Heading to a National Park; Now you can pack heat...Surreal & scary

[debbierlus]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)


http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090520/sc_mcclatchy/3237180

WASHINGTON — Here's a list of stuff the typical American family can legally carry into national parks this summer: sleeping bag, toothbrush, change of underwear . . . loaded guns.

Thanks to a 279-147 vote Wednesday in the House of Representatives , visitors to the nation's parks and wildlife refuges will be able to carry weapons there if they abide by state weapons laws.

The bill is on its way to President Barack Obama , who faces a dilemma: Gun rights advocates attached the provision to a sweeping overhaul of the credit card industry, an initiative Obama strongly supports, so he has little choice but to let the gun section become law.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said only that Obama "looks forward" to signing the bill "as quickly as possible," and didn't mention the gun provision.

Gun control advocates howled Wednesday, but to little effect. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy , D- N.Y. , protested "the bill has been hijacked," and Rep. Maxine Waters , D- Calif. , maintained, "American taxpayers ought to be incensed."

[TheWraith]

1. Not scary at all, unless you're a fearmonger.

National parks will be subjected to the exact same rules on weapons as any streetcorner in that state. And individual states can still ban concealed carry in parks if they like. Helmke's talking about families being assaulted with AK-47s is as much a lie as the other Republicans who say that if we shutdown Gitmo it's the same as releasing terrorists onto the streets of America.

[Occam Bandage]

2. What's scary? The bill just makes it so that

a state's firearms laws carry into national parks. I don't see why a gun should become especially frightening once the bearer crosses the street and enters a national park.

[tabatha]

7. Because in the parks, people try to use them as shooting ranges -

and the bullets could unintentionally kill a hiker.

I have seen spent bullets in one CA park ALL OVER the place - evidence of using the parks as shooting ranges, and not just as areas where concealed weapons can be carried.

[Howzit]

15. Concealed carry permits do not give permission to fire guns in parks

unless the guns are used in legal self defense.

People firing guns in parks have taken them in and are firing them illegally. Considering how difficult it is to obtain a concealed carry permit, permit holders are not likely to engage in illegal target practice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. So people are already illegally carrying firearms in the park and firing them illegally?

and you are somehow worried about people, who are trained, licensed to carry weapons and statistically are among the most law abiding group of people in the country, making it worse. Not sure I get your logic.

David

[quiller4]

115. Agreed. Anyone who wishes to carry still has to comply

with the state rules and regs. Why is that a problem for anyone?

[SpartanDem]

3. Not so much

this just makes national parks subject to state guns laws

[WCGreen]

4. Constitution Rights...

Fungable.

What about my right to not feel uneasy where ever I go...

[tabatha]

5. I hope they ban them in CA parks because of fire possibility.

[slackmaster]

205. It's extremely difficult to get a concealed weapons permit in most California counties

There aren't very many people who would be allowed to carry, but your assumption that they would use their weapons in an unlawful manner is not based on any actual facts.

[liberalmuse]

6. Nice.

How long before a dumbfuck with a gun kills a family, thinking they were bears? Motherfucking gun fetishists.

[tabatha]

9. Or, because they were practice shooting.

[here_is_to_hope]

14. No one said its legal to fire one, just carry one.

Fucking DU and its cadre of liberal nanny staters.
The world is not some fucking coffee shop where you get wifi...

[tabatha]

17. Yes, except that it makes them easier to use them as target practice.

I have seen people with my own eyes (and heard with my ears) people shooting into the canyons, while bicyclists were on a tour through the park.

[joshcryer]

19. Uh, those people were breaking the law. I go into Colorado National Park all the time.

There *are* assholes *illegally* carrying weapons. These people are potentially dangerous. Be glad CCW people are now allowed to legally enter these areas, because they can, if the need arises and they're available, stop these psychopaths who do, without a doubt, shoot the forest up for fun. 100% illegally. Without CCW laws allowing them to come in.

Do not count CCW as dumb hicks. Yes some are, but not all of them.

[here_is_to_hope]

20. Bikes do more damage to our National Parks than shooters....

http://www.codyenterprise.com/articles/2009/01/07/opinion/doc496517f81fe2a204560581.txt

[joshcryer]

22. There are *some* dumb hicks who *do* shoot up the national parks, though.

I've seen them with my own eyes and reported them to rangers on every ocassion. These people are 100% breaking the law, though, and it is unlikely that they have a CCW permit at all.

[tabatha]

27. The bikes were on tar roads on which cars travel.

In that circumstance cars cause more damage, in addition to polluting the air.
(I was in a car, not on a bike).

[PJPhreak]

43. Really?

As an avid Mt Biker and Trail Volunteer.I'll Debate this claim.
We work very hard with the US Forestry Service to Map.Build and Construct and Maintain riding trails that fit not only with the local terrain and Ecosystem,But also to allow riders of wildly different riding skill levels to enjoy their use.
Most (Not all of course) Mt Bikers are Multiple Bike owners and use a Bike to reduce their automobile usage...I,m one of those folk, We call it being "Car-Light" and some I know live a completely "Car-Free" lifestyle.Most I know are Liberal/Progressive or at least a Democrat

Shooters (Most,but not all of course) on the other hand Drive Big 4x4 Pick-ups,SUV's of all sorts,Dunebuggys,Sandrails,Baja's,Quads or two stroke Dirtbikes anywhere they please,Hual Huge RV's that are better decked out than a Room at the Waldorf-Astoria,(Not to mention the gross misuse of natural resources and Petroenergy to just move these Things!) Throw Budlite cans and bottles everywhere,are screaming and bellering in the campgrounds at 3 am,like it is their "God Given" right to act like fools. Most I've met are Conservative/Freeper and Republican.


Jus'Sayin,Thats All

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[tkmorris]

85. That was downright rude

And completely uncalled for. He said bikers try hard not to destroy the environment in parks, and he's 100% correct.

[here_is_to_hope]

88. Thank you for your concern. n/t

[derby378]

109. You need to find a more creative way to say "Fuck off"

Your current vocabulary just isn't cutting it.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[FloriTexan]

96. Stereotype much?!

[AtheistCrusader]

160. A lot of this is untrue sterotyping.

Keep in mind, you are conversing with people of all walks of life, and many democrats are hunters and otherwise law abiding firearms enthusiasts. I challenge your assertion that 'most' shooters behave like this.

I won't even bring anyone with me that seriously desires to mix firearms and alcohol, or ORV's and alcohol. I walk in, and I pack out everything I took in with me, plus usually some trash from other people. Everyone I associate with does the same thing. Some areas may have it better or worse, but at least here in Washington, most of us are pretty good stewards of our wild areas.

If you see someone behaving illegally, please, please, please, contact a park or forest ranger. You don't have to get involved, you don't have to confront them (in fact, I never do, and strongly recommend you don't either), but please call it in. The Rangers are pretty savvy, but they can't be everywhere at once. They need this sort of information.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Well, I hope you called the cops then.

Because that activity was illegal then, and will still be illegal tomorrow, next week, etc.

No law abiding firearms enthusiast will ever participate in, or sanction that sort of activity. As a hunter, and a conservationist, I will turn someone in, in a heartbeat for that sort of crap. It damages the privelidges law-abiding firearms users, whether hunters or not, can enjoy, every time some yahoo decides to shoot up a tree or an old car in the forest or parks.

Call the cops. Nothing in this new law will excuse or permit that sort of behavior.

