NRA GUNNING FOR FIREARMS POLICIES IN NATIONAL PARKS

[nosmokes]

Just what we need... more idiots shooting up our treasures and signs in our parks.:sarcasm:
--###--

original-peer
For Immediate Release: February 12, 2008
Contact: Carol Goldberg [phone]

NRA GUNNING FOR FIREARMS POLICIES IN NATIONAL PARKS

— Legislative Drive to Allow Armed Park Visitors Rooted in Misinformation

Washington, DC — A campaign by the National Rifle Association to repeal National Park Service rules relating to firearms is based upon misconceptions, according to an analysis released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). If the NRA is successful, it would mark the first time Congress would have enacted a statute to repeal a regulation governing the national park system – in this case, rules that date back to the origin of national parks.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has prepared legislation forbidding the Interior Secretary from enforcing “any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System…” On December 14, 2007, a group of 47 senators wrote to Interior Secretary Kempthorne urging repeal of these regulations because they are “confusing, burdensome and unnecessary”. The NRA claims credit for both the letter and the Coburn amendment. A Senate vote on the Coburn amendment may occur as early as this week.

A central assertion is that the current regulation offends the Second Amendment by prohibiting the possession of a firearm in parks. That is not the case, however. The regulation (36 CFR 2.4) says that –

“…unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.”

In fact, these rules, re-written in 1983 under the Reagan administration, were intended to relax earlier strict prohibitions. As the National Park Service (NPS) then explained: “he Service has determined that it is not feasible to prohibit the possession of weapons in all situations, and a total prohibition would be unenforceable” (48 FR 30256).

“The Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear Arms’ does not specify that the weapons must always be loaded and holstered,” stated PEER Board Member Frank Buono, the former deputy superintendent of Mojave National Preserve, noting the fundamental reason for this regulation is to prevent opportunistic poaching, as most park units forbid hunting. “It is amazing that for more than seven decades the vigilant guardians of the Second Amendment never before discovered this hidden violation of the Constitution by the National Park Service.”

The other rationale for removing firearm regulations is “consistency in firearms policy” on federal lands, according to the senators’ letter. Senator Coburn’s legislation would have federal firearm policy conform to state laws, but because firearms laws vary from state to state, there would then be at least 50 sets of rules for federal lands. In some instances, where a park straddles a state line, there would be two different firearms policies in different sections of the same park.

“This uniformity argument is absurd,” Buono added, pointing out that the White House is also part of the national park system. “We don’t allow guns on airplanes, in penitentiaries or in the halls of Congress, either. In this case, to paraphrase Emerson, foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of shallow politics.”

###













complete release including links to related sources here

[cornermouse]

1. They gotta be able to protect themselves from

all those muggers hiding behind the trees and rocks waiting for the occasional visitor, you know?

[RamboLiberal]

3. After what happened to that female hiker in Georgia

I'm for letting those of us who are licensed to carry our weapons whenever we feel the need. These laws do diddly against those who choose to carry illegally or use their weapons illegally. You only punish the law abiding.

As a female I hate the fact that I either break the law in many areas or I have to feel afraid to enjoy a walk in the woods alone because of predators like Gary Hilton. Sorry, but I'm with the NRA on this one. I wish when the damn Repukes had the power in congress they had passed a national carry law like they did for LEOs and retired LEOs. Perhaps if Meredith Emerson had carried a firearm she would still be alive. We'll never know but it would've given her more of a fighting chance.

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

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

The young woman, a vibrant 24-year-old with a steel will, may have acted not just to save herself, but to help authorities apprehend her captor.

"It is unclear, I would like to think she was doing everything she could to ensure that he would perhaps get caught during his efforts to use the ATMs," Dawson County District Attorney Lee Darragh said.

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

[Elidor]

7. "These laws do diddly against those who choose to carry illegally or use their weapons illegally."

Actually, that's not true. Try getting popped in a federal park with a gun. Not to mention the gun charges that are invariably tacked onto crimes committed by people who use guns during crimes. Those laws exist for a reason, they work, and they save plenty of lives that you never hear about in the news.

[Squatch]

8. And, surely you'll post citations, articles, findings to back up your position...

[zanne]

52. And the "self-defense" argument...

Please post the actual statistics here. Not the "estimates" or "conclusions". Post the actual cases of prevention of death by self-defense regarding gun ownership.

[Irreverend IX]

164. You want actual cases?

Here's enough to keep you reading for days:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

[Elidor]

158. No, I won't.

When violent criminals have extra years in prison tacked onto their sentences for carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony, they have fewer opportunities to commit violent crimes. I think that’s pretty self-evident. Might as well commission a study to determine whether the sun rises in the East.

[RamboLiberal]

22. What I was saying was that the law-abiding will not be carrying

while the miscreants will ignore the law or take advantage of the weaker knowing they are not carrying a gun. That people are charged with violations of gun laws in the act of committing other crimes is the proof they ignored all the gun laws.

Fat lot of good it does the victim who may be dead when the bad guy gets charged and tried after the fact. It just prevents there being a next victim. It seems this jerk that murdered this young woman killed several other people before he was finally caught because of the publicity of the murdered hiker case. He liked to prey on those who were hiking. He even took out an elderly couple. Just maybe if any one of his victims had a firearm they would've lived and maybe this bastards crime spree would've been ended.

[zanne]

53. Everybody is a law-abiding citizen until they shoot somebody..

Wheter it's out of rage or mistaken identity, there are far more of these shootings than any so-called "self defense" shootings every day. And the number of "accidental firings" are astronomical.
You can't legislate common sense and balanced personalities.

[slackmaster]

83. Bill would allow people who have state-issued concealed weapons permits to carry weapons in parks

You know, people who have been screened and vetted to ensure that they are NOT inclined to misuse their weapons, or to use them inappropriately.

