Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNational Parks are not like other public lands, and they are not like state lands. They are set aside because they are unlike anywhere else on Earth. -- Congressman Raúl Grijalva
Senator Tom Coburn has struck again, aided and abetted by feckless Majority Leader Harry Reid.
This time around, Coburn hijacked the credit card reform bill, attaching yet another insane gun amendment that has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. The result? A vote for the "Credit Card Bill of Rights" is now also a vote for allowing loaded shotguns, rifles -- even AK-47s -- into our national parks. Score another win for the NRA, poaching, environmental degradation, and national insecurity -- and a huge loss for public safety.
Congressman Raúl Grijalva, who chairs the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee as well as the Progressive Caucus, held a press conference on Capitol Hill yesterday to urge action against the amendment. He was joined by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn Maloney, as well as advocates from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Humane Society, National Parks Conservation Association, and two retired park rangers-- one of whom is a former director of law enforcement at the parks.
Grijalva and his colleagues urged Americans to contact their representatives and tell them to vote against this amendment, which could be taken up on the House floor as early as today. (Grijalva said it was an "uphill" battle to find the votes to shoot the amendment down.) They also urged House leadership to take the bill to conference and strip the amendment as not germane, which clearly it isn't.
Yesterday a Reid spokesman told CongressDaily that there is little Reid can do to prevent amendments like Coburn's -- frankly, that's a load of crap. He could toughen up (as could Dems fearful of the NRA). There is a well known process on the Hill called "filling the tree", whereby the Majority Leader cuts off amendments by offering his own -- even if they are simply place holders. In response, the GOP would certainly complain bitterly or maybe try to slow down the process. Let them. I'm sure interfering with the credit card reform at this moment of financial hardship would serve only to cement their minority status.
Republicans don't mess around when it comes to taking advantage of parliamentary tactics. It's time for the Democrats to respond in kind. Perhaps Harry Reid simply isn't up to the job at hand.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr Hayes,
It is almost a truism now that Democrats LOSE on the gun issue if they follow the liberal prescriptions. Period.
It costs them middle class, working class, and rural voters. Places like Pennsylvania, Ohio.
And only wins them, no offense, folks like you.
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 10:38am
Mr Hayes,
You and the Democrats have completely misrepresented the language of Amendment S1067
<Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
(8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.
(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals to Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.>
See anything about allowing hunting, or the use of AK-47's in the amendment?
It is about the same rights of individuals granted in the constitution to self defense being available inside a National Park as is available to citizens when outside a National Park.
It also says that these rights will be subject to the laws governing the state in which the NP is located.
This is just the usual leftist hyperbole among anti-gun advocates.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 11:01am
no one said it allows hunting, but it sure makes it easier to poach. and whatever weapons a state permits people to have --ak-47s or otherwise -- would now be permitted in the NATIONAL park in that state. it flies in the face of the spirit of the national park system -- which ORIGINALLY asked visitors to "check their weapons at the door." IT ALSO HAS NO BUSINESS BEING ON A CREDIT CARD REFORM BILL! (which also goes to Mask's point... there is political cover in this case.) If people like Coburn and antisocialist want to have this fight, they should do it through a free-standing bill... not attached to things like a Voting Rights Bill or Financial reform bill.
Posted by gregokauf at 05/20/2009 @ 11:10am
The second amendment does not mention guns.It says we have the right to keep and bare arms and arms includes anything that the military has,but we are not allowed to have most of what the military has,but the NRA does not want to go through the hassle of changing the second amendment to exclude military arms because changing the constitution is annoying and people may decide to just get rid of the amendment.Quoting the second amendment has no meaning since we do not go by it and do not allow people to have most of the items that are defined as arms.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 11:12am
National Parks are dangerous places. Lots of crime with very little law enforcement. I would be happy to be able to protect myself and my family in one just as I can now in Arizona state parks. Not all liberals are anti-gun.
Posted by snookie at 05/20/2009 @ 11:30am
"no one said it allows hunting, but it sure makes it easier to poach" Posted by gregokauf at 05/20/2009 @ 11:10am
Newsflash for you...poaching is illegal.
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 11:41am
this is nothing.
H.R. 1324 will allow loaded weapons to be carried by day care workers.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 11:50am
i'm not anti-gun, and i'm perfectly comfortble with ME owning all sorts of ironmongery...
and i don't want the dems to push gun control yet...
but i SURE don't want a bunch of yahoos running around with firearms everywhere.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 11:53am
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 11:12am
Nor does the First Amendment mention radio, television, or the internet.
Sheeesh!!!
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 11:56am
but if you bring your grenade launcher, you are sure to get the best picnic site.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 11:57am
"but i SURE don't want a bunch of yahoos running around with firearms everywhere."
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 11:53am
Here's something to consider....they already are! We have a name for them....criminals. If this bill passes, at least I'll have the opportunity to fight back on equal or greater terms.