[rwheeler31]

23. Why do you carry if you do not intend to shoot?

[Howzit]

29. Why do you keep a fire extinguisher by the stove if you don't intend to have a grease fire?

Carrying a gun is an insurance policy. You only produce it if you face a threat where you would be legally justified in shooting someone in self defense. If the threat retreats, you hold your fire; if it advances, you shoot. In other words, this is an emergency measure, not for fun and games.

[rwheeler31]

47. So this is all about you.

To hell with those who do not want to be around guns.

[Howzit]

65. I don't have a concealed carry permit, so it is not about me.

You are around guns all the time outside parks; both legal and illegal, you just don't know it. Why should having the same proportion of law abiding gun carriers inside a park be more scary than that proportion outside parks?

Consider the number of guns carried in public and in parks illegally - why are you not concerned about people who choose to break the law, as opposed to those who choose to carry only where legal?

[QueenOfCalifornia]

210. I think you

are missing the point.

I know that by being in campgrounds and out in the boonies you are more likely to run into a pissed off animal who would like to eat you... It happens here in our country every year - a mountain lion will maim or kill someone who is out on a walk in the mountains. A gun can be used for protection. That is what the poster is saying.

[rwheeler31]

52. Why don't you just buy more insurance?

[here_is_to_hope]

34. Because, as tough as I am, I cannot kick a bears ass.

Can you?
Have you every been in the back country? Where you are responsible for your own safety?
Ever meet up with a bear? Did you know that bears will eat you?
Did you know that by the time Ranger Rick shows up, the Coyotes will have cleaned your bones?
I have a gun with me to protect myself, not to shoot willy nilly.

[joshcryer]

46. It's been even made worse that bear spray is illegal in some national parks.

Good luck camping with the bears, as they might say.

[mrs_p]

198. the parks where you need to be cautious of bears

allow bear spray - glacier and yellowstone. i've met a griz face to face and it was more afraid of me than i was of it.

[jberryhill]

122. Question about bears

So, the point of concealed carry is that if you were carrying it in a visible holster, the bear would see it and sneak up on you?

[mrs_p]

197. are you serious? how many bears have you shot?

i spend my vacations in the backcountry - there are precautions you take when you are back there to deter bears. if you are that scared, perhaps you may want to stay closer to where the rest of the people are and let those of us who like nature the way it is enjoy it.

[joshcryer]

45. I don't carry because I believe in statistics. But then, I do carry around a multi-tool.

The multi-tool has been useful quite a many times, stasticially speaking I will probably need it on one ocassion or another. I don't see that as the case with a gun.

But I don't really feel bad for people who do.

To them a CCW may in fact be seen as useful as a multi-tool. It is actually quite alarming how many people in the gun forum have utilized their firearms in that manner. It has never happened to me.

[rwheeler31]

78. That multi tool is so cool.

[AtheistCrusader]

165. How many?

I can only recall one, who used one to scare off some aggressive dogs that were menacing his children in his yard.

Can't think of any others off the top of my head.

[FloriTexan]

97. Here's why....

I like to camp and fish. My husband likes to hunt. I'm at camp alone sometimes. It will be nice to be able to take my Sig with me now -- I am licensed. I promise that you will never know I have it unless you pose a threat of serious bodily harm to me or someone else in my sight and even then I will think twice. Unfortunately, thinking twice about it could get me killed. If you see it, know I will use it. People who go to the trouble of getting their license will abide by the laws. It is the people who don't care about the law that you should be worrying about.

[mrs_p]

199. why don't you fish outside the parks then?

there are more places you can pack heat than not...

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Same reason I carry a CPR mask and a first aid kit.

'in case'.

[Arctic Dave]

35. So go somewhere else if you have such a problem with the people here.

[here_is_to_hope]

13. Kneejerk much?

Ever come face to face with a Grizzly bear?
Are you ever responsible for your own safety or do you rely on others?


I have ALWAYS carried in National Parks and any time I am on USFS or BLM land.
Just now its legal.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[here_is_to_hope]

18. Why are you pissing in the bushes?

And why am I a nut?
And, if I shoot you, you will not be saying anything.
SSS
Shoot, shovel and shut up.

[joshcryer]

21. You don't partake in "leave no trace" rules? :O

Tee hee, I tease. Most people don't go *that* far (I know someone who once did though, if they could have they would have kept themselves from sweating).

[masuki bance]

64. Is public nudity legal in the National Park system?

[Arctic Dave]

37. I have come face to face with bears a lot. Never needed a gun once.

[joshcryer]

55. Same here, but I can't say they didn't freak me a bit out.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. I have as well

while carrying a gun, and did not have to shoot the bear. I do like having the option though, if for some reason the bear decides to press the point, but mostly they don't have much interest in humans.

Question: Why is this a big deal? It's already the law in National Forests, why would National Parks, that happen to be woodlands be any different? Hunting and target shooting will still be proscribed in the National Parks, so I really don't see the problem.

[FailureToCommunicate]

106. Have you yourself ever faced a Grizzly? Or just read about it? I know two people

who were mauled by Grizzles and survived although both no longer have arms. Each was surprise attacked- alone-and no gun, legal or illegal would have been any help in self defense.
The stories you read in the magazines of guns used "successfully" are nestled in between glossy ads for... guns for a reason.

[XemaSab]

125. I saw a show on Animal Planet about a dude who had his face bit off

I'm skeered of grizzlies. :scared:

[FailureToCommunicate]

172. You may have been "lucky". Unfortunately, the statistics are against you: Pepper spray link:

here is an interesting link:

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/03/studies-show-bear-spray-more-effective-guns-against-grizzlies

Good luck out there.

[rwheeler31]

8. This is disgusting where can we take our kids

to a peaceful place?

[joshcryer]

24. You've never been in Colorado's National Parks, apparently.

Off roaders, 4-wheelers, dirt bikes, trucks and trucks and more trucks. Nope, I find it unlikely you've ever gone to a national park that was actually utilized. The only peaceful / quiet / low traffic parks are up north anymore.

[XemaSab]

126. I went backpacking in Yosemite on Labor Day weekend

and I saw three people in two days. :P

[slackmaster]

99. There are already people carrying concealed weapons in many places where you take your kids

Is your local shopping mall not a peaceful place?

[quiller4]

116. And you don't consider city or state parks peaceful? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. I would suggest never leaving your house if you are that scared.

[Lorien]

137. The ones who are scared are the bed wetting, thumb sucking gun lovers

if you need to carry a gun with you EVERYWHERE you should be seeing a psychologist.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

140. That would be an awful burden on our police officers and soldiers.

Those are the only 2 groups of people that carry guns everywhere they go, that I know of. I know several CCW permit holders and they only carry when they feel it would be prudent to do so. I wouldn't know since I haven't carried a firearm since I was required to do so for the protection of my patients.

David

[vaberella]

10. This was mentioned on MSNBC and I don't get it.

This is a scary world we live in. Like the Wild Wild West.

[Mass]

11. Yep. I posted about that when it was voted in the Senate. I got quite a few people

who thought that they should be able to carry their weapons where they want, without any restriction, because they felt safer this way. My feeling was: "what about my right to feel safe ".

At least, MA rules are restrictive enough that it is reasonably difficult to get a permit, but in other states, I would be worried.

To add insult to injury, they did not have the guts to vote for this independently, but put that in a bill that mattered to make sure it would not be vetoed. COWARDS. (while the same ones mostly voted AGAINST usury rates).

