Loaded guns allowed in National parks on Monday

[Bluebear]

WASHINGTON - Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and other national parks under a new law that takes effect Monday.

The law lets licensed gun owners bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law. It comes over the objections of gun-control advocates who fear it will lead to increased violence in national parks.

The national parks law takes effect in a climate that favors advocates of gun rights. The debate shifted dramatically in 2008, when the Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C., and declared that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and other purposes.Gun owners have rushed in record numbers to get concealed weapons permits, saying they worry President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress may impose stricter gun laws. The National Rifle Association lobbied hard to allow guns in parks and has spent millions to challenge its opponents.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35484383/ns/us_news-life/

[Jakes Progress]

1. Tea Party - One: Sanity - Zero

[naaman fletcher]

38. Watch a year from now we will see vast carnage in the national parks?

No? Well will you come back and admit that you over-reacted to the thought of law abiding people being allowed to carry guns?

[Jakes Progress]

50. Give it five.

And will you admit that you should ban all guns if someone shoots someone in a national park?

Neither question is fair. What I don't get is what is the abiding desire that some people have to have a gun with them 24/7. If this were alcohol or drugs, we would consider it a sickness or addiction.

I've got two guns, but I don't have to have them with me and touch them every day, and I don't feel safer knowing that the clowns in the camp next to me might be armed and loaded. Just what is the nagging fear that causes people to need their guns so near? Is it bears or puppies or even fellow gun lovers that instill such a deep seated fear?

I know. I know. You feel you have a right to hold a gun in you hand all the time. I don't agree. And I just don't get it, so we will just disagree

[naaman fletcher]

52. Why five?

Won't people start blowing each other away almost immediately? And one shooting in a park wouldn't neccessarily mean this was a bad idea.. and besides, shootings happen now.

Also, if someone is hiking in the middle of nowhere for a week, I don't see why having a gun is such a bad idea.

[Jakes Progress]

61. I know you don't see it.

You didn't answer my question. As far as how many shootings make it a bad idea, just how many dead people would?

I admit I don't get the slavish love of steel and deep-seated fear that leads to needing a gun with me all the time. That's why I asked if you could tell me what makes having a gun handy just anywhere you go so comforting.

[naaman fletcher]

64. It doesn't.

Although I own guns, I have not fired one in years. They have been locked in my safe. Usually on these threads I would point out that I believe in the right to carry them, even though I don't exercise that right, just as I believe in the right to hard-core porn, even though I don't watch it.


But in this case, if I were ever to go camping for a week I think bringing a gun might actually be a good idea.

[Jakes Progress]

87. To protect you from what? nt

[havocmom]

100. two legged drunken jackasses are sometimes a threat

been there, dealt with that.

[Jakes Progress]

107. especially the ones with guns. nt

[havocmom]

113. Me 'n my gun were not the ones attempting that rape I broke up

[Jakes Progress]

135. Golly. Bruce Willis right here on DU.

[havocmom]

171. You would rather a citizen let a woman get beaten, raped

oh, and she had a couple young children with her, who ran off into the forest. Without my intervention, no one might have known the kids were out there somewhere, with nightfall coming on at elevation of 8000 feet.

As it happened, got mom away from attacker, found out the kids were out there on their own, alerted authorities and found kids before the cold of dark and/or run in with bears.

It didn't take any Bruce Willis action movie stunts to prevent the continuing of the attack on the woman and getting a search party together. But thank you for your response. It tells me a lot about the depth of your real values.

Guess some people are ok with talking anti-gun without recognizing that sometimes having the gun as an equalizer is, indeed, an anti-violence tool in real life.

[X_Digger]

115. The ones who had illegal guns before the lifting of the ban?

Those who ignored this 26 year old regulation?

I agree, they're a threat.

Those who stored their guns in a locked container because they were obeying the law, but will now be able to carry them concealed on their person, if their state has ran a criminal background check, and allows them to? Not much of a threat, that I can tell.


(You do realize that you could take guns into National Parks before, right? You just had to leave them in a locked container. There won't be any more guns in parks, it's just a matter of where they are carried.)

[Jakes Progress]

136. Holster 'em up.

Then you can shoot the bad guys just like in the movies.

You don't really want to go down this path of illogic. The conclusion to it is that guns should collected and banned. If anyone with a gun is a potential threat to the safety of America (you now the ones you reference) then the logical conclusion is to do away with them.

[X_Digger]

149. And how would you enforce that, eh? Fences and whole vehicle x-rays? *snort* n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. Those would be the criminals that broke the law before and will continue to do so.

[Jakes Progress]

137. See above.

For all the good that logic will do.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

178. Criminals with guns pose the biggest threat. I'm all for taking their guns away.

[flying rabbit]

101. Bears and cougars maybe?

On edit: and two legged drunken jackasses

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Why do Park Rangers carry firearms?

[Jakes Progress]

109. It's their job.

Not their fetish.

[X_Digger]

116. Intentionally obtuse, or did you miss the subtext?

Why do park rangers carry guns? To protect whom from what?

[Jakes Progress]

133. There was no subtext or are you just obtuse.

They carry guns to do their job - to protect and defend. You want to carry? Get a ranger job.

[X_Digger]

151. Answer the question, please.

To protect whom from what? to "protect and defend" whom from what?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Nice dodge, Mr. Goodman. Why do they need to carry firearms if the parks are so safe?

