobia" do not have the narrow definition you are attempting to ascribe to them, as I detailed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=192906&mesg_id=193103

The word was coined as a way to describe gun-control advocates. While there is, in fact, a mental illness described by the same word, clearly this word has more than one connotation.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. There is no such mental illness that I am aware of.

I've reviewed specific and general anxiety disorders as recognized by the AMA and the National Institute of Mental Health, and can find no reference to any such illness.

You might consider it a 'specific anxiety disorder', but beyond that, it doesn't seem to exist, and using it in this way is really just slinging insults. You're using language that seems a bit more polite on the surface, but in general, you're trying to get away with calling people 'retarded', as a debate tactic.

Distasteful, dishonest. Please cease and desist. (not just directed at you)

[tburnsten]

131. I might be wrong

But I think that the description of hoplophobia using irrational fear of the object/feeling that it may have a will of its own is more of a comical way to describe it, I believe that a definition nearly identical to homophobia is much more accurate and closer to both the original coiner's intent and the intent of most everyone who uses the term.



At least if I were using the term I would be using it parallel to the definition of homophobia.

If I am very wrong than anyone and every please chime in, I think a general consensus would side with me.

[iverglas]

140. no

You are wrong. No "might" about it.

The fact that it is a label WRONGLY applied as an insult does not change the meaning of the world.

It is WRONG (as in factually incorrect, but the obvious "immoral" meaning can be just as well applied) to refer to someone who advocates particular forms of gun control as a "hoplophobe". Unless s/he is.


The "description of hoplophobia using irrational fear of the object/feeling that it may have a will of its own" is NOT "more of a comical way to describe it", it is what the term MEANS, what it meant when it was coined, and what it is used to mean, fer fuck's sake.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. There arguments are based on irrational fears. It may not describe all of you people....

but it definitely describes quite a few here.

David

[tburnsten]

174. And homophobe isn't a derogatory term?

Just because it is generally used towards people with exceedingly ignorant opinions doesn't make it any less of a demeaning term.

And that IS how hoplophobe is used, exactly the same way as those who use the term homophobe do. There is no difference.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. I'll side with you, the gun grabbers arguments are often based on irrational fears of guns.

Seems like a very fitting term to me.

David

[iverglas]

176. and yet

it has been ruled out of order in this forum. Gonna keep defying the ruling?

[tburnsten]

177. I believe we are discussing the term

Not labeling people willy-nilly.

Goona keep trying to define the discussion?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

178. I'm not aware of the "ruling" you are speaking of.

I don't see how my post would be in violation of any rule here. The mods are very good at their jobs and seem to delete posts that are in violation of the rules quickly. Feel free to educate me about how I broke the rule.

David

[slackmaster]

82. Hoplophobia is a medical condition, nobody here is qualified to diagnose it

Homophobia has been co-opted by usage to mean something other than an irrational fear of homosexuals.

[gorfle]

84. The same applies to the other word.

Homophobia has been co-opted by usage to mean something other than an irrational fear of homosexuals.

Yes, it is a term to describe anti-homosexual bigots - people with a hatred of and prejudice against homosexuals.

So if the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the othe word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person?

[iverglas]

86. because it isn't

Simple as that.

So if the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the othe word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person?

That is not what it is used for.

Do feel free to publish your own dictionary, though.

[gorfle]

95. So what do you think it means?

So if the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the othe word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person?

That is not what it is used for.

Do feel free to publish your own dictionary, though.

So what hairs would you like to split today to describe an "anti-homosexual person"?

[iverglas]

100. oh, follow the bleeding breadcrumbs

You asked a question:

So if the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the othe word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person?

I gave my answer:

That is not what it is used for.

Why on earth would you reply as if the "it" in my answer referred to "the word 'homophobia'," when your QUESTION was about THE OTHER WORD, i.e. HOPLOPHOBIA???

The word "hoplophobia" IS NOT USED "to generally mean an anti-firearm person".

That is not the meaning ascribed to it when it was coined, that is not the meaning of the word as it is used, and the purpose for which is used is not to describe someone who is "anti-firearm", whatever the hell that is; it is used to ascribe IRRATIONALITY to someone whose position on public policy regarding firearms is opposed by whoever is using the word.

Like I said: feel free to write your own dictionary. You can use "red" to mean "the colour of the sky at high noon on a sunny cloudless day", and "tall" to mean "having below-average stature", if you like.

But when you use the word "hoplophobe" in a sentence in public discourse, it will mean what it was originally intended to mean and has always been used to mean. Just as the words "red" and "tall" will.


html fixed

[gorfle]

102. Because...

You asked a question:

I gave my answer:

That is not what it is used for.

Why on earth would you reply as if the "it" in my answer referred to "the word 'homophobia'," when your QUESTION was about THE OTHER WORD, i.e. HOPLOPHOBIA???

I asked the question that if "homophobe" is an acceptable term to describe anti-homosexual people, then why would "hoplophobe" not be an acceptable term to describe anti-firearm people. Since you did not discuss this comparison naturally I assumed you thought the premise, that homophobe is an acceptable term to describe anti-homosexual people, was wrong.

Now I see that you were not disagreeing with my definition of homophobia. I assume you agree, then that the word homophobe is generally used to refer to anti-homosexual bigots.

So my question still stands:

If the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person? It certainly seems appropriate for a person who's anti-firearm position is irrational, which describes most of them I have heard.

That is not the meaning ascribed to it when it was coined, that is not the meaning of the word as it is used, and the purpose for which is used is not to describe someone who is "anti-firearm", whatever the hell that is; it is used to ascribe IRRATIONALITY to someone whose position on public policy regarding firearms is opposed by whoever is using the word.