[Lorien]

138. Exactly.

well put. :thumbsup:

[a la izquierda]

162. Nicely put...

I wonder about people who are so afraid that they feel the need to carry guns everywhere (except cops, I guess).
I grew up around guns and have no great love for them. And I've lived in some sketchy places...never felt threatened enough to buy a gun and I'm a 5'1", 100lb woman.

[Howzit]

12. Only if you have a concealed carry permit

Those people that are already able to carry concealed guns in public places by virtue of concealed carry permits, outside of national parks, will also be able to carry the same guns concealed inside the parks. Those without concealed carry permits (the majority of the population) will not be permitted to carry inside parks, just as they are not permitted to carry outside parks.

Helmke's concern about families staring down loaded AK 47s suggests he isn't aware that this legislation covers only concealed weapons, also known as handguns.

[joshcryer]

25. Indeed, and if you are caught with a weapon that isn't, by definition, concealed, you will get...

...arrested and taken in. It's pretty simple, the unlawful people with guns in our national parks will still be breaking the law as soon as the weapon comes out of its case.

[K Gardner]

28. OK, I get it. And I do appreciate those here who explained the new.. err.. law. Now, could

someone PLEASE enlighten me as to WHY people, even those with permission to carry, need to carry in Natl Parks and why they were so desperate to get this passed?

Believe me, I work with a CREW full of people who are licensed to carry, and they scare the bejeezus out of me. Every night, they're talking about buying more bullets, and which bullets do more damage, and which cripples and which kills, and which causes the biggest hole and fastest bleedout (yes, they're nurses and I'm in TN) and how hollow points work and on and on and on.

My question still, is why parks and why now? Are they planning to flee there when we try to round them up for... RE-EDUCATION CAMP ?

:wtf:

[Howzit]

31. Why? Because people are animals. Some of them are predators

When a predator confuses you with an easy target, and no one is around for miles, what are you going to do? Threaten to make a cell phone call?

[boppers]

191. So, if we make it legal for more predators to carry guns...

...they won't be threatening us with their cell phones?

Er, I might be missing the point you were trying to make.

:evilgrin:

[X_Digger]

33. 11 murders, 35 rapes, 16 kidnappings, 261 assaults..

(from 2006 natl parks figures)

There's also an increase in pot farms and meth labs on national park land, ran by thugs with guns.

[jgraz]

36. So let's add some random shootings by wannabe cowboys

That should round out those stats nicely.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

41. Too bad the condition isn't permanent.

Don't you have to go shoot something?

[iamthebandfanman]

79. lol, pot meet kettle. n/t

[joshcryer]

44. Yeah, because every time CCW is included in stats, the rates go *up.*

For the inept, that's sarcasm: if you include CCW the stats go down dramatically.

"Number of gun deaths for people illegally carrying guns in National Parks."

vs

"Number of deaths for people illegally and legally carrying guns in National Parks."

The number can only go down.

Basic logic, which some irreverent jerks here lack.

[jgraz]

48. Is the law restricted to concealed carry? I don't think so.

Is there some clause I missed that prevents people from openly carrying weapons in national parks? The bill I read only refers to "state weapons laws".

Sorry to deflate your transparent manipulation of the facts. But, in my defense, it was pretty fucking transparent.

[joshcryer]

53. Yes, it is (was) 100% illegal to carry any kind of firearm on National Parks.

Even in some parks bear spray was illegal.

[jgraz]

58. So your (standard) statement on CCW was relevant ... how?

[joshcryer]

60. How is it irrelevant? I don't follow.

What nonsense are you trying to get across?

[jgraz]

62. You want to restrict the conversation to CCW. This bill allows far more than that.

[joshcryer]

67. Do you know of any state that has National Park land which allows rifles?

Honestly?

[jgraz]

70. Under this new law, do you know of any state that doesn't?

Honestly?

[joshcryer]

73. No state will allow rifles on a National Park.

No hunting is allowed, ergo no rifles are allowed. Period. If you were caught with a rifle (or *any* kind of weapon that could kill another animal) you would be a suspected poacher and be in deep shit. I know of no state that would change that rule magically.

National Preserves are another matter, of course, in which hunting is allowed. States allow hunting on State Parks and Forestry land not designated as National Park, and of course the weaponry that goes along with it.

[jgraz]

81. Now we're on rifles. Seriously, you need to focus.

The Coburn amendment says nothing about rifles or concealed weapons. It simply removes federal restrictions on firearms in national parks. If the states allow any form of open carry, that is now allowed inside the parks.

[joshcryer]

82. No, it simply is not..

Please read the national park gun ban law: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/36cfr2.4.pdf

Thanks.

(The current law only addresses CCW. Period.)

[jgraz]

83. Have you read the Coburn amendment?

Coburn certainly thinks it applies to more than CCW. Then again, he ain't the sharpest bulb in the tool shed.

[joshcryer]

84. Yes I read it, it cannot apply to more than CCW because it doesn't ammend old law.

It is added law which must be interpreted correctly. It has been interpreted to only cover CCW, as it should be, because it did not repeal previous law. By saying "is not otherwise prohibited" it is not superceding past law.

[AtheistCrusader]

158. That's not true.

Rifles are perfectly reasonable for self-defense against predators, when outdoors. Washington Statue:

9.41.060
(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;

This is an exception to RCW 9.41.050, which limits where and how one may carry a firearm. Ergo: with this change, you may openly carry a rifle or shotgun in a National Park, just as you may in a National Forest, prior to this ruling change, even when no animal is in season, and no permit to hunt is possessed. Most concealed carry handguns are useless against large predators, however, they work fairly well against the two legged predators that are growing pot, or making meth on public land. But a good rifle is by no means a bad idea. I keep a .45-70 strapped to the side of my pack in National Forests (Snoq-Baker, specifically). I've never needed it, and every single time I've returned home with it unfired, not even needing cleaning, but, if I ever DO need it, nothing else will do. If you are accused of poaching, having the rifle in a clean, unfired state, with a full complement of ammunition is a very good idea.

Anyhoo, in Washington State, my expectation with this change in federal law, open carry of a rifle in a National Park will be legal. This may vary considerably from state to state, for instance in Virginia, and West Virginia, I expect the weapon will have to be unloaded and locked in a case. Not much good if a bear charges you. (Extremely rare event)

NONE of this means people will be allowed to FIRE in a national park, unless you are prepared to explain yourself before a grand jury.

[FailureToCommunicate]

129. Do you realize how LOW those stats are?? Nat'l Parks are (were) among the safest

places, people crime wise. Now compare your stats (which I assume you cited to show that having guns would somehow reduce) to America outside the parks: 30,000 deaths by guns EVERY year. That is 3 or 4 gun deaths every hour of every day of every year.
Sure, let's bring guns to National Parks now! The statistics show that would be a really great plan!
Not!

[X_Digger]

142. Unless you are one of the 11, 16, 35, 261.. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

169. Half of those gun deaths are suicides.

Not sure how many people are going to hike out to the park to commit suicide with a gun.

The 'bad' people were carrying guns in national parks anyway.

[K Gardner]

26. Oh holy freaking hell ! Unbelievable. No words.

[rwheeler31]

30. Aint you out of bullits yet?

[jgraz]

32. It's nice to see the congenitally frightened finally gain access to our country's natural beauty

God knows they can't go anywhere without their shiny metal security blankets.

[here_is_to_hope]

38. Ok, here is the deal, you and me in the Bob Marshall, here comes a Grizzly...

What do you want to do?
I am carrying a handgun that might stop the bear.
You want I should shoot or should I just wait till he kills you?
Get it?
You nannies that never go into the woods have zero right to bitch about the safety habits of those who do.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

51. Oh, I do believe there is some paranoia to it, going by the statistics.

However, it is a shame that in a park that is known for grizzlies, you can't even carry bear spray or a rifle. If you have ever gone deep wood backpacking there is a bit of risk involved, there's no paranoia about it. It's simple fact.