[Jakes Progress]

134. Well, golly, I guess you need guns in courtrooms.

And in the halls of congress. And at the airport.

You really don't want to think this out do you? Just give you some guns. That's it. Just guns. That will solve all your problems.

Too many Bruce Willis movies, Mr. Badman.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

179. We do have guns in courtrooms. We also have metal detectors outside of them.

To keep criminals from bringing guns into courtrooms. "Mr. Goodman" as in White Goodman, look it up and you'll get the reference.

[XOKCowboy]

111. Where do you camp?

Have you ever been to Yellowstone or Glacier National Park?

[Jakes Progress]

138. Hey cowboy.

You need a gun to enjoy the wilderness, go ahead. Just try not to shoot anybody.

[XOKCowboy]

110. Oh yeah. I expect people to start shooting at whatever moves the day it's implemented.

You know how those Gun People are. Give them the opportunity and they'll shoot anything. :sarcasm:

[Jakes Progress]

117. Not all.

Just the ones who can't be without their weapons for a few days without getting the cold sweats.

I got guns. I don't need them to look at a waterfall or canoe across a lake. Maybe I just lack the scaredy gene.

[XOKCowboy]

121. I lack it too but..

I respect the right of those who want to carry them into the National Parks.

[Jakes Progress]

139. Why is carrying in the national parks any more of a right

than carrying them in the airport?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

181. The airport has security and metal detectors to keep criminals with guns out.

They have provided a level of security that a National Park doesn't.

[Jakes Progress]

200. So you are suggesting metal detectors at National Parks?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

208. No I'm completely fine with the regulations as they stand.

[Statistical]

191. Sorry to alarm you but you can carry at airport in many states.

Just not in the secure area.

Also if you have a private plane (or private aviation service) you can carry a gun while flying if you want.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. So you do have the scaredy gene when it comes to them? Statistics be damned. LOL.

[Jakes Progress]

140. I'm not the one who feels scared without a gun.

But then our country allows you any fetish you want. Just try not to shoot someone if you can help it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

180. I don't have a CCW permit and I don't carry a gun. So you don't have to be scared of me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. People got shot in National Parks during the ban.

[Jakes Progress]

108. So more would be better. Is that your argument? nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. Criminals will still carry guns in the parks. They always have. DUH.

More guns in the hands of the law abiding is a good thing.

[Jakes Progress]

132. What a crock. Duh. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

177. So you believe criminals obeyed the rules before? LOL.

[beevul]

209. What?

More guns in the hands of the law abiding is not a good thing?

[TheWraith]

159. People get shot in national parks right now.

As a matter of fact, Park Rangers have one of the highest mortality rates of any law enforcement service, due to policing large tracts of land which are disproportionately used by drugrunners. So how is letting law-abiding people carry a gun in a national park a threat to you, when it's done under the same circumstances that let someone carry a gun in a regular park, a supermarket, or a carwash?

This is random fearmongering, based on the assumption that people are barely restrained animals just waiting to do evil things to you and your family, the same crazy crap the right wing uses to justify the drug war and all their other attempts to regulate the lives of people they have no business trying to control.

[proteus_lives]

56. Nothing to do with the Tea Party.

Signed,

Liberal gun-owner.

[Jakes Progress]

59. Tell me the TP's aren't celebrating

just like some of the posts on this thread with high fives and joyous glee at thwarting the big bad gummint.

Signed,

Another liberal gun owner.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. You got a link to those posts here?

[Jakes Progress]

112. Are you trying to say

that the TPs don't support totin'? That they aren't NRA supporters? That they don't support the rights of citizens to carry whenever and whatever they want?

So you need me to look up the Tea Party feelings about the second amendment for you?

Tell you what. You find me a link where they condemn carrying guns in National Parks and I will find one that shows they support. Fair enough?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. A link to the posts on this thread with high fives and joyous glee at thwarting the big bad gummint.

[Jakes Progress]

141. All that steel lust

has jumbled your syntax. Care to try again?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

185. Your words not mine. I'll take that as a concession of defeat though. Thanks.

Jakes Progress (1000+ posts) Sun Feb-21-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Tell me the TP's aren't celebrating
just like some of the posts on this thread with high fives and joyous glee at thwarting the big bad gummint.

Signed,

Another liberal gun owner.



So you can't post a link to someone in this thread exhibiting the behavior that you have alleged?

[Tim01]

129. Liberal, gun owner, celebrating. NOT a TP.

Who cares if the TPs are celebrating a good decision? They don't make my choices for me.

[Jakes Progress]

142. I'm a liberal. I own guns. I ain't celebrating

this brain dead policy. I didn't say that loving guns made someone a TP. But when you find yourself agreeing with them, you might start to question your position.

[Tim01]

153. I dare you to actually look at the reality of the issue.

Parks are not safe. The crime rate is pretty high compared to urban areas. That is because there is an ample number of victims who are isolated from witnesses and law enforcement. Plenty of victims, no one to save them, poor cell coverage. The criminals are already bringing their weapons into the park, they are criminals, they don't obey the law.


The people who will start bringing guns into the park are people like me. I have a CCW and have carried daily for over 10 years. People like me on average are more law abiding, and better trained than police officers. Are you afraid of police officers in the park?