Well, you're just wrong. An "anti-firearm person" (and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what the hell that is) is precisely what the meaning ascribed to "hoplophobia" was when it was coined, and is a meaning of the word as it is currently used.

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

"Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons".<2> Cooper employed the clinical-sounding term as an alternative to slang terms, stating: "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not (explain this behavior)." Cooper attributed this behavior to the irrational fear of firearms and other forms of weaponry. He stated that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."

Despite the clinical term, the word is generally used to describe gun control advocates. It is mildly derogatory, less so than similar slang terms such as those mentioned above. It is most commonly used as a pejorative by gun rights advocates."

It's even in the Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoplophobe



Like I said: feel free to write your own dictionary. You can use "red" to mean "the colour of the sky at high noon on a sunny cloudless day", and "tall" to mean "having below-average stature", if you like.

Well that is an interesting example. Like "hoplophobe" above, red can mean a color, but also has a political meaning: communist.

[TPaine7]

109. Why anyone whould want to publish their own dictionary at iverglas' suggestion is beyond me.

There are dictionaries already published:

Main Entry:
ho•mo•pho•bia
Pronunciation:
\ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function:
noun
Date:
1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobic

homophobia
• noun an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals.
— DERIVATIVES homophobe noun homophobic adjective.
Source: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/homophobia?view=uk

Homophobia:
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobic

Unfortunately, so many years after Clinton, iverglas apparently doesn't know what the meaning of "is" is. Either that or she was reading irrationally. Or being dishonest. Or suffered from some reading disorder. Or . . ., well I'm sure there are other possible causes. But one thing is certain. If someone reads the following lead sentence in a source:

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

...and then uses that source to support the contention that

The word "homophobe" has never been used or understood to mean "irrational fear" of homosexuality or homosexuals. It was coined on the -phobia model, but it has always been used and understood to mean hatred of / prejudice against homosexuals, the notion being that such hatred/prejudice is based on fear.

...there is a serious problem.

For those who are not fluent in English, while the source does talk of other uses, it makes clear that the original meaning is still used today. Is. Present tense. Currently. At this moment in time. Now.

Consult an English to whatever dictionary. (English speakers under the gun control reality distortion field should consult an English to bullshit dictionary.)

It is impossible for a sane, literate, honest and rational person to use this source to support this thesis. Unless, of course, it was an honest mistake.

Oh wait... when honest people see their honest mistakes, they fold. Don't they????!

[iverglas]

113. that was fun

Now, you could stop pretending to think I was talking about the term "homophobia" (do read the rest of the discussion for clarification, for anyone who might need it) and address the issue.

[TPaine7]

115. I fold.

Iverglas is correct, and I will take my own advice and fold. After all, "when honest people see their honest mistakes, they fold." I must protest, however, that I was not pretending to misunderstand.

Here is what iverglas said (post 70):

The word "homophobe" has never been used or understood to mean "irrational fear" of homosexuality or homosexuals. It was coined on the -phobia model, but it has always been used and understood to mean hatred of / prejudice against homosexuals, the notion being that such hatred/prejudice is based on fear.

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

The moronoic term "hoplophobia" is actually more in line with classic phobias: it refers to AN IRRATIONAL FEAR of AN OBJECT. It is therefore similar to arachnophobia (fear of spiders) and the like.

I read iverglas as I would read a honest, decent person of goodwill. I should have understood her statement as I understood Bill Clinton's infamous denial:

There is no improper relationship with that woman."

Of course there was no relationship, he had long since ended it. His words were literally true, and yet they were bullshit. And I instantly understood what he was saying, realizing as I did that I was listening to a politician/lawyer/BS artist.

Of course the word "homophobe" has never been used or understood to mean "irrational fear"--it is used to describe someone afflicted with irrational fear. But that was the point being obscured.

So I was wrong. I overestimated iverglas' decency and sincerity. I will endeavor not to repeat my mistake.

[iverglas]

119. putrid

You were replying to this exchange, and no other:

gorfle: So if the word "homophobia" has been co-opted to generally mean an anti-homosexual person, why can't the othe word be co-opted to generally mean an anti-firearm person?

me: That is not what it is used for.


By the time you came yammering in, any confusion that could possibly have existed regarding what the "it" in my sentence referred to -- "the other word", HOPLOPHOBIA, and NOT homophobia -- had been entirely cleared up in my post 100:

Why on earth would you reply as if the "it" in my answer referred to "the word 'homophobia'," when your QUESTION was about THE OTHER WORD, i.e. HOPLOPHOBIA???

The word "hoplophobia" IS NOT USED "to generally mean an anti-firearm person".


*I* am not the one confusing my -phobes and my -phobias there. Thank gorfle for that.


All you did in your post 109 was disregard that plain fact, and continue merrily along as if (as if you believed) the "it" in my sentence referred to HOMOPHOBIA when it beyond plainly did not, and when I had already made it so additionally plain that it was not, that there there simply is no rational explanation for why you would be acting as if it did.

And all I did was direct your attention to that fact.

The word "thick" applies here in more than one way.



edited to insert omitted word

[TPaine7]

120. Truly sad.

I was responding to the idea that someone should take iverglas' words about a dictionary seriously given her other statements, which I quoted.

You were replying to this exchange, and no other:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


What is this, some lame attemp at sith mind trickery?

I decide what I'm responding to. I use words to convey what I'm responding to. The words in the quote blocks show what I'm responding to just as well as the dotted lines.

Think about it people. It would be very convenient to chose what your opponents were saying, responding to or meaning--especially if you could overrule their very words in doing so. I daresay you could never lose a debate. You would be infallible...