If you stay on the trails you'll be fine, well, more likely to be hit by a biker, off-roader, or fall by accident.

But you'll be fine.

I find it unlikely, though, that you have ever done deep wood treking. Because this simply would not be the opinion you would have. Nature is actually harsh. Really, it is.

[jgraz]

56. OK, bring your bear spray.

Oh, what's that you say? Your bear spray doesn't make that cool PEW PEW sound? Sorry.

I know, if you can't actually KILL something, what's the point?

[joshcryer]

63. It is illegal in some parks.

Are you not reading the thread?

http://www.google.com/search?q=bear+spray+illegal+national+park

Read this: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/04/many-national-parks-recommend-bear-spray-apparently-are-breaking-law

[jgraz]

71. So join the National Bear Spray Association

Oops, once again I forgot the PEW PEW factor. Sorry.

[joshcryer]

75. I don't have a CCW, and see no need for one.

I don't even see a need for bear spray, and I have treked deep into the wilderness. So your hateful generalizations are being ignored for now.

[AngryAmish]

112. Why in the (&%)* is bear spray illegal?

I'm no great outdoorsman but I do go camping. Every few years I go into bear country. No way am I going w/o said bear spray and if I was trained I would carry a weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

163. A bear may try to eat me, but I'm damn sure not going to provide seasoning.

[joshcryer]

49. The irony: sportsmen pay for the parks.

Yet they get shit on by environmentalists.

[jgraz]

76. Your most absurd statement yet. The National Park Service is paid for out of the General Fund

You might want to look up the most recent federal budget. I don't recall a "sportsmen only" restriction on national park funding.

[AtheistCrusader]

164. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Pittman-Robertson act.

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd16usc669.htm

We have an 11% excise tax on all long gun ammunition and other firearms related gear, that is specifically dedicated to public lands, conservation, on down to hunter safety education. For public lands in the state of Washington, it makes up about 50% of the budget for wildlife conservation of our forests and parks. For other states, that percentage may vary.

[PJPhreak]

50. Thats why...

a intelligent backwoods hiker carries a Bear-Bell on his pack and a can of Bear-Spray. (VERY Condensed PepperSpray/Mace Combo that can be sprayed for 20 to 50 Feet) And let me say that if Bear-Spray won't stop that Grizzly I really doubt anything short of a .50 Cal probably would either.

And The other and maybe MORE important Question is...Can you be COMPLEATLY sure that you can stop a "Pissed Off" Grizzly with just One or Two Shots?? If you don't....And This Infuriates that beast all the more... You Are DEAD!

[joshcryer]

54. Except bear spray is illegal in some parks. :/

And is it even effective against cats?

[jgraz]

57. News flash Mr. Deep Woods Trekker: bear spray == pepper spray

And yes, it works just fine on cats. Wanna ask how I know that?

[joshcryer]

61. You've been attacked by a mountain lion?

Interesting.

[jgraz]

68. Happily, no. I froze, it left.

That's when I looked into getting that bear spray you seem so obsessed with.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted sub-thread

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

[here_is_to_hope]

80. Yeah, bear bells are good, its how we find the missing hikers....

BTW, there is no Forest Service land in Kansas...and your only National Park is a grassland, is that where you made all of your nifty trails?

Will there be anything else?

[PJPhreak]

86. Dude...

I am sorry that you seem to think that just because I live in Ks..That I haven't spent any time in what you might call a real "National Park".
And just because I live in a state that does not have one that happens to be in a Mountainous area you are assuming that I know not of what I speak?

Hummmm...I guess that you must assume that most MtBikers are from Portland Ore,Ride $3500 Trek FS Downhill Boonie Crashers,Skid Knobbie Tires around every trail corner and turn,toss Starbucks Cups everywhere,are covered in Tats,and Jammin out to Korn or Slipnot.

I can recommend a VERY good Bicycle Message Board if you would REALLY like to learn about the Sport,its Riders and Equipment.

[jberryhill]

123. I thought Kansas was a national park

Wasn't the entire state of Kansas designated as the federal redneck preserve a while back?

[PJPhreak]

134. Hummmm...

Kansas is kinda like a George Carlin "Hippie Dippie Weather Report"....

"Mostly Freeper with Widely scattered pockets of Liberal and Progressive"

[MercutioATC]

127. They're also a great way to tell black bear scat from grizzly scat.

The grizzly scat has the bells in it.

[quiller4]

117. Bear spray may be useful but it is illegal in most parks n/t

[FailureToCommunicate]

107. "Safety habits"?? You gotta be kidding us. Or yourself. Oh and by the way Park Rangers

are almost unanimously AGAINST allowing guns in parks, for the obvious reason that it makes their job much more dangerous.

[Arctic Dave]

42. You need guns to protect you from someone who might want to

rape your fourteen year old daughter and kill your family, or invade your country and kill 1,000,000 of your citizens. Or you can just stay away from the the US Army.

[rwheeler31]

72. This is getting really weired.

[kestrel91316]

59. Poaching of wildlife in National Parks to begin in 3....2....1....

[masuki bance]

69. Poaching is illegal, by definition.

[kestrel91316]

95. REALLY? Gee, I had no idea.

We have a shitload of miscreants in this country who will see this as the perfect opportunity to humt game that they have been unable to get close to with a gun until now. Lots of Americans resent the existence of our national parks and want to be able to hunt anything, anywhere, anytime.

[MercutioATC]

128. Ok, so they'll poach (which is illegal) but they won't carry a gun into a park

unless Congress passes a law making it legal.

Dude, you shouldn't be allowed around sharp objects.

[cherokeeprogressive]

102. So, no wildlife was poached in the past?

Is that what you're saying? That there was NO poaching, and now there WILL be? That's what you're saying, right?

[konnichi wa]

124. Funny, your zero never arrived.

Just like your conclusion.

[snowdays]

66. playing with lives. what a shame.

...........President Ronald Reagan first required guns to be stored or inoperable in national parks 25 years ago, but last December, just before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned that rule.

That began a game of legal Ping-Pong. In March, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the Bush rule, and the Obama administration said it wouldn't appeal.

That action spurred Sen. Tom Coburn , R- Okla. , to include the gun rule in the credit card bill. It wound up winning by an unexpectedly lopsided vote.

[LanternWaste]

87. That's it then...

That's it then-- I don't really see myself going to any more National Parks in the near future.

[inkool]

91. Can I ask why?

Texas already allows concealed carry of firearm in most places. What makes National Parks different then state parks or shopping malls?

[slackmaster]

100. You're just about out of places to go, LW

I hope you enjoy spending your time in airports and courthouses.

[Jakes Progress]

131. Yeah. We need guns in airports.

And in court rooms. That way when the bad guys show up, we can all shoot them. Or is the fantasy just that you personally will leap over the table, roll on the floor, and zip off a cool shot just as the bad guy is about to strangle the doggie. Or, or, or, Hey, I could maybe, you know, like keep the bad cop from shooting the good guy who seems like a bad guy -- or no, I know, I'm the scruffy but cool outsider, maybe an ex-cop or ex-spy. I'm totally the best shot in the world and if they let me have my gun, I can... well do something super cool and stuff.

Too much TV? Who me?