The people who are already carrying their licensed weapons most places, and not causing the kinds of problems you are so afraid of.

You can't legislate common sense and balanced personalities.

That is true, but states are doing a very good job of regulating the issuance of concealed weapons permits. This bill would not allow just anyone to carry a weapon.

[RamboLiberal]

85. And you can't legislate my safety

Like I said all you do is leave the guns in the hands of those committing crimes and disarm those of us who obey the law.

[zanne]

56. You mean, like the way capital punishment deters killers? nt

[benEzra]

88. Carry without a license, carrying by a criminal, and carrying with intent to commit a crime

would be just as illegal if the law were changed to allow only those who hold carry licenses to be armed. You'd still be able to prosecute those of whom you speak.

The current system disarms only those who are otherwise authorized to carry, but who care enough about complying with the law that they don't carry, even though they know they'd never be caught if they did. Those who don't care about the law carry anyway if they so choose, because they don't give a flip.

[zanne]

55. And I'm sure that if she had had a gun she would have had the opportunity...

To use it. After all, everybody knows that a homicidal psycopath will warn a person before he/she attacks, so that the potential victim can retrieve his gun and fire first.

[RamboLiberal]

86. She fought him so violently she made him drop his baton

yes, so maybe if she had a gun she could've drawn and use it. Plenty of armed citizens have used their firearms to deter an attack including women.

None of us will ever know. Only the bastard that attacked her knows how she fought him and how he attacked her. As a woman I like having that firearm that at least gives me a better chance of saving my life against these bastards. And if he takes the gun and shoots me there, so what. I'd rather die right there than endure the days of terror Meredith Emerson had to endure.

[zanne]

108. Give me some real stats on armed citizens using guns for self defense..

You guys always say that, but I've noticed you never have any facts to report. Give me some real....hard....figures. NOT assumptions.

[Squatch]

6. Absolutely...

hikers NEVER get mugged, raped, or murdered

[-..__...]

13. Real pearls of wisdom there.

"Do not pick up hitchhikers".

[AZ Criminal JD]

12. The National Forest Service seems to think muggers are out there

Even if you don't. http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/press/preventing_crime.pdf

[zanne]

15. If guns are allowed in our national parks...

There WILL be poaching. Come on, people, do you really think bad things won't happen?

[michreject]

24. That's fucked up logic

Put peoples life in peril in order to protect the animals. :wtf:

[Squatch]

27. Poachers, BY DEFINITION, are criminals

do you really think any gun prohibition already in place in national parks is stopping them now?

[zanne]

33. Wow! You really had to reach for that one, Squatch. Nice try. nt

[Squatch]

46. Was that a rebuttal?

Did you have nothing better to say? Wait...I already know the answer to that question.

[zanne]

57. Have you been in touch with your militia buddies lately? nt

[Squatch]

74. Pssst....

I'm in the National Guard (so that would be a "yes" to your question) :P



Title 10 of the US Code states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.<1>

[zanne]

131. When you are not on duty, are you still in an oganized militia?

If not, the Second Amendment DOES NOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN.

[Squatch]

137. I'm always on duty...24-7

Members of the military don't "punch out" at the ends of their shifts. :thumbsup:

BTW, the second amendment does not "give" me any rights. It addresses RESTRICTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT and protects me from the government infringing upon my natural right to keep and bear arms, dumbass.

[zanne]

143. You're wrong about the Second Amendment, and you know it. nt

[Squatch]

145. Awww

I can almost feel you starting to get all weepy wherever the hell you are, Chris. Try not to cry, ok?

[fascisthunter]

2. Gun Manufacturing Tools

and whack jobs to do their political work.

[-..__...]

4. Oh Noes!!!!

Run and hide!!

Gunz in Jellystone park!!!

The woodz will run red with blood!




(waiting for the hand-wringers and gunz are bad drama queens to chime in):eyes:

[karlrschneider]

9. Some idiot will make a penis observation very soon here...

:eyes:

[Squatch]

10. "will make a penis observation"

:rofl:

[-..__...]

11. Or nukes and rocket launchers!!!

No one needs a thermal nuclear device to start a campfire or a LAW to keep chipmunks away from the beer and Bubba Burgers cooler.

[zanne]

62. And why not? A gun is really just an extension of a penis. nt

[Dimensio0]

75. I have observed a curious obsession.

It seems that many who argue vehemently against gun rights have a strange fascination with male genitalia. I have not been able to understand the connection, but it seems that a disproportinate number of individuals who argue in favour of tighter gun restrictions have a tendency to associate firearms with male sexual organs. Do you know why this might be the case?

[karlrschneider]

79. They are people who couldn't get laid if they walked into a prison with a suitcase full of pardons.

...

[Name removed]

77. Deleted sub-thread

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

[zanne]

34. D_S; Sometimes I begin to think that you're not all that bad...

Then you post something like this. What a pity. It completely nullifies your credibility.

[-..__...]

42. What about my mounted Bigfoot head humidor idea?

Certainly that should restore my credibility with you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2859973&mesg_id=2860888

[Xenotime]

5. What you say is true...

"more idiots shooting up our treasures and signs in our parks." More than you think.

[Canuckistanian]

14. "That Elk was coming right for me! Honest!"

"And that duck pulled a knife on me"

[zanne]

16. Exactly. They'll be killing animals in "self defense". ng

[-..__...]

17. I've always wanted to take down a Bigfoot.

The mounted head would make an awesome humidor.

[mvccd1000]

18. So I'm safe and trustworthy with my gun in a National FOREST...

...but let me enter a National PARK and suddenly I'm a hazard.