But only inside the "gun control reality distortion field."

[iverglas]

121. I'll bet

that you have lots and lots of friends in real life.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TPaine7]

125. I guess

If your BS has been totally exposed, if you can't bring yourself to admit the truth, and if you have no remaining chance of fooling anyone you might as well try distraction.

It's desperate and pathetic, like spin from a Bush press secretary, but it beats integrity in some folks' estimation. I guess.

[TPaine7]

126. Words can be banned. . .

If anyone doubts that guns, images of guns, or even the concept of guns can cause hysterical, irrational reactions--inability to read, to comprehend, or to admit plain and simple truths, let them read this thread.

Words may be banned, but reality is clear. (For those of us outside the distortion field, that is.)

[jody]

133. Well said "Words may be banned, but reality is clear." n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

137. That's the best admission of defeat I've ever seen Iverglas. Congrats.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

136. Excellent response, you win.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

179. I think there is some aspect of fear, often irrational, present in all bigoted behavior.

[iverglas]

181. still needing that dictionary, I see

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

184. It doesn't seem so, you might though.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Is it?

I see a reference to it in a 'free online medical dictionary' and a single book "Contemporary Diagnosis And Management of Anxiety Disorders", which is by no means a psychology textbook.

Is there some AMA/Clinical source for this term, or is this political pseudo-psychology?

[iverglas]

141. no and yes

Is there some AMA/Clinical source for this term

No.

is this political pseudo-psychology?

Yes.

Again, as wiki has it:

Firearms instructor Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the word in 1962 to describe a "mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons".

If you haven't met the master of pseudo-psychoanalysis of one's political adversary, here you go:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable, something most anti-gun folks will never admit.

The fact that she has allowed that page to stand, describing her as a "psychiatrist" when she is not and has never been any such thing, is rather telling.

[iverglas]

142. more on the coiner

from one of my very own favourite websites.

http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Misc/hoplophobia

with my emphasis:

THE ROOT OF THE EVIL
by Jeff Cooper

... I coined the term hoplophobia over twenty years ago, not out of pretension but in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is -- a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position. It follows convention in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions. "Hoplon" is the Greek word for "instrument," but refers synonymously to "weapon" since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for "terror" and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them. The word has not become common, though twenty years is perhaps too short a time in which to test it, but I am nevertheless convinced that it has merit. We read of "gun grabbers" and "anti-gun nuts" but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do. They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who if {is?} irrational on the point under discussion. You cannot say calmly "Come, let us reason together" to a hoplophobe because that is what he is -- a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed. A victim of hydrophobia will die, horribly, rather than accept the water his body desperately needs. A victim of hoplophobia will die, probably, before he will accept the fallacy of his emotional fixation for what it is.

...

From:
Jeff Cooper.
To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth.
Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 1990.
pages 16-19

Shades of the Gulag indeed, hm?

And from a firearms instructor no less. Just the person I would seek out for a diagnosis, were I suffering from a mental disturbance.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. I read that book.

I thought the term was a clever play on words, but never for a second have I considered it an honest medical condition. Especially not applied to varying shades of people in favor of certain types of gun control. I've seen people called this for holding a certain position on say, firearm registration.

It's just a semi-clever insult, nothing more.

[iverglas]

147. "a semi-clever insult"

Methinks thou doth flatter too much, kind sir.

It's a really dumb insult. ;)

Based on a really dumb and insulting idea - but one that the person who had it may have held in all sincerity; who knows?

And that's pretty much why using it to characterize one's adversary/ies in this forum is prohibited.

[AtheistCrusader]

149. I was being charitable I guess.

'Juvenile' or puerile might be another word I would use. In any case, I agree, this word should not be used in any serious conversation about, well, anything really.

[gorfle]

45. hoplophobe?

I think you meant hoplophobe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. I don't kill anything with my firearms.

[SteveM]

54. Ah, predictable gas-huffing from the ne'er reaches (nt)

[Mtnboy]

66. Stu

pid statement

[tburnsten]

128. Someone sounds like a "nut"

[Kolesar]

8. Clinton banned mercury in smokestack emissions on his way out in December

bush* stokes the gun issue. typical of him

[hoplophile]

12. This is not a "Bush" thing. It is a battle that has been fought with the

bureaucracy for several years. If anything Bush has been fighting against it as it is his bureaucrats that have been opposed to this reasonable gun law.

[TPaine7]

52. Obama's Spokesman: No Decision on Gun Rule

Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, said no decision had been made on the gun rule.

"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president," he said.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120501991.html (second page)

I was amused by Diane Feinstein's take:

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the new rule was a mistake.

"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," Feinstein said.

The gun control reality distortion field strikes again.

[Owl]

55. How silly is that!

[joshcryer]

57. This basically means concel carry people don't have to lock up when they go on National Parks.

There's no controversy here, it's merely a convienience. Conceal carry individuals are very responsible and generally sane gun owners. I generally don't expect concel carry individuals to run around shooting up the forest for no good reason, we have plenty of idiot hicks here who do that (illegally of course; rifle bullets in almost every remote sign here in Colorado national parks piss me off).

[Owl]

62. Sorry. It's pure stupidity to carry side-arms in our National Parks.

No reason other than paranoia, lack of self-confidence, or some innate swagger-nonsense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. It's pure stupidity to make that statement.

[jody]

68. Do you have facts to support your position that firearms should not be allowed in National Parks?

Absent facts, your opinion is just another ball being rolled by a beetle.

[iverglas]

71. that's true -- however --

There is quite a rational basis for demanding that carrying concealed firearms in National Parks be permitted.