In order to be against the change you have to refuse to see the facts for what they are and instead rely only on emotion. Just like a religious zealot.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

211. If you believe that...

"You refuse to see the facts of how guns affect society. Compare US gun deaths with other countries."


If you believe that, why do you still have yours?


Oh, your guns aren't a problem and were supposed to believe that?


Be nice if youd do the same for people you don't know, too.


WFIW, I don't have a concealed carry license, nor do I want one.

[katmondoo]

2. We are free not to go into national parks

I expect to see more animals being shot in "self Defense"

[marmar]

3. Just in case somebody steps in front of you while you're gazing at Old Faithful.....

...... blow the muthaf**ka away.


This country has devolved into a satire of itself.

[mmonk]

146. +1

[ThomWV]

4. Is there a reason the 2nd Amendment would not apply on Federal and public property?

[Bluebear]

6. Of course not, and the NRA spent millions to make sure you can. Enjoy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Thanks.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. Photograph the petroglyph's while they're still there.

[baldguy]

15. Wait - weren't they put there 10,000 yrs ago jus' so we could shoot at 'em?

Come all the way to the gawddam NATIONAL PARK, we got to shoot sumthin!

[Tesha]

7. That's nice. Shall we start a "dead pool"? (NT)

[TreasonousBastard]

8. You have an absolute Constitutional right to carry a gun...

any fucking where you want to. Your Constitutional right to carry a gun trumps any other rights anyone else may have, and trumps common sense or reasonable social norms.

According to the NRA, gun owners are such warm, wonderful, cuddly people that absolutely nothing could possibly go wrong and no one will ever be hurt.

Only the gun-grabbers feelings will be hurt.

[ThomWV]

13. Although I am a strong 2nd Amendment supporter I think you got that wrong

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it use the word gun.

The 2nd amendment gives you the right to self defense, no more, no less. And yes, that is a right that trumps all other rights.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. "All" other rights? So, I have to allow you to bring a gun into my home? And...

while the amendment doesn't mention "guns" it does mention "arms."

That means guns in present usage, since you still aren't allowed to carry around hand grenades.

[ThomWV]

22. I have no right to come into your home independent of if I'm armed or not

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Not the point-- you are implying that if I invite you in I cannot...

tell you to leave your gun outside.

My point is simply that gun rights have limits, as do all constitutionally protected rights.

[harkadog]

32. You house is private not a public place

The Constitution does not apply to private entities and never has.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. B-b-b-b-but, self-defense, and therefore the ability to defend oneself...

is absolute. Or so I've heard, and therefore the Constitution doesn't really apply.

An absolute right is an absolute right, Constitution or not. Private property or not.

That's how it works, isn't it?

[harkadog]

54. You are mixing up self defense with the 2nd amendment.

There is some overlap but not all of the 2nd amendment is self defense and not all of self defense is the 2nd amendment. The Constitution does not apply in a private residence. Some one can't enter your house just because they want to speak in it and cite the First amendment.

[TreasonousBastard]

76. I'm not-- the person I was responding to started that nonsense.

[pipoman]

83. You do realize that you have no 1st Amendment rights on DU, no?

[Statistical]

95. Well he/she does.

Speech on DU is protected from infringement by the federal govt. The federal govt couldn't shut down DU, or demand everyone get a free-speech license.

The bill of rights only prevent abuses by federal govt (and states via incorporation) however they certainly do apply to DU in the context of the relationship between DU or more specifically the govt and citizens who use DU.

[X_Digger]

104. *snort*

Sometimes you'd think so, ya?

[pipoman]

195. My point is

when we post here on DU, we are conversing in Skinner's house....there is no 1st Amendment protection of the posters as it relates to Skinner and his decision not to allow certain types of speech...say the wrong shit and get the pizza...

[pipoman]

84. Dupe

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. He never implied any such thing. You are the only was who has argued the 2nd has no limits.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. I have never argued such a thing, and don't argue that ANY rights have no limits.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Post # 8

You clearly implied that someone actually believes the drivel you wrote in post # 8. There may be a few anarchist that believe that, the overwhelming majority of gun owners and the NRA are in agreement with the restrictions started in the NFA of 1934.

[TreasonousBastard]

47. You really don't get it, do you? Of course not...

you guys take gun rights far too seriously, almost to the point of religion. Myself, I think of guns as more akin to stamp collecting. Woodworking, actually-- a hobby, with dangerous tools. I'd hate it if the gummint took my drill press away, but, like when they took my pot away, if it had to happen, I'd find something else to do.

The world ain't ending over who has a pistol. Where I live, lives have ended over them, though. Three shootings in this town in the last year-- one a driveby by a Salvadoran gang, one some asshole "cleaning his rifle" and shooting a friend, and another asshole taking potshots at a schoolyard. The schoolyard shooting just grazed one of the girls, the other two left dead people.

I have lived in Newark, NJ, and NYC-- places where nobody was worried about coming across a rattlesnake but even the victims of crime usually didn't see much point in arming themselves. It was too much like just asking for trouble.

So, my experience is highly negative as far as guns go-- they just haven't done any good that I've seen in my life, certainly not enough to make up for the bad news, and I am not alone in that.