Got it.

BTW, National Forests currently follow the laws of the state in which they are located, so asking National Parks to do the same thing actually WOULD result in consistent federal policies. Funny how the authors overlooked that point.....

[mvccd1000]

19. I think there are two things driving this:

#1) (Most important to me) The fact that just driving along with a gun in my car, I become a criminal by passing into a National Forest. For example, I can drive along I-64 near Charlottesville, VA, one of the most beautiful areas of the country. Let me get off on Exit 99, Skyline Drive, though, and enter the Blue Ridge Parkway, and I'm now a criminal. This is ridiculous; the parks should follow the policy of the state in which they are located, just as the National Forests do.

#2) (As noted up thread) People hike and camp in National Parks just as they do in National Forests. Why is it legal to carry a means of self-defense in a Forest, but illegal in a Park?


I personally would have no problem with rules against discharging a firearm in a National Park, but at least give me the option to carry it. If the choice comes down to death or bodily harm vs. getting arrested for discharging my firearm, I'm prepared to make that decision.

[Sanctified]

20. I would never go tromping through a forest unarmed, park or not.

I don't fear men in the forest, I fear the carnivores that live in them. When I was 13 I was almost some mountain lions breakfast and that experience really made me understand that we are not the top of the food chain and some animals look at us as slow moving game.

[zanne]

59. Paranoia strikes deep. Seek help.

Do you often feel that you need protection against animals and other people? A good therapist can help you with that.

[mvccd1000]

84. A good therapist?

Like the two who were slashed, one fatally, in NYC this week? I'm sure they were comforted by the gun ban; it's always preferable to die by the knife.

As far as needing protection against people and animals, I suppose that 24-year old hiker would have rather been in an office with a therapist than with the psycho who kidnapped and killed her. Must have been her paranoia that got her, huh?

Logic does go out the window when you get on this subject, doesn't it?

[zanne]

96. God help you. Nobody else can. nt

[mvccd1000]

98. You're the one who thinks a gun is an extension of a penis, but I need help?

That's a good one!

How come you haven't replied to posts 18 and 19? No rebuttal for valid arguments?

(Edited to correct post numbers... my fingers are faster than my internet.) :)

[zanne]

133. I'm not the one afraid of my own shadow. Grow a pair. nt

[mvccd1000]

166. No, you're the one who is afraid of law-abiding citizens carrying inanimate objects.

Sounds irrational to me... what other machines or tools cause you to live your life in abject terror?

I do pity you; that is not the way anyone should have to go through life.

[Sanctified]

159. Paranoia? You do realize that Mountain Lions attack people right?

You do realize that after being attacked by an Animal that can kill you, you have a tendency to recognize the dangers of wildlife. I am not saying I was in a forest and just saw a cougar, I was clawed, bitten and probably would have been killed if my father was not there.

[LanternWaste]

170. Many times, people will confuse simple prudence with paranoia.

Many times, people will confuse simple prudence with paranoia in order to validate their own arguments that much more...

[krispos42]

21. Good.

While I don't think they should allow long guns (rifles and shotguns) unless it's hunting season, I don't have a problem at all with carrying handguns.

They should probably follow the same rules as in other public areas: a permit needed for concealed carry, no permit needed for open carry.

There are dangers in the woods. An awful lot of pot-growing and crystal meth labs are located in national and state parks and forests and the people that run them are most likely armed and willing to do rough stuff to keep you from telling anybody about their activities.

Not to mention the plethora of four-legged predators that might decide that a fat tourist makes a fast meal. Perhaps high in fat, sodium, and preservatives, but still tasty and filling!



Mmmmm... McTourist Premium Strips...

[beevul]

23. The Second Amendment...

I just love how these varying interpretations of the second amendment seem to materialise out of thin air. How everyone that has one which is creative or novel and something other than what the framers instructed it to be read as can expect to be looked at as honest...is simply ludicrous.

Oh, I didn't explain. The framers actually left instructions HOW the bill of rights were to be interpreted. Yes. They really did.

Here they are - the preamble to the bill of rights:


"The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.BILLOFRIGHTS.ORG

Note that it says "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added", and understand that governments have powers, and people have rights, and note that the restrictive clauses are aimed at powers not rights.

The bill of rights is a LIST OF RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER. NOT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.


One can not argue the "well regulated militia" interpretation, when reading it as the restriction on governmental power that it was intended to be.


“The Second Amendment right ‘to keep and bear Arms’ does not specify that the weapons must always be loaded and holstered,”

The restriction on governmental power does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear unloaded arms shall not be infringed. It says only arms. That can only be interpreted (with any honesty) as loaded, unloaded, or otherwise.

When reading the second amendment and interpreting it "in line" with the preamble, it simply can not be read to restrict the rights of the people.

[moondust]

41. The Founders weren't stupid.

They knew better than to grant unlimited firepower to every drunken sailor and malcontent and misfit and mental patient in the land, but that is exactly what the NRA's self-serving interpretation of the 2nd Amendment implies. The 2nd Amendment denies the government or anyone else the ability to infringe on the common defense of the nation for profit or power or any other reason as the King had done previously.

[mvccd1000]

43. I guess one of us will stand corrected after this SCOTUS session.

Because I (and well over 100 million other Americans) disagree with you. So did the Circuit Court, and I hope the Supreme Court does, as well.

[zanne]

65. You mean the same Supreme Court that ushered Bush into the White House?

Oh yeah--they're always right.:sarcasm:

[ThomWV]

25. Who in hell do you think you are lumping all fire arms owners as "Idiots"

I carry a gun with me everywhere I go that it is legal to do so - and that is most places. Are you calling me an idiot, are you saying that I shoot up signs or randomly shoot at people?