[slackmaster]

144. Straw Man

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

148. Yeah. We can shoot those too.

It's not a straw man. It is just that so many of the gunnies I know are filled with a fantasy world where guns make them important. That's okay. We all have our alternative reality scenarios.

Not every gunny is stricken with Hollywood's version of what a gun means, but many of the excuses for them I see evidence that kind of thinking. Better to just say "I want my gun. I will lobby to have my gun. Tough shit if you don't like it." All these convoluted and very unrealistic reasons why people need to carry all the time are the real straw men.

Me. I've got two guns. Locked and registered. I don't feel the need to show them to everyone nor hold them close to me to make me feel safe. They are tools. Now if I were going to slobber over a tool, it would me my venerable four and a half smoothing plane. That is a real piece of art.

[X_Digger]

155. Funny that your avatar..

..is the venerable Mrs. Roosevelt, who often carried a pistol in her purse while driving alone across the country.

(Here's her concealed carry application- http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/eleanor-roosevelts-concealed-carry-application/)

[Jakes Progress]

168. Does your arm hurt

after that looooooooong reach for something relevant to the discussion.

Why is that funny? Just say you want to carry your gun. Don't look for some clever reason or justification. You just want to. That's enough.

[AtheistCrusader]

170. Yep.

I also 'want' to carry a CPR face shield, a first aid kit and a multitool with a knife on my person, and a fire extinguisher in my truck.

In lawful usage, just like a firearm, all of these things can be used to protect human life. Yes a firearm can be used to take life, and it often is, by criminals. But for us, we use it to protect life. Our own, and others.

Same reason a police officer carries. Even though we have tragedies like that shooting in the Oakland subway by a transit officer. The proper, lawful usage, for a police officer's sidearm is to protect human life.

[Jakes Progress]

180. Sounds like the Bat Belt.

Protected from all of life and living. Whatever gets you out the door.

However. A citizen carrying a gun is not the same as a police officer carrying a gun. You know that one was a little silly, don't you. But you do live out the fantasy with the last sentence. You see your gun as a way to protect human life. Whew. That's a tall order. Glad we still have super heroes to watch over mankind. Hope all those face shields and first aid kits and multi tool skinning/slicing knives, and secret decoder rings don't hamper you crusade.

[X_Digger]

171. Fine, ironic then..

The fact that you choose as your avatar an outspoken woman who chose to defy a price on her head set by the Klan, but at the same time refused secret service protection- that she chose to protect herself on back roads, and even in a 'labor school'- the irony of that makes me chuckle.

Re your straw man (airports, court houses, etc.)- nobody proposed that, yet you saw fit to ascribe that position to slackmaster.

[Jakes Progress]

181. Still stretching.

If - I - can - just - reach - a -few - more - incong-rueities. -pant,pant,pant. Must - stop - commie - gun -hater.

Yep. Eleanor is a big hero of mine. She did stand against the Klan (which supports your position) and was very forward looking. Did you know that she was doing these things seventy years ago? That was a few years back. I don't blame you for wanting to find any example of a true progressive who had a gun, but again. Seventy years ago? Things were a little different then. Of course just like today, had a dozen Klan cars with about thirty inbred hicks attacked her, that little gun wouldn't have done a thing. But it is a big part of the gun toter's fantasy, isn't it. Shoot outs with the bad guys. Hero time.

Besides when the spokes men for your cause is the Klan, Heston, Palin, that half-naked guitar player, Cheney, and a whole stable of right wing wackos, you just gotta reach for those tenuous threads for some semblance of legitimacy.

Funny how you carrying a thrity-eight to ward off grizzly bears isn't a straw man, but bringing up the concept that the government already limits where guns can be carried is not.

So. Answer this. If you find these examples straw men, then you must agree with the exclusion of packing in airports and court houses. If that is so, how is it denying your rights, as so frequently whined in this thread, to exclude them from national parks? If the government has the right to limit in some places, why is it okay in others? But you knew that was the point of the comparison, didn't you? It just sounded all chest thumpy to call it a straw man. Then you could dismiss the concept without addressing it.

So hold your weapon real close. You know the NRA says that Obama is gonna take your sacred fire stick from your hands before their cold and dead.

[X_Digger]

182. Now you're really off in the bushes..

The Klan and Jim Crow laws are the reason for gun control laws in the south.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

I don't think you understand what a straw man is- you ascribe a position to your opponent that they never took, only to tear it down- burning it in effigy.

You said- "Yeah. We need guns in airports. And in court rooms." as though it were the person's position that you responded to. He made no such claim, therefore it's a straw man.

I've never said that a prohibition on concealed carry in national parks is an infringement of my second amendment rights (there you go again, ascribing a position to me that I never took.) I've taken the position that it makes it less confusing to those who do carry, especially when you have state parks abutting national forest, abutting national parks. I've also asserted that CHL holders have a lower criminal rate than the general population and even LEOs (in the states that report on such offenses by CHL status). If you wish to take issue with my positions, please get them correct first.

re the venerable Mrs R- the reasons she gave- being self-sufficient and taking reasonable precautions to take care of herself- those are as valid today as they were in the 50's.

[Jakes Progress]

183. Sorry.

But the Klan does support your position. Your self-serving sites might have some off-the-wall screed that says the Klan is behind the plot to take your guns. One kook doesn't a sound position make. When my law enforcement uncles worked the south in the sixties, it was the Klan who promoted open carry. If you have a strong stomach, you can check their pages now. All of the white supremacist groups argue against the commie Democratic plot to take their weapons.

Now, let's talk about straw man arguments. Please go back and review the posts before mine that you quote. I'll wait. ........ See? I didn't ascribe that position to SM. He said that was the only place where your could not take guns - making fun of the person who fears armed campers more than he fears marauding herds of bears. My very humorous rejoinder implied sarcastically that it made just as much sense to take guns into those places. It was not a rebuttal of SM's statement since he didn't make an argument.

I think you are the one who does not understand the concept of a straw man argument. Or else you don't mind using them. You take me to task not getting your positions about low crime rates and confused campers with guns correct. I never addressed those. Maybe you confuse me with another thread or part of this one. So many irons in the fire. Or is it fire arms in the fire. Or....

Your love of Eleanor's supposed support of your position is understandable. We can't ask her how she would feel about this. She has been unavailable since 1952. We know how dick cheney feels. And donald rumsfeld.

Finally, you still managed to avoid answering the question about the right of the government to regulate and limit fire arm usage. Hence my question about airports and court houses. Do you think we should pack in the court house? The airport? If so, is there a limit to the size and type of arms allowed? Do you believe the government has the right to regulate and limit the types of arms that at person can carry anywhere at all? Now those are some germane questions. Care to deal with them? Then we could see if we have any overlapping views on the subject.

[X_Digger]

185. Here's another read for you..

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-FourteenthAmendment.html
Fourteenth Amendment
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States

The Klan's Favorite Law
Gun control in the postwar South
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32884.html

If you don't understand that in the wake of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments that racists twisted laws to keep minorities out of public life (Plessy v Fergusson, Berea College v. Kentucky) and deprived of liberties afforded whites, you really need to study post reconstruction law more. memory.loc.gov has the original transcripts of the 39th congress, it's worth a look.

In the North, the same logic was applied to immigrants-

January 27, 1905 New York Times Editorial ahead of the passing of the Sullivan Act in NY-

"{The proposed gun control} measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community."

Now, Big Tim had other reasons for passing this law (google Tammany Hall), but the act was riding a wave of anti-immigrant paranoia.