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:00pm
fram-The first amendment does not need to mention those items,but it is quite meaningful that "arms" in the second amendment is not defined because it should have been clearly defined nor is anyone sure if the second amendment means that individuals can possess arms or just the militia.It was very poorly written,but few seem to want to go through the hassle to write it so it makes sense and is clear.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:02pm
Crime Statistics > Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Thailand: 79.5805
# 2 South Africa: 59.2028
# 3 Colombia: 45.2092
# 4 Slovakia: 45
# 5 Guatemala: 42.0706
# 6 Zimbabwe: 39.6026
# 7 United States: 39.5604
# 8 Paraguay: 37.8987
# 9 Macedonia, Republic of: 35.6164
# 10 Uruguay: 35.2941
what a nice neighbourhood!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:06pm
I think I understand very easily the different perspectives on the issue. Certainly the gun rider shouldn't have been tacked on to a credit card reform bill - this was duplicitous behavior on the part of the legislators involved. However, I really wish the anti-gun lobby wouldn't resort to hysterical scare tactics like telling the public "You'll have AK-47's in the national parks!!!!!" For one thing, real AK-47's are illegal anywhere in the country. Semi-automatic copies of the AK-47 are available, and are in truth no different than other semi-automatic rifles with or without pistol grip. For another thing, it is easier to simply tell the public the truth - that the biggest objection to bringing guns into national parks is the reality of POACHING. People will illegally hunt in protected areas.
For my part, I suspect that there is no reason to bring a gun into a park besides plinking and poaching. I think it is OK for people to own guns and bring them into places where guns go and to shoot and hunt with them. However, ultimately, the rate of violent crime in national parks is so low that there isn't a self-defense issue, and plinking can be done all over the place already, and poaching is illegal, so I believe that the restriction against guns in the national parks should remain in place.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/20/2009 @ 12:09pm
Look, said it on Ms vanden Heuvel's DA in NY thread...
it's not identical but closely SAT Test analogous to:
Gun control laws are to Democrats, as Abortion is to Republicans.
It's a great "red meat" issue for the base...promises are made to the activist groups....but if the Party actually DOES something significant or "large" about it....they lose elections.
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 12:09pm
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm of the opinion that organized crime gangs and syndicates should be declared domestic terrorist criminal organizations and dealt with thusly. shoot first and ask later.
i think the stricture against firearms in national parks is common sense. designating zones as no-firearms does not seem like a bad idea nor an infringement of rights.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 12:10pm
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY
CHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 2_RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION--Table of Contents
Sec. 2.15 Pets.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Possessing a pet in a public building, public transportation vehicle, or location designated as a swimming beach, or any structure or area closed to the possession of pets by the superintendent.
WOOF! WOOF!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:12pm
EGAD!
Mortality Statistics > Bitten or struck by dog (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 United States: 26 deaths
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:13pm
The second amendment does not mention guns.It says we have the right to keep and bare arms and arms includes anything that the military has,but we are not allowed to have most of what the military has,but the NRA does not want to go through the hassle of changing the second amendment to exclude military arms because changing the constitution is annoying and people may decide to just get rid of the amendment.Quoting the second amendment has no meaning since we do not go by it and do not allow people to have most of the items that are defined as arms.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 11:12am
Perhaps you don't recall that the Supreme Court ruled on this last year and established limitations on the definitions of the right to keep and bear arms including what type of arms are acceptable?
Washington DC v Heller 07-290
<Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
http://tinyurl.com/5ackrz
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 12:13pm
Any further proof needed that the US is in a downward spiral, destroying itself ?
And the Taliban, OBL & al Q didn't have to lift a finger.
BTW: this new law, once Obama signs it, will also allow you to carry concealed guns into national parks. Just to fool all them grizzlies.
Posted by sloper at 05/20/2009 @ 12:14pm
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
WOOF! WOOF!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:14pm
TITLE 36--PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY
CHAPTER I--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
PART 2_RESOURCE PROTECTION, PUBLIC USE AND RECREATION--Table of Contents
Sec. 2.12 Audio disturbances.
(a) The following are prohibited:
(1) Operating motorized equipment or machinery such as an electric generating plant, motor vehicle, motorized toy, or an audio device, such as a radio, television set, tape deck or musical instrument, in a manner: (i) That exceeds a noise level of 60 decibels measured on the A- weighted scale at 50 feet; or, if below that level, nevertheless; (ii) makes noise which is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, purpose for which the area was established, impact on park users, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
••••
Table 1. SHOTGUN NOISE DATA (DECIBEL AVERAGES)
.410 Bore 28" barrel 150dB
26" barrel 150.25dB
18 _" barrel 156.30dB
20 Gauge 28" barrel 152.50dB
22" barrel 154.75dB
12 Gauge 28" barrel 151.50dB
26" barrel 156.10dB
18 _" barrel 161.50dB
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:17pm
well,
there you go.
you can carry a gun but you can't fire it or you will be kicked out...
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:18pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:02pm
Actually the Second Amendment is quite clear. It is you who cannot understand the language. For example, you question the "individual" vs. the "militia". You should look up the word militia and then look up how the U.S. Code defines who is in the militia. You would find that a militia is an ARMED CITIZENRY and the U.S. Code defines it as ALL able bodied males between the ages of 18-45. Notice that it says ALL...not just some, or few, or only those in the National Guard.