You see, that is what's wrong with you anti gun nuts and it is the one thing that the Republicans are dead right about, the intollerent left.

[zanne]

66. I think you have a bad attitude about people in general...

If you think you can only be safe by carrying a gun in "most places", you have bigger problems than arguing on a message forum.

[Dimensio0]

78. I believe that you misread the previous poster's statement.

I saw no indication that he or she only was safe by carrying a gun, only that he or she does so whenever it is legal. You may wish to re-read the previous statement and revise your response accordingly.

[Junkdrawer]

26. Someone will make a fortune making a shower-proof gun holster...

Guns in Church...

Guns in School...

Guns in National Parks...

I mean, how do the gunners take baths and showers without their guns? :shrug:

[zanne]

67. They're afwaid. nt

[alarimer]

28. God I hate these fucking gun nuts

The NRA is a bunch of assholes. They can go to hell.

I want someplace in this country free from gun-toting assholes.

[mvccd1000]

30. "I want someplace in this country free from....."

I think most of us want the whole country to be free of gun-toting assholes. Since it's not, though, some of the rest of us (who may not be assholes) choose to be prepared.

Whether it is against policy or not, the assholes who intend to commit a crime are still going to take their guns with them. The only ones stopped by the policy are those who wouldn't be committing a crime, anyway. You know - the honest, law-abiding ones like me?

See my posts above for what I consider to be valid reasons for overturning the ban.

Note that overturning the ban on firearms POSSESSION does not mean they have to allow firearms DISCHARGE. I'm tired of potentially turning into a criminal any time I drive across an imaginary line on a map, though. It's time to change that policy.

[zanne]

38. Sometimes it's hard to separate the "criminals" from the "law-abiders"

[mvccd1000]

40. Your picture has it right...

.... up to the word "dialogue." The rest is just plain whacky. What would reducing the number of firearms in the country do? Is 200 million better than 300 million? Where are you going to find 100 million to get rid of?

Did you read the New York papers today? Maybe you should start after knives next.

[zanne]

47. Yawn. Same old tripe. nt

[zanne]

100. When was the last time you heard about a drive-by knifing? nt

[I work for workers]

31. Try DC.

Theoretically, that city shouldn't have any handgun issues, as they aren't legal there...

[slackmaster]

82. Or Chicago

:rofl:

[-..__...]

32. You already have one...

it's called your home.

[jmg257]

29. Just what we need, more ignorance used in support of LIMITING secured unalienable rights. SO glad

my freedoms suddenly become less important in federal parks.

[SidDithers]

35. Is there anywhere that gun owners believe guns shouldn't be allowed?...

Churches, schools, banks, political conventions, universities, national parks? All OK?

I'm curious.

Sid

[zanne]

37. They'll find a rationale for anything. They're bullies.

Why do you think they have a love affair with guns? They remind me of very possessive men (and women) who will physically attack anyone who gives their lover a second look. Only their "lovers" are guns. It's a sickness.

[mvccd1000]

39. Broad brush much?

I'm about as opposite of that description as possible, and I don't "love" my guns. They are tools, just like the thousands of dollars worth of tools I use to be a good mechanic.

I simply don't like the fact that I can be considered a trustworthy, law-abiding citizen as I stand in line at the bank or the grocery store with my pistol, but let me drive into a National Park or a school parking lot, and suddenly I'm a dangerous criminal.

[aikoaiko]

44. Doesn't your family own guns, Zanne?

Are you the exception to the rule?

:shrug:

[zanne]

49. My husband owns a hunting rifle.

It's stored away in the attic and he hasn't used it in years, since he gave up hunting. None of my siblings or their children have any guns. I know that might seem strange to you, but we try to be sane.

[aikoaiko]

54. Is your husband's lover his gun as you claim of guns owners? Is he a bully? Is he sick too?

You really should throw stones in glass houses, Zanne.


eta: If you don't like the way I'm speaking to you, you should know its just as annoying when you speak this way about me as a gun owner.

[zanne]

60. I want protection from people like you who own guns.

I deserve to feel safe, too. And I won't support turning this country into the Wild, Wild West fantasy that you live in.

[aikoaiko]

63. And I seek protection from people like you would limit civil rights (such as the 2nd).

I don't know what Wild, Wild West fantasy you are speaking of. You anti-gun folks sure do love to imagine things.

[zanne]

68. The only amendment you ever talk about is the second one.

What about my right to safety and my first amendment right to free speech? I don't think you're too crazy about those rights. You're in it for yourself. Period.

[aikoaiko]

71. I'm for all civil rights, Zanne. Even yours.

[zanne]

92. Sure.

[mvccd1000]

87. Feel safe? All of this is about your feelings?

So I can walk around all day with a pistol, and your income doesn't change, your car doesn't break down, your roof doesn't leak... in short, nothing that actually affects YOU will happen because of me carrying a pistol. But you "feel unsafe," so all the rest of us should give up our rights?

Got it.

[zanne]

93. It is actually UNSAFE for everybody to be carrying a gun.

That is what makes me feel UNSAFE. And all the "millions" of people who want to carry a gun anywhere they go are blind to the MILLIONS of people who don't want them to! You are NOT a majority.

[mvccd1000]

97. Oh? That's a new one on me...

Of all the injuries I've suffered, none were caused by being around gun owners. Explain how carrying a gun makes me unsafe, please. If I'm doing something wrong, I'd certainly like to know it.

[zanne]

99. You haven't been paying attention to the many posts about that subject, then.

Next.