Do you really think that the Klan supports my position- that those most oppressed- minorities, women, GLBT, the economically disadvantaged, should have the right to defend themselves? (I'm a member of Pink Pistols Dallas, thank you very much.)

If you wish to have another discussion about whether guns should or shouldn't be allowed in court houses, start a new thread.

eta: Here's another good read from the Chicago-Kent College of law. "NEVER INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE WHITE POPULATION": FIREARMS REGULATION AND RACIAL DISPARITY—THE REDEEMED SOUTH'S LEGACY TO A NATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE?* http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/11cd-reg.pdf

[Jakes Progress]

189. Drivel.

I go away for a day and come back to more cited drivel. You can't use screeds of paid flaks as proof of anything.

Your first cite doesn't even mention guns. It only mentions arms in listing the bill of rights. The point of that article was that the Klan sought to keep all rights from African Americans. They were four square behind their own rights to carry guns anywhere they wanted - sort of similar to your position. My uncles who worked in law enforcement in the South in the sixties would have loved to limit the Klan's free use of their guns. The Klan spoke fervently of their rights to "bear arms" and about how the gumment was gonna take away their guns.

Your second piece was a crude paste-up job by an person that might as well be a paid staffer for the gun lobby. If you check his works, you will see only rants about guns. Even the tobacco industry has "professors" who support it's use. Exxon has a lot of apologists who use "science" to disprove climate change.

Again you keep looking back to another century. In this century, your allies are people like Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and a raft of white supremecist groups like the Klan. I know you would like to take on the mantle of defender of the downtrodden for gun toters, but we know that the NRA supports the republican party and they supported McCain/Palin. So your rather crude rhetorical attempt holds no water.

Why won't you state your position about whether the government has the right to ban guns from court houses and airports? Why must it be another thread? Could it be that if you say yes, you will lose your standing in the PP? Could it be that you know that saying no is intellectually indefensible? I think the answer to this question is much more germane to the OP than three or four cites from a NRA pamphlet.

[X_Digger]

190. How do you like carrying the Klan's water?

Gun control does in fact have it's roots in anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-negro / anti-freedman (to use the terminology of the time) rhetoric. Can't have those 'undesirables' being able to protect themselves, can we? But hey, I can set aside the guilt by association if you can.

My great grandfather was a justice of the peace in War Eagle, WV then a deputy sheriff in southwest Virginia from the 40's to his retirement in 1974. As the only law enforcement within 30 miles of mountainous terrain, he fought everything from moonshiners and union-busting pitts / pinkerton men to klan lynch mobs and pot growers. He was a dyed-in-the-wool UMWA man, and lifelong democrat- you know what he recommended for any freedom loving liberal? The ability and proficiency to protect that freedom. He slept with a loaded 38 on his nightstand and my great grandmother had a 32 on her nightstand.

My "allies" are people like the Seattle lesbian who shot a hillbilly who was verbally assaulting her and her partner for two miles on a city bus, then got off with them and started to physically abuse her partner. My "allies" include the 57 year old woman who shot the man who had raped her the week before, and broke into her house a second time to do so again. Or the Springfield, Missouri woman who kept her knife-wielding would-be rapist busy long enough for her kids to get out of the house before she claimed she had to go to the bathroom, grabbed her pistol and wounded him.

Your "allies" are headlined by people who have paid security or they actually have concealed carry licenses (a la Chuck Schumer - D-NY). It's easy for them to decry the proliferation of guns- when they are either armed or surrounded by bodyguards and security.

Regarding more guilt by association- the NRA and republicans. The NRA supports candidates who are behind their policies. They gave more to democrats in the last election cycle than ever before- when (not if) more democratic candidates espouse ideas that the NRA supports, they can expect to be rated well by the NRA and get campaign contributions. Senators like Jim Webb (D-Virginia) received an 'A' rating by the NRA, and they've endorsed democrats with a high rating over republicans with low ratings.

[Jakes Progress]

193. You would have to tell me what it's like.

You are pulling at small hairs with this NRA and guns as the basis for equal rights.

Scared and frightened. That's not the way to self-empowerment.

Your post answers any questions I had about why you would think toting guns like it was 1850.

Again. You love talking about others. Have you decided if the government has the right to limit where you carry guns? I know it is a dilemma for you. Just put a gun on the desk next to the keyboard and pretend you are Chuck Heston. You can do it.

[X_Digger]

194. Somehow I knew you couldn't set aside

.. the guilt by association crap.

What I don't think you understand is that we 'gunnies' talk to each other, across websites, blogs, forums, sporting goods stores, practice ranges, and association meetings. We're informed, connected, and knowledgeable about firearms, the firearms industry, the news of firearms use, and the laws of our counties, cities, states, and country.

There are 12 million of us who are involved with one organization or another out of the 90 million gun owners, 4 million who belong to NRA. We tell the NRA what to do, not vice versa.

Since you seem to have your panties in a twist about the government's ability to limit where guns are carried, I'll address it just to make you happy. The government (who serve at the pleasure of we the people) has the power (notice I did not say right- rights are reserved to people, powers are granted to the government) to regulate where and how arms are carried.

The level of scrutiny for the second amendment jurisprudence should approach that of other amendments (strict scrutiny) but until recently, no jurist has weighed in on whether or not the second amendment is an individual right. With that decision finally on paper (DC v Heller), and the 9th circuit ruling that the second amendment is incorporated against the states (Nordyke v King), the stage is set for a level of scrutiny to be decided for arms regulation. (Assuming an en banc review in the 9th circuit affirms the findings of fact and kicks Nordyke or similar case up to the SCOTUS.) If indeed, we get strict scrutiny, then government regulation of where firearms can be carried (among other regulation) will have to meet some stringent requirements-

-First, it must show a compelling governmental interest.
-Second, the it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
-Third, the it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Now even in Heller the court stated that regulations prohibiting the carry of weapons in sensitive areas (court houses, secured areas of airports, prisons, etc) would likely be upheld (just like you can't stand on a soapbox in a courtroom and ramble on, first amendment be damned) even under strict scrutiny.

eta: fixed italics

[Jakes Progress]

200. I know that hurt.

Hope you don't lose your seat the the PP meetings.

Thank you for admitting that carrying can have negative consequences.

Now we could argue about the OP and whether guns in the national parks are a good idea. I'm going to assume that that argument wouldn't be productive. I doubt that I could be convinced that I have to worry that the loud mouth drunk in the next camp site might be packing heat is a good thing. I doubt that I could convince you that the bears at Hot Springs are not a real threat. We could debate what weapons, by what populations are suitable. But again to little purpose.

You enjoy your guns. It's just fine. You seem like a steady minded person. I'll keep mine locked up.

(By the way. You started the association thing with the snark about Eleanor when you implied that I was inconsistent in opposing guns in the parks because I admire her. So why is it not the same to tweak the inconsistency in reverse. I think you know that I in no way suggested that you shared Cheney's penchant for war mongering because you share his love of weaponry. But it was no less silly than your idea that got this started. Goose and gander, you know.)

[X_Digger]

201. There you go again..

.. assuming you know how I feel about something. I have never said that carrying does not have negative consequences, so not sure where you're getting that. Nor does your imaginary opinion of my position have anything to do with the pink pistols.

re the association thing- Not everyone who agrees with a certain viewpoint shares any other viewpoint. Pol Pot was for socialized medicine. You wouldn't call people who are for single payer followers of Pot, would you?

[LanternWaste]

149. I have little doubt your hope is as sincere as are you...

I have little doubt your hope is as sincere as are you.

"There is more in heaven and earth than in your airports..."