This is all part and parcel of what is truly a vast right-wing conspiracy.

It involves the assertion of rights in order to do things that no reasonable, decent person would ever consider doing.

Examples of such things are pubishing viciously hateful comment about vulnerable minority groups under the cloak of "free speech", and carrying firearms in places where it is entirely inappropriate to do so under the cloak of "the right to keep and bear arms".

Reasonable, decent people are concerned about things like the security of members of vulnerable minority groups, and object to public speech that increases the likelihood of harm being caused to them. It is in the interests of the right wing for minority groups to be perceived as threats to the security of the society, and as constantly playing the victim, etc. The better to undermine any efforts to enhance equality of opportunity and combat discrimination, etc.

Reasonable, decent people are concerned about the security of individuals and the public at large, and object to the public spaces of their society being awash in firearms. They also understand that demands such as these are designed to create a perception that there is a need for individuals to go armed in public because of all the dangers that lurk in every church pew and schoolroom and fast-food restaurant -- all the very bad people who are out to get all the good people. And if this perception can be created and intensified, their goals will be furthered. There will be a greater sense of us vs. them, more public tolerance for shifting from social justice to enforcement and repression, more imprisonment, more disenfranchisement of African-American men, etc.

Reasonable, decent people who pay attention to what has been going on in the US in the last decade are aware of the provocateurs operating within the right wing, in its many incarnations.

This is just one more outcropping of that phenomenon.

No one needs to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park.

But the right wing does need a constant supply of causes it can adopt in order to achieve its ends. Its ends are best served by ensuring that there is a society of people who trust no one and are on constant guard against everyone else trying to do them harm or get their stuff or get benefits they don't have.

[X_Digger]

73. Burn that straw man! n/t

[iverglas]

77. name that straw man

I do wish the assembled masses here would learn a little logic before opening their gobs. Some intelligent discussion might one day be possible.

[raimius]

78. The problem with your argument

Your starting assumption is no reasonable, decent person would ever consider carrying a concealed firearm. While that may be your opinion, it is not a sound basis for your argument...unless you can make a good argument that no one would ever conceivably carry a firearm with other than ill intent.

If I was roving around the less-visited parts of Denali, Yellowstone, etc, I would consider it reasonable to carry a .454 Casul handgun. It wouldn't weigh nearly as much as an appropriate rifle or shotgun, I wouldn't be using it to hunt, and it would be a large enough caliber to stop an attack by pretty much anything in the park. Is it being over prepared? Opinions vary, and I have not dealt with any large animals in Denali, but many guides do carry such firearms in similar areas. It doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me.

I wouldn't want to mess with an angry Buffalo. Those things weigh a ton and can run 30mph. I wouldn't put my car against one of those, much less expect to defend myself from one with my fists. That's not even considering the drug growers and other problem causers who are occasionally present on unpopulated, unsecured federal lands.

[iverglas]

88. Really?

Your starting assumption is no reasonable, decent person would ever consider carrying a concealed firearm.

Actually, that is pretty much my belief.

Nonetheless, it has FUCK ALL to do with anything I said in my post.

If you have something to say about something I said in my post, feel free.

Otherwise, all you have here is an ad locutorem argument, and it bores me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. Thanks for admitting it.

[57_TomCat]

80. A difference of opinion...

Posted by iverglas:
"No one needs to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park."

The point is true that no one "needs" to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park. They carry those concealed weapons in "case" they need them. A valid point that supports the social fabric of a community. It is in the public interest that armed people be available to assist with the keeping of Law and Order and to abrogate threats that might occur to the public at large or individual members of the public. The proliferation of law enforcement is one example of those armed people. Concerned citizens with training and government authority to "pack heat" is another example.

Illegal use of firearms is a serious breach of the public order. Such illegal activity should be stopped if possible or at least vigorously prosecuted. The fact that armed citizens might be the ones to stop the illegal use of a weapon is a great comfort. I also might avoid an extended inquiry by LE if the case were to be "taken care of" at the scene.

Sounds quite reasonable and decent to me. :)

By the way... where does this vast right wing conspiracy information come from? I thought a bunch of us progressive types here are supporting this concept. That vast right wing conspiracy has not contacted me to participate and I doubt they would considering a lot of my other views are NOT right wing.

[iverglas]

89. hmm

I thought a bunch of us progressive types here are supporting this concept.

Did you?

Huh.

[57_TomCat]

97. Yes I did AND

you are not one of them. Even if you have problems with the choice that is your choice, remember we are pro choice here in the gungeon as well :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. Some people are just intolerant.

You are right there are a bunch of reasonable and decent progressives here supporting the right of law abiding people, who are licensed to do so, to carry a concealed weapon. There are unfortunately a lot of people here who are quite intolerant of thought that differs from there own and are so convinced of there intellectual superiority that they feel that can make better decisions about your life than you can. We can call them Progressive Fascists if you like.

David

[iverglas]

155. c'mon now, don't forget

You are right there are a bunch of reasonable and decent progressives here supporting the right of law abiding people, who are licensed to do so, to carry a concealed weapon.

I have never meant to exclude dupes from the set.

[iverglas]

156. "Progressive Facists"

They move from one face to another ... sort of like people who go to "progressive dinners", or "serial monogamists", I guess.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. Maybe just, two faced.

[gorfle]

91. "No one needs to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park."

No one needs to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park.

There are many things that we don't need that we are nonetheless entitled to have and/or do.

The point of the legislation was to redress an obvious problem. A person with a concealed carry permit in Atlanta, Georgia, can stroll down downtown sidewalks with their concealed firearm surrounded by several thousands of people but they couldn't carry their concealed firearm on the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in the Chattahoochee National Forest.