[zanne]

105. Well, for starters, there's this...

5 women were shot to death by a gunman at a Lane Bryant store in Tinley Park, IL. The gunman is at large.
A 15-year-old Maryland boy shot and killed his parents and 2 brothers using one of his father's guns. The boy is now in police custody.
A SWAT officer and 3 family members were shot to death in a Los Angeles siege. The gunman was shot and killed by a police sniper.
2 police officers and 3 city officials were shot and killed at a City Council meeting in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman was then shot and killed by police storming the council chamber.
A 23-year-old female student shot and killed 2 classmates at Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge. The shooter then committed suicide with the gun.

But you don't see any cause for alarm, huh?

[slackmaster]

121. There's the old "let's arm everybody" straw man again!

It never fails.

That is what makes me feel UNSAFE.

You have no right to feel any particular way.

And all the "millions" of people who want to carry a gun anywhere they go are blind to the MILLIONS of people who don't want them to!

The rights of the millions of people who want to carry guns outweigh the feelings of people who don't want them to.

[zanne]

134. You're kidding me, right?

"The rights of the millions of people who want to carry guns outweigh the feelings of people who don't want them to".

Nice going. You're the very definition of "the tyranny of the minority". I was right to call you bullies, because that's what you are when you let your guard down and show your true colors.

[Squatch]

135. Civics 101

You might want to freshen up on how our government works:

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances.

[slackmaster]

140. People lawfully carrying weapons for self-defense aren't doing you or anyone else any harm

Why are you so concerned about controlling other peoples' personal business?

You're the very definition of "the tyranny of the minority".

Your position is the epitome of busy-bodyism.

[mvccd1000]

168. You want protection, at the expense of others.

Sounds almost like an elitist response....

[zanne]

61. By the way, how many guns do you own?

Are they sitting unused in your attic for years and only used for hunting when they're used at all, or do you like to picture yourself as a cowboy walking around civilized society with a handgun?

[aikoaiko]

64. The answer to your 1st question is 12. The answer to your 2nd question is neither.

[zanne]

69. Who the hell needs 12 guns?

Give you an inch, you take a mile. The NRA-inspired gun culture is crazy with power. You always want more rights for yourselves so that others can feel less safe. It's right to call you people bullies. That's exactly what your are.

[aikoaiko]

73. You might want to consider stepping away from the computer a while -- youre ranting nonsensically

"Give you an inch, you take a mile" -- you actually think you gave me something. You don't have a clue about civil rights.

[zanne]

95. Pot calling kettle black...

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Junkdrawer]

45. False courage from a bottle...False courage from a gun....n/t

[zanne]

50. Yup..False MACHO courage from a gun. nt

[beevul]

123. False safe feelings...from a "gun free zone". N/T

[RamboLiberal]

90. Wow - tell that to cops

Good luck with 911.

I carry, but I try to avoid situations where I might need to use the gun. If I can I'm calling 911 and waiting for the professionals to resolve a dangerous situation. But I'm also aware that there are times the cops can't get there before a bad guy can kill, kidnap, rape, etc.

And if a robber wants my money or my TV - take it. But damn if you're going to harm me I want the means to fight back.

That's not false courage to have and know how to use a gun. It's just recognizing that it is a great tool for self-protection.

[karlrschneider]

91. Another irony is that many DUers hate and/or fear cops but don't want anyone ELSE

to be armed.

[slackmaster]

70. Yes, I can name a few places where guns should definitely not be allowed

International Space Station
Submarines
Chemical processing plants
Any place where tanks of compressed gasses are used or stored
Any place where flammable materials or explosives are processed or stored
MRI labs and other places where powerful magnets are present

Basically any place where the discharge of a firearm, or its presence, creates a hazard of catastrophic unintended consequences. There have been several cases of handguns being captured and accidentally discharged in MRI labs, when security guards or off-duty police officers entered them without first disarming themselves.

Churches, schools, banks, political conventions, universities, national parks? All OK?

I have no problem with someone who is licensed to carry a weapon doing so in any of those places. Guns are carried mainly for defense against attacks by humans.

[RamboLiberal]

89. Guess what - there's a gun at the space station

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station apparently have access to a gun.

Russian Cosmonauts carry a gun on their Soyuz space capsule, which is attached to the space station.

Every spacecraft carries survival gear for crash landings, and the Russian Soyuz has a kit that includes the gun.

A photo of a space tourist using one version of the weapon is posted on his Web site.

But although the gun has been there for as long as the space station has been in orbit, its existence is kept quiet. NASA and Russian officials won't talk publicly about it.

http://www.wesh.com/news/15298911/detail.html

[slackmaster]

94. Interesting - I'll bet they keep it very secure

As are small arms on US Navy ships.

[zanne]

101. RUSSIAN cosmonauts.

For some insane reason, have a gun. A gun fired in the space station would lead to not only one death, but many. More gun logic.

[RamboLiberal]

104. Comes out of the military thinking

For survival in case they land in hostile territory on planet Earth. Like military pilots have a firearm in their survival kit.

[slackmaster]

107. There are dangerous animals like brown bears in areas where they typically land

That's why Russian cosmonauts carry weapons.

[Dimensio0]

81. I am curious.

Do you believe that the government should restrict the carrying of firearms into churches, banks, private schools and private universities? I would believe that the most rational approach would be to allow the leadership of those respective establishments to set their own policy regarding the posession of firearms while on the premesis.

Government-run schools, universities and national parks would, of course, be subject to government policy, though thus far I have not seen any rational justification for disallowing the carrying of deadly weapons in national parks by individuals who are already legally allowed to carry deadly weapons in other public areas.

[fascisthunter]

162. paranoia will do that to folks

they need a gun to feel safe everywhere they go. Even in a State Park... lol. That, or they feel empowered by carrying one around and can't live without it. Kinda like Linus van Pelt and his blanket.