[slackmaster]

156. I sincerely think your position on this subject is based on drama more than actual concern

:hi:

[AlinPA]

89. I would feel better if people carried their guns out in the open instead of hiding them.

The law about hiding them doesn't feel right to me - it's hard to explain, it's about trust, I guess.

[inkool]

92. In PA...

there is no law about hiding firearms. legally speaking it is easier to open carry then concealed carry.

[AlinPA]

93. Definitely. Keeping them out in the open could go a long way toward trust in this issue.

Somewhere, out west I think, I saw a guy in a grocery store with a gun in a holster and was impressed with his openness and that established a level of trust. The next person could have been hiding theirs, (and obviously I wouldn't have known), it's just the idea of people hiding them that bothers me. We have a right to own guns so laws should be aimed at at removing the hidden gun issue, maybe there would be one less thing to argue about when it comes to guns.

[inkool]

94. I agree to a point...

Openness and trust will always help a debate. I am just not sure, at least in PA, that we are ready for that level of openness.

My Sheriff advices LTCF (license To Carry Firearm) holders to keep there firearms concealed at all times. The below is from the information sheet handed out when you receive your license.

Overt and unnecessary display of your firearm in public places can cause alarm and adverse reactions by our fellow-citizens, and create embarrassing situations, which could result in the revocation of your license. Carrying a firearm creates the possibility of it being taken away from you and used against you or another person.

There is no legal requirement to keep a firearm concealed, but I personally avoid open carry for the reasons listed above. As there have been incidents where someone caused a minor panic, or was harassed (by citizens and police) when legally open carrying a firearm.

I think there would need to be a substantial shift in public attitudes toward firearms before open carry could became the norm.

[JohnnyBoots]

90. Could President Obama add a siging statement to neutralize the Coburn rider on guns in National

parks? Worked for Bush, why not use the established Executive precedent of signing statements to do a little good?

[slackmaster]

98. The Astute Reader(TM) will note the phrase "...if they abide by state weapons laws."

Which means weapons can be carried only by people who have met their state's qualifications for and been issued a concealed weapons permit.

This is a classic tempest in a teapot.

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. What is surreal and scary is that there are folks here who think that there were no guns

in national parks on Tuesday. Or last week. Or last month. Or last year. Or in the last decade. Or in the last century.

Get real.

[inkool]

103. What is more surreal for me.

Is the belief that this will cause normally law abiding citizens who have a carry license to go Rambo berserk and start shooting up the forests.

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. It's painfully obvious that there are "Gun Nuts" on both sides of the issue. n/t

[FailureToCommunicate]

130. Sure there are SOME but fewer. That is part of the reason parks are relatively

safer than, say Newark, New Jersey or Miami... safer from human danger that is. Gravity is still near the top of the list for danger to humans in most parks. And car accidents.

[slackmaster]

147. The real reason that parks are safer than Newark or Miami is the signicantly lower number of...

...people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

167. I was going to say...

criminals.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. This is really dumb.

Not carrying concealed weapons in national parks, but the reaction to this amendment.

We just passed massive credit card reform and all the republicans got was a pittance, this silly removal of an irelevant piece of gun control legislation.

This is a good day for progressives, and the rest of the country.

[S_E_Fudd]

108. I reacted like you did at first...and I am still pissed...

That this was attached to the credit card bill...

But really this just means national parks have the same regs as the state they are in...

Alot of states (most) ban guns in their state parks so it won't really affect it much...

[Vinca]

110. It really makes you want to go camping.

Nothing like a crazed, drunken idiot deciding to play shoot 'em up in the middle of the night. Frightening.

[slackmaster]

113. Great stereotype but it isn't accurate

People with permits don't do that sort of thing. In most states they have passed background checks and taken classes about their state laws on use of firearms and deadly force.

BTW - Current law doesn't prohibit possession of firearms in NPs altogether. Someone who is inclined to get drunk and go on a shooting rampage could already have a weapon in a park. Allowing people with permits to carry them concealed isn't going to make any difference.

[inkool]

114. Why do you think that will happen?

Is there a rash of playing shoot'em up in New Hampshire state parks and forests? Or for that matter any state parks or forests where concealed firearm carry is allowed?

[Vinca]

119. Yet someday, when the next mass killing occurs (and it will)

the nation will be outraged. Guns, guns, guns, guns - we love 'em. Gotta have them in the house, in the car, in the picnic basket, in the schools, in the churches, in the stores, at the movies - gotta be safe, gotta protect that second amendment (created, by the way, when loading and firing a weapon was no easy task). And we can't have just any guns, nope. A snub-nosed .38 won't do. It's gotta be an automatic. It's gotta hold lots and lots and lots and lots of rounds and it's gotta be powerful. Wouldn't want to take down a 2 point buck with just any only rifle. Nope. Gotta blow the thing to tiny bits with an assault rifle. We love our guns.

[inkool]

121. Nice rant...

Not sure what it has to do with the topic.

Oh and Technology advances and those advances are still covered by the constitution. Also most assault rifles are less powerful then most hunting rifles, at least when you are talking about big game like deer.

[centristgrandpa]

111. Enabler's...

It's quite obvious that you've never experience a close encounter with Yeti the smoke-less Sasquatch. He or she is a dangerous vegetarian whose legendary compassionate conservatism attitude is the missing link of the GOP... Could be a national security thing...down right amazing them demo's and repubs, aNd we thought those public servants were idiots... :wtf:

[TheKentuckian]

118. Good. I generally packed anyway.

Animals are just a tiny reason. Mostly, its for probability of neckish and/or thieving humans.

[Honeycombe8]

132. I think it might be necessary. People are murdered in Nat'l Parks...

I'm not sure how often. But if I were to go to a Nat'l Park with a friend, I think I'd take a gun for protection. Any bad guys in the Park wouldn't follow the law, of course...they'd be packing. And of course, they don't even need to pack to murder. They just need the element of surprise and a plan.

[Lorien]

139. That's exactly why I DON'T want guns in National Parks

There's no proof anywhere that guns keep you safer. From all evidence, quite the opposite is true.

[anonymous171]

151. Yes, god forbid people can actually defend themselves. nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

153. From what? See post # 106 above...

[anonymous171]

154. Criminals maybe? nt

[slackmaster]

176. There isn't any evidence that lawfully carrying one for self-defense makes anyone less safe

If a person has qualified for a permit and carries a weapon legally, if that makes him or her FEEL safer I don't have a problem with it.

Lots of drama queen-like action in this thread. I find it entertaining but kind of sad.

[Honeycombe8]

177. There is ample proof that women who meet up with bad dudes.....

are at a big disadvantage, if they aren't armed.

I have a gun. I've had to pull it before on a criminal trying to break into my apartment. I was able to prevent him from coming inside ONLY because I had a gun pointed at his head. If I hadn't had the gun, he could've come in, raped me, robbed me, murdered me. I wouldn't have had a chance.

Criminalists will tell you....male criminals have a strong advantage over female victims. Their arms are longer, they are street dudes used to violence, their arms are much stronger, and they have the element of surprise and a plan. Women don't stand much of a chance. Unless they have a weapon that helps even the odds.

How many women who have gone missing would've not disappeared had they been armed (and trained in the use of firearms)? Hard to say. But even one is reason enough.

Have gun, will travel. Break into my house, prepare to be shot. I may get killed, but he's going with me, if I have anything to say about it. And I do.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

211. I agree with you

As a former victim of rape and robbery I can tell you, had I had a gun, I would have had a chance.