This was silly.

[iverglas]

93. yes, as I was saying in post 71

There are many things that we don't need that we are nonetheless entitled to have and/or do.

And there are many things that people are entitled to have/do that reasonable, decent people would never think of doing.

[gorfle]

96. Fortunately...

And there are many things that people are entitled to have/do that reasonable, decent people would never think of doing.

And responsible, legal firearm ownership and carriage is not one of those things.

CCW permit holders have been demonstrated to be among the most reasonable, decent people of the citizenry.

[57_TomCat]

98. No matter what some people may prefer

I agree with you gorfle. We are fortunate that many reasonable and decent people enjoy the shooting sports as well as making use of their skills to potentially protect themselves and loved ones. It is a shame some people can not get beyond their bias' and accept that the other side of the argument has merit even if they do not support it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. So anyone who carries a firearm is indecent?

Are you actually saying that?

[iverglas]

127. well, you're evidently saying it, Dave

If you believe it, that's your choice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. Where did I make that statement, Ivy?

Nice non-answer though. Not surprising you wouldn't have the guts to actually answer the question.

David

[iverglas]

143. cute trick, Davey

So anyone who carries a firearm is indecent?

There's a question mark randomly stuck on the end of it, but it's a statement.

It's not a statement I've seen anyone here make. So plainly you were the one making it. I guess you were looking to see whether anyone hereabouts agreed with you. ?

Myself, I preferred not to enter into discussion of the notion you asserted, since I'm not especially interested in the waste-of-time equivocating that might be anticipated should any participant neglect to footnote any statement made with specified definitions for words like "anyone" and "carries" and, of course, "indecent".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

151. No it was question because that seemed to be what you implied...

when you said, "And there are many things that people are entitled to have/do that reasonable, decent people would never think of doing." Are you saying that decent people would never consider carrying a concealed firearm? But by all means run away if the question is too difficult.

David

[iverglas]

158. no, it wasn't a question, Davey

It was the use of a nasty little rhetorical device much favoured by the right wing.

If you want to know what I think, you can always ask. Making presumptuous statements about what I think and tacking a question mark on the end will get you nowhere every time.


My statement:

And there are many things that people are entitled to have/do that reasonable, decent people would never think of doing.

I am entitled to jump off a bridge. Being a reasonable person, I would never think of doing it.

I am entitled to tell the 3-yr-old kid next door she is a nasty ugly stupid child and Santa Claus will be bringing her switches and onions because she is so ugly and stupid. Being a decent person, I would never think of doing it.

If I were a particularly stupid person myself, or otherwise vulnerable to dishonest argument, I might be persuaded to do one or both of those things, or any number of other things, in the belief that it was in my interests, or not against someone else's interests, to do them.

So I guess I should say that there are some things that reasonable, decent people, operating with full knowledge of the relevant facts and not under the influence of any dishonest persuasive techniques or other factor that might impede their cognitive or ethical abilities, would never think of doing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

161. It was a question, no surprise that you would now claim to be talking about bridge jumpers.

So I guess I'll assume you think people who carry concealed weapons legally are reasonable and decent people, since you don't seem to be able to answer.

David

[iverglas]

164. you assume

what you like, Davey boy. No skin off my bum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Only kidding, Ivy, you've made your feelings abundantly clear.

I hope your family is doing well.

David

[Iktomiwicasa]

196. Heh...

"And there are many things that people are entitled to have/do that reasonable, decent people would never think of doing."

Like spending all ones time posting to an internet forum in lieu of having a real life....

[jmg257]

138. No one needed to wear seat belts 25 years ago either - I just felt a whole lot safer doing so. nt

[iverglas]

144. E-qui-vo-ca-a-ashun ... is making me gag

No one needed to wear seat belts 25 years ago either

Everyone needed to wear seatbelts 25 years ago.

The fact that the dictionary provides you with alternative meanings for "need to" -- be under the necessity or obligation (per my Oxford Concise) -- doesn't actually mean that you have made a true or meaningful statement IN THE CONTEXT of this discussion.

No one was talking about anyone being under the obligation to carry firearms in a national park. Why you would make a statement that is clearly about being under the obligation to wear seatbelts, in the context of this discussion ... why, I can only guess.

[jmg257]

150. Most belt laws in this country started in earnest around '84 - hence the "25 years",

and so the honesty of the statement - IN ANY CONTEXT you wish to consider it.

"Since 1984, with strong Federal prodding, all but five states have enacted laws requiring the use of seat belts in automobiles"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D71630F936A2575BC0A965958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


I would, and did, make such a statement to show that sometimes reasonable and decent people (like me) do things for their own good, even if they do not NEED to do so. You see, I wore seat belts before I NEEDED to (or was obligated to), ya know, just in case...

And being reasonable, I did so whether ANYONE ELSE thought I NEEDED to, or not.

[iverglas]

159. so you've admitted equivocating

Equivocating is dishonest.

Did you think you had accomplished something else maybe?

[jmg257]

160. Hold on - let me look it up...

equivocate
to use vague or ambiguous language in order to deceive someone or to avoid telling the truth


me: "No one needed to wear seat belts 25 years ago either - I just felt a whole lot safer doing so"

nope - no equvacating here. Why, do you think there was something vague about my statement, or that I actually didn't wear my seat belts? Or that I was avoiding telling the truth (& about what pray tell??)?

Hmmm...it seems very clear to me, and I swear I did wear my seat belt.