[aikoaiko]

36. Coburn amendment is sensible.

For the sames reasons it should be ok to carry a weapon anywhere else, one should be able to carry legally in National Parks.

I've heard of no rationale why National Parks should be off limits to legal possession of firearms. However, self-defense is an obvious and realistic rationale for those who carry.

[karlrschneider]

48. Self-defense? Are you insane? No American should have that right

according to a few DUers...
:eyes: :grr:

[zanne]

51. Yawn. nt

[Kingofalldems]

58. Now the gun hicks want to shoot up the

National Parks?

[slackmaster]

72. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on DU

Prejudiced much? Or just ignorant?

[karlrschneider]

76. Both, obviously.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Kingofalldems]

122. I would say that you sir are in a state of denial

about many of your fellow gun owners. I've come across many of what I call 'gun hicks' ready to shoot anything they see. And I'm not even involved in pro or anti gun issues. Just been around for 60 yrs.

[slackmaster]

155. People carrying licensed concealed weapons aren't the ones shooting up signs

I guarantee you that. I'm an avid hiker as well as a shooter. The mostly drunken slobs who destroy public property are criminals. People who carry licensed firearms for self-defense are not.

Just been around for 60 yrs.

Well, you've got me beaten by 10 years but I know what I'm talking about. A person who have been through the training required by most states and gotten the background check required by most states to get a permit, and gone to the trouble to get themselves fingerprinted and documented by a law enforcment agency as someone who is qualified to carry a weapon for self-defense is not going to be inclined to commit crimes with said weapon.

If you want some hard evidence of the law-abiding nature of people with CCW permits, please check out the statistics on conviction rates that the state of Texas maintains:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Kingofalldems]

160. So you noticed that once you get a mile from town

road signs are shot to hell--by gun hicks. And how many animals do theses idiots shoot and kill as they speed down the road? I don't want these people in National Parks. Licensed concealed weapons with responsible trained owners is another issue.

[slackmaster]

161. The mindless hicks who shoot at anything are a bad problem, I agree

Licensed concealed weapons with responsible trained owners is another issue.

Yes, and if you would simply read the bill being discussed here you would see that those are the people who would be permitted to carry in NPs.

[karlrschneider]

165. There are some of those around here too (gun hicks??) and probably everywhere.

They do act crazy and shoot road signs and sometimes birds and cows and horses. Those kinds of people are scum that probably could not qualify to legally carry a gun - but they have them nonetheless. How would you propose to keep them out of National parks? They aren't exactly fenced in, you know...
:eyes:

[MadHound]

103. Fear, fear and loathing are driving this debate

And while the statistics for violent crimes have remained relatively stable, or even decreased, the press to allow guns anywhere and everywhere has increased. This is done by utilizing fear, the same emotion that got this country into Iraq, the same emotion that has allowed Bush to strip our Constitution.

What's sad is that it works all too well. Some obscure case somewhere that is a statistical deviant is trumpeted to the skies, "Look, person X got killed in Location Y, we must allow guns into all vaguely similar locations or else we'll all be killed:eyes:" Frankly it is watching this game being played out time and again that has led me to the conclusion that the vast majority of American are the wussiest, cowering, scared children of a population on the face of this earth. Do you see the people of other developed nations packing heat everywhere they go? No. Do you see groups abroad like the NRA constantly pushing for the unlimited right to carry arms everywhere? No. Do you see the people of other nations living in such a constant state of fear as Americans do(even though they have better reason to do so)? No. Hmmm, shouldn't that tell you something?:think:

People around here love to decry how fear is running this country right into the ground, and they're correct. But many of these self same people, when presented with the same sort of fear, only in the context of guns, become the staunchest defenders of the irrational, all in the name of fear.

Sad, really.

[slackmaster]

106. Results count - If making the standards for concealed carry objective does no harm

Then it is fundamentally good.

[MadHound]

109. The trouble is that the standards for conceal carry aren't objective,

And I know at least one instance where the NRA pushed through conceal carry legislation against the expressed interests of the people.

Also, what abou the rights of individuals to have their business, church or residence gun free? Sorry, but your right to carry should not trump my right to decide if a weapon can or cannot be on my property.

Like I said, the entire pro gun debate is being driven by fear. How very sad that is, that the fearful few can now dictate to the many.

[zanne]

111. I see it as a very warlike, right-wing position. nt

[Squatch]

112. You cannot carry a firearm on private property

when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited.

[MadHound]

113. Oh, don't worry, they're getting there

Already debating about allowing CCW in churches(which are private property), bars and schools. Next they'll be demanding the right for CCW to be everywhere, thereby actually violating the rights of the majority of people in this country who don't have a gun, want a gun or carry concealed.

Just gotta love that tyranny of the minority.

[Squatch]

114. And if the owners of said bars, churches, and schools prohibit CCW,

then a concealed weapon holder cannot legally carry onto those premises (should such places be included in those where concealed carry is permitted).

[Dimensio0]

117. You appear to be uninformed on the subject on which you are speaking.

Already debating about allowing CCW in churches(which are private property), bars and schools.

When such "debates" occur within states, they are regarding existing laws that specifically prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on the premises of the above types of locations. For example, several states that allow citizens to carry concealed deadly weapon by way of a shall-issue based permit system expressly disallow, in the law regarding the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, the carrying of deadly weapons in churches and other houses of worship. This prohibition applies even if the leadership of the house of worship wishes to allow the carrying of deadly weapons on the property. In these cases, the "debate" relates to removing the state mandated prohibition and instead allowing the private leadership of the house of worship -- or, in the cases of bars and schools, the management of those establishments -- to determine their own policies. In this way, the decision of whether to prohibit firearms on the premises falls upon the owner of the property, rather than having that decision usurped by the state.