We have guns.

We play by the rules.

Criminals do not understand the rules.

Fuck them.

If anyone ever attempts to hurt me or my family I would have no problem unloading a shotgun into them... Ouch.

And I am not a member of the NRA. Never will be - they are crazy fuckers.

[Lorien]

136. I agree debberlus

I sure as hell won't be camping in a National park again if this thing is passed. I'm absolutely sick of the whole gun culture in this violence obsessed Nation filled with men with tiny dicks. Enough already!

[inkool]

141. I am sick of people...

not being able to discuss issues they disagree on without resorting to insults.

[polichick]

145. +1

[slackmaster]

146. Irrational fear combined with an obsession for penises is a sad, sad thing

:rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

186. So you agree

that irrational fear and penis obsession are the main reason people buy guns?

[anonymous171]

152. I'm pretty sure that most men have penises that are longer than a .38

Just saying. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

175. Mine was described recently as "prime real estate"

There is no shortage of hose in my house.

[one-eyed fat man]

208. Charlie Manson never killed anyone.....

he had love-starved hippie chicks obsessed with his dick do it for him.

[polichick]

143. Maybe the thinking is the bad guys are already carrying, so now...

...regular folks can protect themselves ~ but this is actually just the most recent cave to the disgusting NRA.

[FloriTexan]

157. How is this a cave to the NRA?

This is not about rifles its about handguns. Speaking as someone with a CHL I am not a member of the NRA. This is about extending the rights of people who take the time and training to carry hand guns legally.

[anonymous171]

150. We should have added that provision to the original bill.

It might have survived.

[Canuckistanian]

173. You won't see me going to a park after this takes effect

The parks will become a magnet for gun nuts. It'll be their idea of heaven.

Their WILL be deaths. There WILL be poaching and destruction of wildlife.

And the park rangers' jobs have just got a whole lot more difficult.

And yet another thing killing off tourism.

[slackmaster]

174. Canuckistanian, normally I agree with much of what you post on these forums

But that one was pure codswallop. Painting people who have qualified for concealed weapons permits as potential murderers and poachers demonstrates either a deep misunderstanding or simple prejudice on your part.

[Canuckistanian]

178. I admit my bias - I'm totally anti-gun

They should only be in the hands of law enforcement personnel and hunters.

Handguns are banned in my country and I like it that way. And my opinion is the same as the majority here.

Just look at the gun death statistics between our two countries. Americans pay a heavy price for all that gun freedom.

I'm already nervous about visiting America, and I've heard stories of tourists being held up more times than I can remember.

This is something I'm making a choice about. The more guns that are allowed, the less I want to spend time there.

[slackmaster]

179. The adoption by most US states of objective systems for issuing permits has caused no real problems

It's not as if the new law, if adopted, would allow anyone to carry any kind of weapon they feel like.

Most states require some pretty intense training before they will issue a concealed handgun permit. A good instructor teaches you the legal and moral aspects of use of deadly force.

Briefly, even if you are legally and morally justified in shooting someone, your life is probably going to become very difficult at least for a while. You may be jailed, albeit temporarily; you may spend money defending yourself; you may be sued; you may be harassed.

It's not a casual matter at all. People who have never taken a class on self-defense (including martial arts and edged weapons) generally don't understand it.

[one-eyed fat man]

213. sure tourists are a target

don't you remember the 13 and 14 year old little shits in Florida who killed the British tourists some 15 years ago? You forget how they explained in open court how they INTENTIONALLY picked tourists coming out of the airport and in a rental car because that certified them gun free, unlike Florida residents who might have a CCW.

So maybe you are right, those who carry concealed do make it more dangerous for you. It causes crooks to intentionally strive to those who are unarmed to victimize.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/23/us/4-florida-teen-agers-charged-in-killing-of-tourist.html

[benEzra]

184. Only if you're already licensed by the state to carry a gun down Main Street, at the mall,

at the supermarket, at Wal-Mart, at McDonald's, and on National Forest or Bureau of Land Management lands.

This law just allows state rules on carry licensure to apply to National Parks, just like it used to be before Reagan's favorite strip miner (yes, that James Watt) decreed that state gun rules didn't apply in "his" parks.

[Blue_In_AK]

187. Firearms have been allowed in certain Alaska national parks

(the ones created after the 1980 ANILCA settlement) for some time now and nothing terrible has happened.

[Kaleva]

188. Yogi & Boo Boo's picnic stealing days are numbered

[boppers]

192. Time to up-arm the Park Rangers.

They're gonna need armored vehicles, protective vests, Kevlar helmets, etc. We might also need a few million dollars worth of signage, to warn people that yahoos firing 'at bears' are really just scared hicks who don't know how to deal with a bear or big cat without a firearm.

I figure a buck per round national excise tax should cover it, if not, we can increase it to two bucks a round, and so on. Oh, actually, since a few rounds pumped into a bear tends to kill off carrion wildlife (such as condors), maybe three bucks a round, to cover conservation efforts. Heck, lets round up to five.

Nobody in serious fear for their life would think twice about unloading five shots (25 bucks) to save themselves, but it would certainly cut down on "inadvertent discharges", as well as the morons who "spray" a weapon for their personal giggles.

[slackmaster]

195. You should read up on the subject before attempting to comment on it

:eyes:

[boppers]

203. What portion should I be reading up on?

The increased amount of weaponry being allowed inside of parks, so the increased safety gear needed inside of those parks? With the resulting costs of such safety gear?

[slackmaster]

204. The part about the change applying only to people who have state-issued concealed weapons permits

The same people who are already carrying concealed handguns at shopping malls, on sidewalks, in suburban parks, at beaches, driving around on highways, etc. and have not resulted in local police, sheriffs, etc. up-arming or needing "increased safety gear", whatever that means.

Your post had no basis in fact. Facts ARE available, but you choose to pull some knee-jerk nonsense out of your ass and post it.

[boppers]

206. Uh, your're thinking about last year's change. Not this one.

Concealed carry in National Parks was already done under *.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28072607/

Old news.

This is expanding it to everyone who can get a license (if needed by the state), not just people who have been screened/tested/vetted for concealed carry.

Big differences between those two groups.

[mrs_p]

196. we spend one week in the

backcountry of glacier NP every year. the only reason someone would use a gun out there would be to kill an animal (which includes humans). i say, if you can't handle being back there without a gun, you shouldn't be back there. it makes it more dangerous for the rest of us.

[IndianaGreen]

202. We will bring our 105mm howitzers in tow

and blast away at them bears.

[TheKentuckian]

207. Lost in the handwringing is

that many, maybe even most of the people who will pack already did. Responsible owners, especially concealed permit holders are statistically null from a gun crime standpoint and criminals and idiots aren't wrapped up to tightly in the rules.
Firearms are implements not boogiemen. The piece of equipment is not going to possess someone and make them go on a rampage. Nor would a piece of paper with a signature prevent somebody from filling you and yours with lead.

[amborin]

209. agree! we've got to confront the NRA

[LooseWilly]

212. I think I'll call my gun "Saltiness"... and take it on a date to Yosemite...

Since when were national parks some sort of "violence sanctuary"? People with legal and illegal guns do stuff in this country... the parks are just places in the country with trees (or shrubs in the case of the Angeles National Forest) and whatnot.

Move to one of the top 10 violent cities in the country, and live there for a while... and after that things like the hijacking of this law won't phase you a bit.

For bonus points, drive a taxi for a few years in the worst neighborhoods in one of those cities. (I chose Oakland, CA... down to #8 last year...)