Instead, one should consider my statement as an example - of things one does in spite of not needing to, or despite what others might not see as a need - for his own good.


ex·am·ple (g-zmpl)
n.
1. One that is representative of a group as a whole:

[iverglas]

162. no, one should read your statement as an example of dishonest discourse

No more, no less.

No one raised any issue involving any IMPOSED REQUIREMENT to carry concealed firearms in a national park.

You chose to pretend that the absence of an IMPOSED REQUIREMENT, which you, in all grammatical correctness, referred to as "needing", was somehow analogous to the absence of SITUATIONAL NECESSITY.

You used that pretense to construct an analogy, an analogy based on a pure falsehood. It is purely false to say that seatbelts were not a SITUATIONAL NECESSITY 25 years ago.
It really doesn't come much more dishonest than that.

But hey. At least you had the honesty to admit the dishonesty. At least at first, anyhow.


Why, do you think there was something vague about my statement

Why do you pretend to think I thought there was something vague about your statement? Pretty dumb, really, to quote the definition -- to use vague or ambiguous language in order to deceive someone or to avoid telling the truth -- and then pretend it wasn't there. Really pretty dumb. Do you want to define "ambiguous" for us now?

A word that has two meanings is kinda by definition "ambiguous", doncha think?

Oxford Concise does: "having an obscure or double meaning". And no. We're not talking about "obscure". We're talking about "double".


You used the double meaning of the expression "need to" -- be under the necessity to or be under the obligation to -- to construct an analogy based purely on a falsehood. There had been no statement that no one is under an obligation to carry a concealed firearm in a national park, and you know this perfectly well.

Right now, I need to pee. I'm under no obligation to pee at all, though. Were I out on the sidewalk, I would need to come inside, since peeing on the sidewalk is illegal where I'm at.

[jmg257]

165. Ahh - I see your confusion now. I will simplify what is important, so we can move on...

No intentional falsehoods involved, actually steps taking to avoid them completely (like looking up seat belt laws!).

1) I am aware there is a current obligation to wearing seat-belts - that would indeed be considered a 'legal need' to do so. I am also aware that this was not always the case.

2) I 'always' thought there was a situational need to wear seat-belts - even though not everyone agreed/s. {Reasonable #1}.

3) I am indeed aware there is no obligation to carry in a park - there is no LEGAL need to do so.

4)I chose to wear seat-belts for years, when there was no legal need to do so, and despite many people who did not think there was a situational need to do so. {Reasonable #2}.

5) I 'always' think that a situational need for a concealed weapon can occur in a park, as it can in a church, a school, a restaurant or just about any other such place...history proves this. {Reasonable #3}.

6a) I choose to carry concealed because of the situational need to do so, even though many people do not see this need. {Reasonable #4}
6b) I also think plenty of reasonable people will see this same need - a need that can be as grave as wearing one's seat-belt, even though much less likely an occurance.


I am out! I NEED to go get my kid!

[iverglas]

166. so your point was?

I chose to wear seat-belts for years, when there was no legal need to do so, and despite many people who did not think there was a situational need to do so.

When you referred to your not needing to wear a seatbelt 25 years ago, you were not referring to a situational need, you were referring to a legal need.

Nothing in the discussion of carrying concealed firearms in national parks remotely suggested that anyone was talking about a legal need to do so.

By raising a matter involving a legal need and pretending to draw an analogy to a matter involving an alleged absence of situational need, you were simply equivocating.

As I said several posts ago.

If you felt like arguing that there was a situational need to carry a concealed firearm in a national park, I would have thought you would have done so.

[jmg257]

170. Correct - sort of. And "the point" (again)!

My reason for going back 25 years was to make sure there was NO need, other then a perceived situational need (thanks - love that!) based on one's formed opinion - not everyone's mind you - just many of us reasonable people. In that way I made sure my example was honest, and included a need & choice concerning one's own good based only on opinion - not obligation. Despite the ambiguity of "need", it turns out there was also no equivication, because there was no truth I was trying to avoid telling (or falsehood to create for that matter) - but I think you knew that.

I was not remotely talking about a legal need to carry in parks - didn't even consider it till you mentioned it.

As I should have said more clearly those several posts ago, though I thought it was obvious, the situational need to carry is indeed what I was stressing - and not just in parks. The example used continues to show that one's reasonable perception of non-legal need may very will be different then another's, as is clearly the case here.

And so, the points...to indicate that there IS a need for concealed carry in parks whether you believe so or not, that many reasonable people will agree & appreciate they now have the choice to carry legally where they previously couldn't despite others who don't agree, and that they appreciate it/would appreciate it if they had that choice in other places too.

The situational need for concealed carry being real.

[TPaine7]

171. The situational need to carry in National Parks

is very much like the need to wear seatbelts or have fire extinguishers in one's home or car.

Of course these are needs. All are rational precautions against improbable events.

Now if I had a phobia against fire extinguishers, for instance, I could spout nonsense like "no decent person would carry a fire extinguisher in her car" and cite some exaggerated excuse. Maybe my irrational intuition would tell me that the extinguisher was more likely to explode in a fire than be used to stop one. Maybe the propellant causes environmental harm. I could find something.

But if logic prevailed, I could acknowledge and respect others rights while avoiding extinguishers myself.

Neat thing, logic.

[iverglas]

180. you would, would you?

Now if I had a phobia against fire extinguishers, for instance, I could spout nonsense like "no decent person would carry a fire extinguisher in her car" and cite some exaggerated excuse.

Of course, it would be a logical fallacy to say that someone who said "no decent person would carry a fire extinguisher in her car" had a phobia of fire extinguishers.

Just in case you thought you were being terribly clever.

You weren't.