Yeah, I've been out hunting a few times, and been to the range out here. Made expert with the M14 back in the draftee days, so I'm not completely against guns. I just don't get excited about them one way or the other, and wouldn't miss them if they all disappeared tomorrow.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. I get it. You have had bad experiences and therefore can't think rationally about an issue.

[TreasonousBastard]

75. Just what wasn't rational about what I said?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Here you go....

You in post # 8 "Your Constitutional right to carry a gun trumps any other rights anyone else may have, and trumps common sense or reasonable social norms.

According to the NRA, gun owners are such warm, wonderful, cuddly people that absolutely nothing could possibly go wrong and no one will ever be hurt."


It's completely illogical because no one actually believes it. Find me a single mainstream group who holds any of those views and I will retract my statement about you being irrational.

[TreasonousBastard]

82. Oh, that. I refuse to use the "sarcasm" thingy in the...

apparently futile hope everyone will get the joke.

It is, however, no less OTT than a lot of the pro-gun stuff around.

(You still haven't seemed to notice that I am really neither pro- nor anti- gun-- I understand their usefulness, but just don't care much about them. Kind of like the way I feel about bees, even though bees do seem to be a little more useful.)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. Sarcasm aside, it still implies that someone actually espouses those views.

I haven't read anything to date that made me believe anything about you one way or the other. To me guns are just a tool nothing more nothing less. At times though they are an essential tool. Much like a fire extinguisher.

[beevul]

212. Do you ever stop and really wonder why?

" you guys take gun rights far too seriously, almost to the point of religion."

Do you ever stop and really wonder why?

It might have something to do with the rights regarding guns being under attack for decades now.

Hell, I myself wish the debate was over already.


If the rights regarding firearms stopped being under attack, I think the whole mess would go away.

[bobbolink]

31. I agree with you completely, except you left out one thing.....

REASONABLE.

Warm, wonderful, cuddly, reasonable and rational. Oh yeah, and SOBER.

So much for enjoying camping in the National Parks. :( Another loss. :cry:

[onehandle]

9. Soon to be seen in your favorite national park --->

[proteus_lives]

58. The constant fail of this pic!

:rofl:

You guys need to learn more tricks. That's why your agenda is failing across the nation.

[Biker13]

10. This Is Great News!

nt

[Bluebear]

11. Good, glad you're excited!

[Jakes Progress]

51. More like orgasmic. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. That sounds like a personal problem. See a doctor.

[Jakes Progress]

91. To whom are you replying?

Follow the sub thread. Biker is the excited one. My comment was that he was just a little too excited.

[theoldman]

12. Everyone should relax.

After a few animals and a several people get killed the law will be changed. We only learn the hard way.

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. Hopefully this ruling includes the right to arm bears

and other potential targets.

[Robb]

16. I guess I don't see what people are concerned about.

Most other public lands allow firearms. What is the big deal about national parks allowing them, if state law allows it? :shrug:

[Turbineguy]

17. I wonder how many people

will say "I'm glad I visited Yellowstone in ****, now I don't have to go again."

In the end it's a question of money. It always is. Money trumps the 2nd Amendment.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Money trumps the 2nd Amendment?

[Turbineguy]

77. Perhaps not to you.

But I'm guessing you are a law abiding 2nd amendment supporter and not an arms industry person. I support the 2nd amendment for the same reason and to the same degree as all the other amendments.

But I recognize that the reason Larry Flint supports the 1st amendment is because he makes millions selling pictures of naked women. And there are others who support their pet amendments for the same reasons.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. The arms industry has it's own lobbying group.

[Turbineguy]

89. I wasn't being facetious

but I think that ordinary people's support of the 2nd Amendment is quite different from those who derive business from it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. I didn't think you were being, just pointing it out.

[chrisa]

19. I doubt that there's much gun crime in state parks.

Gun control should focus on cities more, imo.

[krispos42]

20. If the state that the park is in issues concealed-carry permits...

...and you have a permit recognized as valid by said state, then you can continue to carry concealed into the park.



I predict this will be as devestating to the Republic as legalizing same-sex marriage.

[Bluebear]

27. I can't disagree

What I wonder about, though, is why "millions of dollars" would be spent lobbying for this particular scenario. It seems kind of random.

[petronius]

21. I'm going to call my broker and put all my savings into coffin-maker stock

and funeral homes around park facilities. 'Cause there's certainly going to be a massacre next week, right? ;)

[XOKCowboy]

29. Yep. There will be carnage for sure.

;) back.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. Just like in all the state parks that allow firearms....oh wait.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[proteus_lives]

60. They will be.

And a lot of them actually think being anti-2nd/guns is being "liberal".

Sad.

[XOKCowboy]

28. Sorry but this doesn't bother me...

It's not like guns haven't been in National Parks even with the gun ban. I wasn't worried about it then and I'm not worried about it now.

[Bluebear]

30. It's not meant to bother you.

I'm just curious why the NRA spent "millions" on this particular front. Has there been a clamoring to take handguns into Yosemite or something?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. The part about the NRA spending "millions" isn't in your link. Do you have a link to that?

[Bluebear]

49. Actually it is. In paragraph four.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. They didn't spend millions on this issue.

[XOKCowboy]

40. The NRA spends millions on everything gun related..

Nothing new there. Like I said hundreds of thousands of illegal guns have been taken into the National Parks every year during the gun ban. Of that number maybe one percent used those guns "irresponsibly" and were caught and prosecuted. Most just kept them concealed, enjoyed their visit and left with them. This really changes nothing but makes it legal for registered gun owners to exercise their rights.