I am unaware of any debate regarding forcing private business owners and church leaders to allow concealed deadly weapons onto their respective properties, nor am I aware of any existing state laws that would require as much.

[zanne]

127. Did you join DU to protect the other guy boys? nt

[slackmaster]

128. I'll bet you joined just to hang out with the other gal girls.

:rofl:

[zanne]

129. That was a typo. I meant "gun" guys. nnt

[Dimensio0]

148. I joined a week ago when I saw misinformation.

I had been engaging in what is commonly known as "lurking" with this website for a number of months, however a statement made in a discussion regarding a bill in Georgia aimed at removing the state prohibition from carrying concealed weapons in a house of worship prompted me to sign up for an account to respond, as the statement that had been made was false. Interestingly, the mistaken sentiment in the posting that prompted my account creation was the same as the sentiment expressed in the posting to which I had responded previously.

[zanne]

153. AHA! So you're just another gun nut! nt

[Dimensio0]

154. Please justify your assertion.

Demonstrate that I am a "nut". Also explain why you believe that your accusation constitutes a logically equivalant substitute to a rational rebuttal to my statements.

[zanne]

157. ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING, GUN NUTS.

Are you happy now?

[Dimensio0]

163. Your statement is off-topic.

It has no relation to anything that was stated previously.

[slackmaster]

120. I don't believe anyone is saying a private venue shouldn't be allowed to ban guns

Schools are public property BTW.

[Dimensio0]

115. I do not believe that your fear is justified.

Also, what abou the rights of individuals to have their business, church or residence gun free? Sorry, but your right to carry should not trump my right to decide if a weapon can or cannot be on my property.

I am unaware of any state where businesses and churches are not allowed to disallow firearms on their premises. Several states do state that facilities open to the public are not allowed to set policies on what may be stored inside of vehicles located on a parking lot owned by the business, however no state of which I am aware requires that any business or church allow patrons to be armed when on the premesis, outside of their vehicle, against the wishes of the management of the establishment.

Your assertion regarding fear is unsubstantiated.

[slackmaster]

119. Only "may-issue" states like New Jersey and California have non-objective standards

In most states, there is a concrete set of requirements to get a permit.

Also, what abou the rights of individuals to have their business, church or residence gun free?

Everyone has a right to control what comes into his or her private property.

Sorry, but your right to carry should not trump my right to decide if a weapon can or cannot be on my property.

Kindly point out where I have ever said otherwise.

And I know at least one instance where the NRA pushed through conceal carry legislation against the expressed interests of the people.

You mean the NRA forced elected officials to go against the will of the people who elected them? Well then, it seems to me that if the people really care about it, they can elect someone else.

[zanne]

110. Give us proof of those so-called "results". t

Real proof, not just your assumption or somebody's "estimations".

[jmg257]

116. Are you saying if I give proof of kiddie-porn on the i'net, you'd be for the loss of the 1st amend?

If I provide proof that illegal search and seisures will help fight terrorism, you would be all for allowing intrusions on the 4th?

Always a problem with using stats in trying to justify intrusions on basic unalienable rights - you may lose some YOU like too.


But in the mean time, I will try to dig up the study from last year showing the neutral impact of CCW. It was big talk in the gungeon a while back.

[slackmaster]

118. Burden of proof falls on the party who claims there is an effect

I say liberalized concealed carry has caused no harm. That's known in data analysis as the null hypothesis. If you disagree, it's incumbent on you to provide evidence.

[zanne]

124. I knew you didn't have any proof, because it's a false claim.. nt

[slackmaster]

125. You are very confused today - I'm not the one making a claim

:hi:

To recap, I wrote:

If making the standards for concealed carry objective does no harm... ...Then it is fundamentally good.

That's an if/then statement. You could call it a value judgement, an opinion. If you disagree, I'd like to see your reasoning.

[Squatch]

126. Or, so you claim...

:rofl:

[zanne]

130. You're easily amused. nt

[Squatch]

132. And you're a blithering idiot

so, we're good! :thumbsup:

[zanne]

138. Try to pay attention with your tiny little mind now....

[Squatch]

139. Wow...you can post a red X

do you know the rest of the alphabet, too? Your mommy must be sooooo proud.

[zanne]

141. You want it again? Here we go...

[Squatch]

144. Now I have confirmation that you're insane

Insanity: doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.

[zanne]

169. And YOU PEOPLE ACCUSE ME OF GOING OFF-TOPIC!

Just another example of the hypocrisy on your part.

[slackmaster]

142. Stereotyping in the name of a "progressive" cause is uglier than conservative bigotry

At least conservative bigots aren't hypocrites about it, like the cartoonist who drew that awful thing.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[zanne]

149. Awwwwww......I know you love me.

You don't have to pretend.

[jmg257]

156. Did you read the proof you wanted yet, Zanne? Curious what U think.

[mvccd1000]

167. Probably not - she has yet to answer any direct statements with valid arguments.

She can only tell you what she "feels."

Oddly enough, I did not notice feelings being protected by the constitution.