[TPaine7]

183. I "could" actually. Could.

Interesting answer.

I said that the need to carry in National parks is like the need to wear seatbelts or keep a fire extinguisher. And here is iverglas' response:

I said that all three--weapons carrying, seatbelt usage and keeping of fire extinguishers--are "rational precautions against improbable events." And here is iverglas' response:

I said that a phobia "could" lead to an nonsensical position:

Now if I had a phobia against fire extinguishers, for instance, I could spout nonsense like "no decent person would carry a fire extinguisher in her car" and cite some exaggerated excuse. Maybe my irrational intuition would tell me that the extinguisher was more likely to explode in a fire than be used to stop one. Maybe the propellant causes environmental harm. I could find something.

And here is iverglas' response:

What iverglas chose to answer is a logical fallacy of her own devising:

Of course, it would be a logical fallacy to say that someone who said "no decent person would carry a fire extinguisher in her car" had a phobia of fire extinguishers.

That is true. It is a fallacy--iverglas' fallacy. I said that a phobia "could" lead to a nonsensical position. Could.

Of course there are other possible causes--stupidity, dishonesty, corruption, and broad-based general insanity, to name a few. Phobia is the kindest possibility, but certainly not the only one. That is why I would never make such a comment. That is why I never did make such a comment.

I think it should be clear now who is trying--unsuccessfully--to be clever. (Or, alternately, who is being "terribly" clever, LOL.) It's the one who carefully avoids the substance while courageously engaging what I did not say.

[iverglas]

185. how interesting

That is true. It is a fallacy--iverglas' fallacy. I said that a phobia "could" lead to a nonsensical position. Could.

Of course there are other possible causes--stupidity, dishonesty, corruption, and broad-based general insanity, to name a few. Phobia is the kindest possibility, but certainly not the only one. That is why I would never make such a comment. That is why I never did make such a comment.


Now perhaps you will put YOUR money where your insistently flapping gums are, and come right out and state that my position on this matter is nonsensical.

Then you can state which of those "possible causes", or whichever other one you might settle on, you have identified as the most likely.

[TPaine7]

187. Still carefully avoiding the substance,

she requests more substance from me. It hardly seems fair to duck and weave while making such requests.

But that's ok.

Now perhaps you will put YOUR money where your insistently flapping gums are, and come right out and state that my position on this matter is nonsensical.

I made comments about a hypothetical person, not about iverglas. However there are definite parallels, one of which is that iverglas' position is nonsensical. It is nonsensical to say that no decent person would ever consider carrying concealed (iverglas post 88):

Your starting assumption is no reasonable, decent person would ever consider carrying a concealed firearm.

Actually, that is pretty much my belief.

Absolutely, definitely, yes, that is nonsense. It is nonsensical. It is drivel. It is ignorant and prejudiced. It judges people, situations, and rationales that iverglas does not--indeed, cannot--possibly know.

Then you can state which of those "possible causes", or whichever other one you might settle on, you have identified as the most likely.

Why do I feel Wile E. Coyote's eyes boring into my back as I examine this "harmless" pile of birdseed? Let's see if I can figure this out. I described a hypothetical person making a nonsensical statement with parallels to iverglas' nonsensical position. I then named possible causes for that hypothetical person's problem. Now I am supposed to assign a likely cause to iverglas' nonsensical position, thus violating the rules of this site.

It's not going to happen.

Beep, beep!

[iverglas]

188. paging DrCory

Your attention is needed here.

Time for Master Paine to take the mealies out of his mouth.

[TPaine7]

189. If anyone is still interested,

they can read post 182 for another example of iverglas' consistency.

I may believe that someone who denies that a decent person can consider concealed carry is dishonest, insane, phobic, or some combination of the above, but I am not permitted to say that at this website. The reason for iverglas taking a nonsensical, asinine, ignorant, indefensible, prejudiced position is not my concern. Refuting the nonsensical, asinine, ignorant, indefensible, prejudiced position is.

If iverglas is unwilling to engage on substance, I won't engage on silliness.

[DrCory]

111. The Mountain Has Spoken.

I'm curious, what entity has appointed you the arbiter of reason and decency? Is anyone who disagrees with your concepts unreasonable and/or indecent?

"No one needs to carry a concealed weapon in a National Park."

Ah, and I see you have established yourself as the decider of need as well. Hmmm, as someone who spends a great deal of time in parks, national and otherwise, I disagree. Open carry, in those places where legal, can create anxiety in those not familiar with regulations permitting such. I see allowing "conceal carry" quite reasonable for this reason, having experienced several alarming encounters with both man and beast in park environments. This may come as quite a surprise to you, but I am concerned about my fellow citizens and have no desire to give them a fright. Does this make me indecent?

"Reasonable, decent people are concerned about things like the security of members of vulnerable minority groups,...

For someone who so ferociously rails against strawmen, you've just created one of monumental proportions. This begs several obvious questions:

1. If I support "conceal carry" in national parks, am I a participant in this "vast right-wing conspiracy"?
2. If I support "conceal carry" in national parks, am I a "right-winger"?
3. If I support "conceal carry" in national parks, do I support the disenfranchisement of African-American men?

And so on...

Please do answer honestly.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[DrCory]

116. Am I correct...

In interpreting your answer to the questions posed as a "yes"?

"1. If I support "conceal carry" in national parks, am I a participant in this "vast right-wing conspiracy"?
2. If I support "conceal carry" in national parks, am I a "right-winger"?
3. If I support "conceal carry" in national parks, do I support the disenfranchisement of African-American men?"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. She'll never answer.