Do you really think that this is going to lead to mass carnage somehow?

[Bluebear]

48. Well, no, what did I say lead you to that?

[XOKCowboy]

106. I'm just wondering why you're so worried about this?

Beyond politics and what the NRA has on their agenda I've never seen any reason to worry about legal carrying of firearms in National Parks. I'm just wondering what you think this will lead to?

[piedmont]

33. There's nothing keeping criminals from bringing their guns to the park anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary_Stayner">Cary Stayner (He didn't use a gun, but committed murder anyway)
http://crime.about.com/b/2008/06/09/gary-michael-hilton-extradited-to-florida.htm">Gary Michael Hilton
http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/new_river_valley/article/appalachian_trail_killer_may_be_suspect_in_double_shooting/10572/">Appalachian Trail Killer
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/serialkillers/carpenter.htm">Trailside Killer

[ThoughtCriminal]

37. We can count on "Responsible Use"

Or, maybe not

[Fumesucker]

44. Damn, that was some really mean hail..

:evilgrin:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Yep, I'm sure that was CCW permit holders. LOL

[stevedeshazer]

41. Yogi and Boo-Boo will be bummed out.

No more pick-i-nick baskets for those guys. Fill 'em full of lead!

[Yurovsky]

53. That pic-a-nic basket could get you shot...

I think I'd go back to nuts and berries and the occassional roadkill possum.

[LLStarks]

46. I don't buy the argument of increased violence. I could imagine there being more illegal hunting. nt

[proteus_lives]

55. Good.

I'm glad that our gun rights are becoming more secure.

[DefenseLawyer]

62. Imagine the trauma

when viewing the wildlife with the kids and guy next to you whips out his tec-9 and squeezes off 6 into bambi's mom.

[Taitertots]

65. What percentage of poaching is done by people with CPLs?

Shooting a deer with a tec-9 would be illegal.
Shooting it in a national forest would be illegal.
Breaking the law would mean they are no longer carrying legally.

Your are afraid of people acting within the law, because you are afraid they might break the law. With the reason being that you are afraid they are going to break the law, being that they are following the law.

[DefenseLawyer]

66. So, Gun Guy, what you are saying is...

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? Uh, never heard that one before. You should put that on a bumpersticker.

[Taitertots]

67. No, it is that being afraid of that situation is not based on rational thought

Your reasoning for assuming they are going to commit a litany of felonies is that they have a legally concealed handgun. Your reasoning for assuming they are going to break the law is that they are following the law.

I don't assume someone is going to commit a litany of felonies just because they follow the law.

[DefenseLawyer]

72. I was being facetious

Guns are definitely not my issue and I don't think this easing of restrictions in national parks will amount to a hill of beans. I have no fear of widespread carnage at Yellowstone. At the same time I think it is absurd that gun nuts felt some great oppression at not being able to pack heat in a national park. Really? Is that the pressing need in the gun nut community? I'm also not going to buy your "law abiding citizens never fuck up with guns" idea. That's just plain wrong. I don't believe by and large that gun control laws are effective. However, a helluva lot of gun violence, particular homicide, is perpetrated by people with no criminal record. There are lots of reasons why control doesn't work, but your "law abiding citizens" argument isn't one of them.

[XOKCowboy]

114. Oh yeah that'll happen.

Have you ever even been to a National Park?

[DefenseLawyer]

143. Don't shoot me.

It was a joke. If you're going to be carrying a loaded gun everywhere, you really need to lighten up.

[depakid]

63. Well, I guess this guy can come out of his trailer now:

[X_Digger]

88. "Seems to me you're the one who has serious problems if you're arguing via a childish cartoon"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4267101#4267719

Pot, meet kettle. Talk amongst yaselves.

[depakid]

93. One's grounded in reality- another in fantasy

Big difference- at least in the reality based community.

[X_Digger]

105. The "reality" of 'gun free zones' not actually stopping anyone who intends harm?

Yeah, big difference.. The poster's cartoon in that thread actually highlights the failure of a sign (without concomitant security measures) to deter crime, while yours just insults those that wish to protect themselves in places far from law enforcement.

Pull the other one, it plays "Hello Dolly".

[depakid]

126. Nope- the reality is quite unlike the fantasy

Criminals don't "seek out" so called "gun free zones" to commit crimes.- though that's surely one of the paranoid (and dishonest) memes that gun proliferators childishly like to spread.

On the other hand, irrational fear and cowardice is behind many people's demands that they be allowed to carry their guns everywhere.

Like schools, bars and national parks...

[X_Digger]

131. Criminals don't "seek out" so called "gun free zones" to commit crimes..

Riiiiight..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks

http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2009/03/ch-list.html

[depakid]

144. LOL- you really are off of the deep end!

The spurious thought processes aren't surprising though- indeed, they're quite typical of obsessives- who'll conjure up all sorts of absurdities to justify their behavior.

[XOKCowboy]

118. Yeah well you need to look at the reality based side.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Ohhh the burn.

[beevul]

213. ROFL

Thats gonna leave a mark...