[jmg257]

136. Here's some info on guns in general, sucks I cannot yet find the neutral "concealed carry" report.

Study shows NO correlation between # of guns & crime!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This 1st from an Anti-gun site:

The following chart shows the general climb of both the murder rate and firearm sales in the U.S.:
Murder rate (per 100,000) and firearm sales (millions of constant dollars),

Year Mrdr Rate Firearm Sales (millions)
-----------------------------------------
1985 7.9 $1,548
1986 8.6 $1,647
1987 8.3 $1,667
1988 8.4 1,810
1989 8.7 1,777
1990 9.4 1,602
1991 9.8 1,859
1992 9.3 1,829
1993 9.5 2,095

"Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. "
********************************

Now, they lazily, or more likely purposely, have NOT updated the figures since 1993. I wonder why? Probably because as gun sales continued to increase, crime rates steadly DECREASED:

YEAR-----TAX-----VC RATE----Mrd Rte---Murders---- Firearms
***---($,000)----(100K)-----(100K)------#----------%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1992----139,652----757.7----9.3
1993----124,215----747.1----9.5
1994----139,990----713.6----9.0
1995----184,302----684.5----8.2
1996----157,816----636.6----7.4
1997----150,803----611.0----6.8-----15,837----67.7%
1998----158,383----567.6----6.3-----14,276----64.8%
1999----167,448----523.0----5.7-----13,011----65.2%
2000----197,840----506.5----5.5-----13,230----65.5%
2001----175,959----504.5----5.6-----14,061----63..22%
2002----205,025----494.4----5.6-----14,263----66.8%
2003----193,420----475.0----5.7-----14,465----66.9%
2004----214,987----465.5----5.5-----14,121----66%
*2005--------------469.2----5.6----
*The crime rates have gone up slightly again the last couple years (VC=+3.7, Mrdr=+1.4).

The TAX column represents total excise tax on firearms and ammo sales, when broken out, supposedly the best indicator of total gun sales. The crime figures are from the FBI, the TAX figures from BATF.

Other studies show an ever-increasing number of gun ownership (currently at about 65 Million Americans) - I can pull these too if no one believes this fact.


Please notice that as firearms sales continue to rise, violent crime (VC) rates, and murder rates DROPPED steadily for 1994-2004. Also notice that the percentage of firearms used by criminals to commit murder is basically unchanged, despite the estimated "3.5 Million new guns every year".

The anti-constitution yahoos in this country must get over themselves and accept the truth: GUNS AIN'T THE PROBLEM!

*also shows why you never rely on stats when discussing fundamental natural rights

[jmg257]

146. FINALLY..."results" showing neutral, or even beneficial, effects of Concealed Carry.

all disguised by typical anti-gun BS rhetoric.

"An evaluation of state firearms regulations and homicide suicide rates", from a Univ of Pittsburgh group.
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/google/abstract.asp?AcNo=20053068440


Now - 1st thing, while looking at gun laws, they compare "homicide" and "firearm homicide" rates - NOT "murder", "gun related murder", or other gun related crimes, so what exactly they were trying to prove escapes me; they mention however the attempt to study 'the benefits of shall issue laws enacted with the goal of curtailing fiream deaths'... {hmm...OK....thought shall-issue laws were enacted to give THE PEOPLE back the right to self-security, avoid letting the people be unwilling victims of violent criminals, etc...}

...BUT ANYWAY, from Table 2:

Rates per 100,000...
Firearm Homicides {with shall issue law}: 5.00
Firearm Homicides {w/o shall issue law} : 5.90
All Homicides {rate with shall issue law} : 7.5
All homicides {rate w/o shall issue law} : 8.99


Summary Point 3::"A "shall issue" law that permits the carrying of a handgun in an unrestricted fashion may be associated with an increase in homicide rates."
WHAT????? But the numbers...right there...BOTH "WITH shall issue" homicide rates were LOWER...WTF???

And from Table 4 Suicides

Rates per 100,00...
Firearm Suicides {with shall issue law}: 9.70
Firearm Suicides {w/o shall issue law} : 10.20
All Suicides {rate with law} : 14.5
All Suicides {rate w/o law} :14.5


Summary point 4: "Little evidence was observed that any of the laws evaluated (they include legal age 21 laws) were associated with a significant reduction in either firearm homicide or firearm suicide rates."

GREAT - not that is an issue, but what about the fact that...

The charts - YOUR CHARTS - show a reduction in not only Firearm Homicides, but all homicides AND a reduction in firearm suicides with shall issue laws vs. w/o shall issue laws, so WTF?

This is what we have - total BS "studies", despite their OWN numbers showing the contray - they make absurd statements like "MAY" AND "NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION" without mentioning what the study REALLY showed:

"with regards to the enactment of shall issue laws, even firearm homicides and suicides did not get worse, and in fact, they went down slightly. Giving the people the opportunity to defend themselves in NO way made homicide/suicide rates worse, but instead made them slightly better."

[slackmaster]

150. It won't have any effect on the dedicated gun-grabbers

But thanks for your effort.

[jmg257]

151. Oh I know - but facts are facts (no matter how much they don't like 'em). Cheers!

[LanternWaste]

171. What one man perceives as fear is many times simple prudence.

What one man perceives as fear is in many cases no more than mere prudence. So one could as validly say that "prudence is driving this debate..."

[slackmaster]

172. Very good comment, LanternWaste

It applies equally well to both camps. Without prior context it would not be possible to know which side of the debate you were on.

[LanternWaste]

174. No doubt it applies equally to both camps

No doubt it applies equally to both camps. It also applies to most debates-- regardless of whether the topic is concerning firearms, religion, orientation-- pretty much anything imaginable.

Anyway-- thanks for the validation! :hi:

[Geek_Girl]

152. Sounds like there gearing up for an '08 wedge issue

nt

[Paladin]

173. Gee, Tom Coburn Is Involved In This

How completely and utterly unsurprising.

And a big shout-out to the good people of Oklahoma for providing us with the two biggest, knuckle-dragging, paleo-conservatives in the entire U.S. Congress, Coburn and Jim Inhofe. Exemptions provided for Oklahoma Democrats (I woudn't want to trash an entire state, like what happens on brain-dead DU threads about Texas).

Do you supposedly Democratic gun militants ever get tired of right-wing shitbirds carrying your water? Does the embarrassing kind of company you have to keep ever trouble you? I guess not.....