[DrCory]

172. Its seems you are right Dave

Perhaps her silence results from sheer embarrassment. She really "jumped the shark" with this one IMO. To draw a connection with carrying a firearm, concealed so as not to alarm any passers-by, in a national park with racist social practices is the height of absurdity.

[iverglas]

182. maybe, perhaps, could be ...

Perhaps her silence results from sheer embarrassment.

I believe I said you could take my answer as read.

I also believe you are as familiar with the rules of this forum as I am.

I may believe that someone who has stated opposition to affirmative action in university admissions is a racist (for that and other reasons), but I am not permitted to say that at this website.

Don't wear out your fingers now.

[DrCory]

186. No need for exertion on my part...

You're doing a fine job of exposing yourself as a museum quality specimen. Of what, I'll leave to your imagination. Below is my interpretation of your various statements on the subject:

Support for CCW in national parks = support for disenfranchisement of AA males = racist.

Am I right? If not, you may wish to correct me.

"I may believe that someone who has stated opposition to affirmative action in university admissions is a racist (for that and other reasons), but I am not permitted to say that at this website."

What type of person most commonly desires the disenfranchisement of AA males?

Anyway, I am somewhat surprised that you would resort to such intellectual sloth in an attempt to discredit those who might disagree with you. That's all it can truly be, as your "connections" are illogical.

[DrCory]

173. How about it Iverglass?

A simple yes or no too complicated for you?

[DrCory]

117. If you are so terribly concerned...

About the "security of individuals and the public at large", than why did you exceed the speed limit, knowing that excess speed is a factor in at least some percentage of auto accidents which result in death or injury? You admit this in the statement below, yet voluntarily introduced an unnecessary factor despite the potential hazard of doing so.

"Speeding is a factor in a rather low percentage of crashes in which death or injury occurs."

[jmg257]

130. So you can put me down as one who is UNreasonable and INdecent,

at least when it comes to carrying concealed. I see no problem with my carrying in all kinds of places, even those places other unreasonable people consider "inappropriate"...schools, parks, churches, restaurants included. Whether it is regarded as an "assertion of rights", as a necessity (as a cop), as a response to fear, logic, safety or just plain convenience (as a civilian), do count me in if you must.

Of course once so labeled, I would then be in conflict with "Reasonable, decent people are concerned about the security of individuals and the public at large", "Reasonable, decent people are concerned about things like the security of members of vulnerable minority groups" and "Reasonable, decent people who pay attention to what has been going on in the US in the last decade". You may need to redefine your ideals, or come up with sub-labels, or...something.

[iverglas]

145. I may?

You may need to redefine your ideals, or come up with sub-labels, or...something.

Oh.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

152. It seems that more than one of us have interpreted your statements in the same manner.

Yet you still refuse to clarify.

David

[jmg257]

154. Is there some confusion? She has clarified this just fine, I think.

At least we can be assured it is not due to "hoplophobia"! :)

[X_Digger]

74. Only if you start from the presumption..

..that concealed carry anywhere is a bad thing.

If you start from that assumption, then your conclusion is valid.

If, on the other hand, you assume that crime doesn't stop at a national forest border, then concealed carry is as valid there as anywhere else.

[TPaine7]

81. Precisely

If you accept my premise that 2 + 2 = 19, you must accept my conclusion that 2 + 2 = 19.

[iverglas]

90. post 88 is for you too

[jmg257]

139. 1st 2 seem like OK reasons. Fear is a basic response, keeps us from doing all kinds of stupid

stuff. Going unarmed when otherwise allowed may often turn out to be just such an idiocy.

[east texas lib]

69. Good!

Of course the "submit graciously and comply with your attacker's demands" set will be outraged.
And thats a good thing.

[AlinPA]

118. Why does the gun have to be concealed? What not allow a gun in a holster?

Or a rifle on a back seat/gunrack in full view?

[tburnsten]

132. "concealed" and "holstered" are not at all mutually exclusive

For instance, there are many excellent holsters designed with concealment in mind, the most popular and best carry location is on the hip of whichever hand you favor, in either an outside of waistband belt holster or an inside the waistband holster. Some can even be used either way. Check out www.FIST-inc.com and www.Comp-Tac.com for a pair of great companies that have a variety of both holster styles you can check out.

[AlinPA]

163. Thanks, my question was re: the new law. What's the problem with allowing guns out in the open?

Why conceal the guns?

[ManiacJoe]

167. Two reasons.

(1) Good tactics, it keeps the element of surprise on your side. If the Bad Guys know you are armed, you become target #1. (The opposite argument is that with open carry, the Bad Guys know you are armed and choose to start trouble with someone else.)

(2) Some places prohibit open carry. For the reasons why, you would need to ask those legislatures.

[tburnsten]

175. I think the new law just solidifies

whatever state law would be applicable just outside the borders of the park. If the state in question allows open carry, than open carry would be ok, just as concealed carry would be ok if concealed carry is alright in that state. The new policy isn't really a stance on guns in parks at all, it is just them synchronizing with the states the parks happen to reside in.



So both are acceptable now, depending on state.

[jody]

191. Interesting that 75 active DU threads use the word "homophobe" today but a similar word

describing gun-grabbers is banned.

CNN exit polls show 4% of voters in the last election are gay, lesbian, bisexual and 42% of the voters have a firearm in their home.

Given over 125 million people voted in the last election, that's about 5 million GLB voters versus over 53 million voters with guns in their household.

[iverglas]

192. Quick! Throw 'em under the bus!

Is somebody preventing gun owners from marrying each other?

[jody]

194. Update, 87 active DU threads using "homophobe" while that other word is banned in DU's Guns Fortress