[AlinPA]

207. That's funny.

[aikoaiko]

68. About time, but it really is a small thing in the big picture

Now people can keep and possess arms in national parks the same way they can in the rest of the state in which the park exists.

[Statistical]

69. Good. Kinda stupid that in VA you can carry firearm into state park but..

have a loaded firearm in your car on Blue Ridg Pkwy (which is a national park and highway) and you just became a felon.

I see the antis are all chanting about blood in the streets er woods. If 5 years it will be a complete non-issue. There have never been a rise in gun violence when states allow conceal carry anywhere else despite near constant predictions by the anti-gunners so it is unlikely National Parks will change that.

[havocmom]

120. Don't go and be logical. It upsets the fear mongers

;)

I fail to understand how some here can go about predicting gun mayhem now when most state parks have allowed guns for years, without all the dire consequences some are predicting for National Parks. It boggles the mind.

Guns are more common than some realize. Gun play, not so much.

[Statistical]

148. Logic was never the strong suit of antis.

I love when they don't realize where you are allowed to carry firearms and say things like:

"So you want people to be able to carry guns into parks?" You already can.
"You want people to be able to carry guns into airports" You already can (just not in secure section).
"You want people to be able to carry guns to a bank" You can. Private property. Depends on the bank.

They seem to not realize you can carry firearms in most locations already and the rate of abuse by CCW license holders is lower than that of Police Officers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Thank you President Obama for signing this common sense law

[madeline_con]

78. WHAT? Weren't they before?

My cousin must have used a club to get that huge moose in Yellowstone. Who knew?

[havocmom]

122. 'twas the bears who bore arms....

;)

[astral]

81. What is wrong with the right to bear arms?

People do carry guns for protection while hiking out in nature. There are carnivorous wild animals in national parks and there are deadly attacks by such wild animals on people IN national parks.

People do also carry guns for self-defense against other people, no matter whether they are in the city or in the wilderness.

Do we want people to have the right to arm themselves Except . .. Except ... Except (!) in this or that situation? I can see keeping them out of schools or out of a courtroom and off of jetliners.

[depakid]

145. "There are carnivorous wild animals in national parks"

:rofl:

Dude- try this instead:



It's safer and more effective.

[Jakes Progress]

199. Safe and effective. What's the fun in that.

Besides, do it make a big old bang? Them big old bangs are the cool shit. Whoooooeeee.

[X_Digger]

85. Undoing what Reagan and James Watt did 26 years ago!! n/t

[DainBramaged]

92. I see this hasn't been buried in the gun forum, I wonder why.....

:grr:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Who knows? Any guesses?

[defendandprotect]

96. GOP + NRA and "Wild West America" . . !!

Ain't sellin' guns grand!!!

Whoopee . . .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. I always despised selling them. Everyone has cash flow problems though.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[Tim01]

98. This will be such a huge non-event. nt

[Tim01]

130. It's not the guns that are the problem, it is the parks.

The same guy that has been carrying his gun under his shirt for 10 years with no incident of any kind, is changed into a vicious psycho-killer when he enters the park.
Parks make normal people become dangerous.

[mmonk]

147. Soon, you won't be able to keep someone from bringing

a firearm into your home.

[Statistical]

150. Yup.

Just like you can't prevent someone from holding a speech in your home, or petitioning the govt in your home, or stop someone from setting up a printing press in your home, or holding church services in your home.

Yup. It will be exactly like that because of course PUBLIC PROPERTY (roads, "common" places, national parks) are EXACTLY like PRIVATE PROPERTY.

[mmonk]

152. Why is there a need to carry guns to parks?

If we aren't able to do that, does that mean we live under tyranny? I'm tired of specious arguments.

[X_Digger]

154. Why restrict it?

Luckily there's no "Department of Need" that one has to justify exercise of rights to.

When you consider that these same people frequently carry into national forests, BLM land, and city and state parks without incident, what's the justification for restricting the same activity in national parks?

[mmonk]

161. Because people shoot people with firearms.

[X_Digger]

166. {insert non sequitur here}

We don't limit civil rights because of rare occurrences. (Concealed carriers illegally shooting people with firearms.)

"Because people stab people with knives." -- what's next, banning steak knives from red lobster?

"Because people run over people with cars." -- ?

"Because people poison people with rat poison." -- ?

[mmonk]

183. We don't allow people to drive 75 miles an hour in a 35 miles per hour

residential zone either, but people still have the right to drive their cars.

[Tim01]

186. And NOBODY wants to do target practice in the parks. Nobody even wants to shoot. nt

[X_Digger]

188. And I'm sure there are demonstrated, statistically relevant..

.. studies to back up restrictions on speed in residential areas.

But to use the fact that residential areas have speed limits as a reason to impose a 35mph limit on the interstate? Not gonna fly, either.

[Tim01]

173. Why do you assume everybody is a mass murderer who has to be controled?

Is that what you do when you get a knife in your hand, start stabbing people? Where are all of these crazy killers who you are so afraid of? Did anybody try to drive their car over you today? Ever?

Why are you so terrified of a situation that doesn't exist?

[mmonk]

189. Why do you make wild and crazy assumptions about me?

I'm saying a proper reading of the Constitution, not an ideological one, would show nothing that would prevent some restrictions on guns in different jurisdictions nor guarantee that parks must allow them.

[Tim01]

190. Oh, you want to talk aobut the Constitution. There are more educated people here than me.

I'm sure they will want to chat with you about this.

I have no interest in restricting constitutional rights based on irrational fears.


What happens if people carry guns around for self defense? Nothing. But gun control advocates want to possibly damage the 2nd amendment because it makes some people uncomfortable just knowing there could be guns around.


This has a striking resemblance to a conversation I had with another person. "But I don't want to see 2 guys kissing, why should I have to put up with that?"

[mmonk]

193. The SupremeCcourt just said corporations are people and money

is free speech. Everyone interprets the Constitution according to their ideology in the US. I was going with the simple straight forward language and its historical context. And I am not a gun control advocate. I won't waste my time on such matters as there are bigger issues to worry about from my perspective.

[Statistical]

192. Many people would disagree. Fundemental rights have been incorporated agains the states.

By your logic while the BofR protects infringement by federal govt on matters of religion the state of GA for example would be prohibited to establish the "Church of GA".

McDonald vs Chicago is before Supreme Court right now. By this Summer we will know for sure but I wager the 2nd will be incorporated against the states at which point is applies equally and fully to all forms of govt.

[beevul]

216. A proper reading of the constitution?

The constitution is a document that authorizes government - grants it certain limited powers. The document in question, on the other hand, is called The Bill Of Rights - which is generally a laundry list of things the government shall not do. So let go over that document rather than the constitution, a bit, shall we?

Heres the first paragraph of the preamble to the bill of rights, contained IN the bill of rights itself:

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


To prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers - "it" being government - further declaratory and restrictive clauses were added. Declaratory and restrictive, and applicable only to government.

With me so far?

Heres one such example of declaratory and restrictive clauses:

Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" - declaratory, declares why - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" - restrictive - says what government shall not do.

That right there is a proper and non-ideological reading of the pertainant amendment, and document.



http://billofrights.org/

[Tim01]

155. Because parks ARE NOT safe zones.

Parks have more violent crime than urban areas because of the lack of witnesses, police and cell coverage.

If you want to believe that you are mostly safe in a park, go ahead. Most of our country is pretty safe. But you are not any more safe than anyplace else.

My gun stays on my belt quietly day in and day out and does nothing. It is exactly the same as fire insurance. I have it just in case. I hope I'll never need it, and I probably won't. Just like fire insurance. But if I do need my gun or my fire insurance, then I really really need it.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

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

[Tim01]

167. You don't have anything at all to back up what you believe, do you?

You should form a religion.

[Statistical]

156. Thankfully that isn't how rights work.

The correct question is:
"Why is there a NEED for govt to restrict carrying weapons in a national park?"

When restricting a right the burden of restriction is on the govt not the individual. For a constitutional restriction to be found unconstitutional the individual doesn't need to show a NEED the individual simply needs to show the govt hasn't met the requirements for restriction. If the burden was on the individual then burn the Bill of Rights because it is not worth the paper it is written for. The govt could simply set the bar for "need" so high as to make rights in name only. Not just the 2nd amendment but any right.

If govt restricts speech, religion, press or any right (which it does in limited circumstances) there must be an overwhelming need to do so.

That concept of the burden of restriction in the United State is called Strict Scrutiny.

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

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

Just because you don't like guns, or you don't see a reason isn't valid under strict scrutiny. Hell I don't really see a reason for blogs, some people might not see a reason for DU, others might not see a reason for fictional books (only book you need is the bible). There is a danger on banning stuff because you "don't see a need".

This is why the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. Read about Strict Scrutiny with an open mind and you might learn something.

[mmonk]

158. I did not say I didn't like guns.

However we have the highest death rate per 100K citizens in the world due to firearms. I go on logic and facts. To say we need more places with more gun carrying people to be safe doesn't equate with fact.

[slackmaster]

162. Your factoid is incorrect, mmonk. Please don't make stuff up. Real data is available.

Several countries have higher per-capita firearm homicide rates than the US does.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

A more meaningful statistic would be the overall homicide rate:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[mmonk]

169. You are only looking at intentional successful homicide.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females. (CDC, 2004)

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

I am not for nationwide bans and such. I'm looking at why a modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment that does not recognize that the 2nd amendment is the only amendment with a qualifier (state militia in reference to federal power and division of rights) has become such an absolute that advocates have to insure their view of any gun, anywhere, anytime with no restrictions must be the way we have to live and the only right through that interpretation that cannot be touched by any regulation whatsoever, even for public safety, especially when so many other rights have been under attack.

[slackmaster]

170. The "over 200,000 per year" figure for non-fatal firearm injuries is bogus

As is the claim of firearm injuries being one of the top 10 causes of death in the US.

WISQARS reports 78,622 non-fatal firearm injuries in 2008.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

"Unintentional Injury" took fifth place in 2006, but within that category firearm injuries aren't even close to the top 10.

"Homicide" falls in the top 10 causes of death for some age groups, but not overall.

[X_Digger]

172. Not even close.. (top ten causes of death in the US)

This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm

* Heart disease: 631,636
* Cancer: 559,888
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
* Diabetes: 72,449
* Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
* Septicemia: 34,234

Some portion of the unitentional injuries are firearms, but for 2006 it was a whopping 642.

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S.

bzzzt.. Check CDC's WISQARS for non-fatal injuries- 71,417 in 2006, 69,863 in 2007, 78,622 in 2008.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

eta: fixed first quote

[mmonk]

174. I don't mind using the CDC's stats.

In fact, if you google, stats are all over the place from different sources. Pick one to bolster your arguments.

[X_Digger]

176. I tend to go with the FBI, CDC, BJS..

I know where you got that quote, and the reason it's wrong now is that it's out of date.

WISQARS lets you roll your own stats, with TONS of criteria, breaking down for age group, race, geography. The only downside to WISQARS is that it's always about three years behind (they wait two years to get final disposition of deaths, and then it takes about a year to collate the data into their website.)

The FBI's UCR (Uniform Crime Report) is another great source, direct from the horse's mouth, as it were, since police departments report incidents directly to them.

The BJS correlates the FBI's UCR data, along with the CDC's WISQARS, and throws in the NCVS (National Crime Victim Survey).

Those are the authoritative sources I use that usually have up-to-date numbers. Not studies from the 90's, or reports by the UN that don't compare apples to apples between countries. True, there are a lot of different stats out there, but the 'golden source' really are the ones I mentioned (CDC, FBI).

[mmonk]

205. Good sources.

[Statistical]

165. How many of those deaths are by CCW holders?

While the rate isn't 0% it is lower than Police Officers in States that record those stats.

Part of strict scrutiny is selecting the LEAST RESTRICTIVE method to accomplish the goal. For the sake of argument lets say banning firearms either in a park or everywhere 100% would substantially drop homicide rate. I don't think that is the case (US murder rate by non-guns is higher than most countries murder rate). However for the sake of argument lets say you could absolutely prove in court of law that banning carrying guns would reduce murder rate.

Remember in the US to restrict a RIGHT you must:
a) compelling governmental interest
b) narrowly tailored
c) least restrictive means

you would have a hard time proving in court the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to keep the public safe in National Parks is to ban all firearms, by all people, all the time. While it "may" meet the first prong of Strict Scrutiny it certainly doesn't meet the second two.

Limiting the carrying to CCW holders would seem to be a limited scope restriction.
Expanding the ban to all persons (even persons with very low likelihood of violent crime) likely doesn't meet Strict Scrutiny.

The concept of Strict Scrutiny is very strong. The govt must prove that the restriction meets not one or two but all three parts.

If you don't like that then repeal the 2nd. As long as it exists the Right To Keep and Bear Arms is just that a RIGHT and as such is protected by excessive infringement just like any other right.

[mmonk]

175. I don't want to.

I just believe in reason not absolutes. Excessive infringement is always in the eye of the beholder and the POLITICS of those that make the decision.

[Statistical]

187. That is why we have a Supreme Court.

It has a long history of smacking down laws when Politicians try to pander to peoples fears and restrict rights.

There are three possible choices:
a) pass nonsense laws that you know at time of passage don't pass Constitutional standards and wail when they get knocked down.
b) Repeal the 2nd amendment.
c) accept the reality of the situation and work to craft laws that meet the standard of "strict scrutiny".

Most antis tend to choose A because it feels good despite being the losing proposition.

[mmonk]

194. I simply do not see your belief in the 2nd amendment language.

That is all.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

196. Where did he state his opinion on the language of the 2nd Amendment?

[mmonk]

206. Are you serious?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

210. Yes, I missed it what post was it?

[beevul]

217. See this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7761888#7773709


Is what the document actually says good enough?

[slackmaster]

164. Slippery Slope Fallacy argument is fallacious

Nobody is going to infringe your right to control what can and cannot be brought into your home.

[slackmaster]

163. It's sad to see so much bigotry and stereotyping on this thread

People who are licensed to carry concealed firearms are no more of a threat than gay marriage.

[spanone]

168. oy, a gun thread .....bring on the squirrels

[mmonk]

204. Lol

[cherokeeprogressive]

182. That was 12.5 hours ago now, what's the death toll so far? n/t

[Taverner]

184. Meh. As a Gun Rights Apathist let me say this will not change a thing

Gun rights, gun laws - it doesn't really matter or make a difference one way or the other.

[Mari333]

198. ergo, I wont be visiting any of them every again.

Its as simple as that.

[Socal31]

201. Boo!

What other inanimate objects cause you that much fear?

Personally I am much more scared of a teenager on a cell phone hitting me from behind and wiping out my family.

Or the drunk rolling the DUI dice on the way home from the bar.

But if law abiding citizens scare you that much, so be it.

[Mari333]

202. you never experienced michigan on new years eve have you

[Pavulon]

203. Yay, they are to crowded.

please convince your friends to say home. Parkway is out of control, remember there are now scary people out there to KILL YOU..

[XOKCowboy]

214. Yes please! I hope more people follow this posters lead

Stay away from all National Parks! There are roving gangs of rednecks shooting up everything! You might get shot just going in the gate! Stay Away!!

;)

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

218. Who cares? This is no big deal.

Seriously, so a few gun-phobic ninnies get the vapours, big deal. Anybody that thinks this will increase violence is delusional.

All this does is really make folks legal. Out in the West, if you go off the beaten track into the boondocks without a firearm you are an idiot, so a lot of backpackers carried anyway legal or not. Yeah, the Disneyland tour of the National Parks doesn't offer much use for a firearm. If you go exploring the undeveloped areas it can become useful.