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:19pm
antisocialist-It is quite irrelevant what SCOTUS decided nor does that have anything to do with what I said and you believe that we should be sticklers when it comes to the letter of the law as it pertains to the constitution and you believe that judges should not be making those decisions,like the ones you just quoted..You are a stickler for the letter of the law except when that conflicts with something your side wants and then you are no longer a stickler for the letter of the law.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:19pm
fram-It is because the second amendment is so clear that no one can agree on what it means, including constitutional scholars..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:22pm
i think the stricture against firearms in national parks is common sense. designating zones as no-firearms does not seem like a bad idea nor an infringement of rights.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 12:10pm
Of course you think it's common sense. However, you should look up the word criminal. Defined as someone who doesn't obey laws. Your position would hold merit if you can guarantee that no criminal will be armed when entering a national park.
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:25pm
fram-I own guns and believe that responsible people,not Dick Cheney,should be allowed to own them,but I,also,know that the second amendment was very poorly written and do not base my view on the second amendment.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:27pm
fram-If everyone can bring guns into these parks then criminals will the least of your problems and you will only see a rise in "accidental" killings and people mistake each other for bears...
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:29pm
snookie
You're full of it. The National Parks are NOT loaded with crime. Heard of some problems at Hot Springs. Most of the parks are crowded with seasonal rangers who carry cell phones. The Park Police can be summoned quite quickly. The PP take their jobs very seriously.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/20/2009 @ 12:30pm
fram-It is because the second amendment is so clear that no one can agree on what it means, including constitutional scholars..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:22pm
No, it's because they are afraid to admit that it means what it says....even some Constitutional scholars.
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:30pm
fram-If everyone can bring guns into these parks then criminals will the least of your problems and you will only see a rise in "accidental" killings and people mistake each other for bears...
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:29pm
You have absolutely no data, proof, or anything to back up that statement.
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
fram-I know for a fact that it is not because they are afraid that it means what it says.I know for a fact that gun owners,like myself and many others believe it to be poorly written.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
fram-I lived in places like Montana for most of my life and am a hunter and country boy and am quite aware that idiots, like Dick Cheney, can mistake a bird for a human so I,in fact,do have tons of facts and data.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:36pm
fram-I know for a fact that it is not because they are afraid that it means what it says.I know for a fact that gun owners,like myself and many others believe it to be poorly written.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:33pm
I'll play along but I'm almost done on the computer for the day. Forgive me if I don't get back today. How would you phrase the Second Amendment...if it were up to you?
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:39pm
fram-As I have already stated,I would clearly define arms and clearly define who gets what.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:44pm
The second amendment only allows one to have the gun,but does not mention bullets so it only allows you to have an unloaded gun.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:48pm
antisocialist-It is quite irrelevant what SCOTUS decided nor does that have anything to do with what I said and you believe that we should be sticklers when it comes to the letter of the law as it pertains to the constitution and you believe that judges should not be making those decisions,like the ones you just quoted..You are a stickler for the letter of the law except when that conflicts with something your side wants and then you are no longer a stickler for the letter of the law.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:19pm
this one will get framed.
IM has gone on notice that it is IRRELEVANT what SCOTUS rules.
And I've never said that judges should not rule on what the constitution says. that is their function.
I said they are not authorized to make law.
This ruling did nothing of the kind. It ruled a law unconstitutional which has been an essential role of determination for SCOTUS since it's inception.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 12:54pm
antisocialist-When have I ever cared what SCOTUS or POTUS or any of these other people or politicians think?The second amendment is so poorly written as to be meaningless and it must be written correctly,but your side,in particular,does not want to do that and so we will continue to get contradictory views on the subject and contradictory rulings..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 1:02pm
antisocialist-When have I ever cared what SCOTUS or POTUS or any of these other people or politicians think?The second amendment is so poorly written as to be meaningless and it must be written correctly,but your side,in particular,does not want to do that and so we will continue to get contradictory views on the subject and contradictory rulings..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 1:02pm
So you disagree with having our constitutional republic.
Who is supposed to interpret law in your opinion?
Contradictory rulings? This was the first time the Supreme Court addressed the right of individuals to own firearms. You ought to read more US History.
The 2nd amendment is "poorly written" according to you; not to most "Americans and evidently not to the Court.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:23pm
Oh boy....I am expecting a giant increase in home freezer sales in rural areas located next to National Parks....
"Daddy...why do those men drive around at night in their pickups with spotlights shinning all over the road"?
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 1:27pm
Posted by syfriendly at 05/20/2009 @ 12:09pm
As I've said before, I am no fan of gun control (Arm the Working Class!) but this seemed to be an eminently reasonable statement of the case so, as of now, I don't have a problem with the existing restrictions in the National Parks.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 1:32pm
The second amendment only allows one to have the gun,but does not mention bullets so it only allows you to have an unloaded gun.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Now there is some strict construction....right to bear arms does not explicitly state the right to have ammo......nice......lol.............
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 1:33pm
I don't have a problem with the existing restrictions in the National Parks.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Indeed. And we have set precedent by distinguishing multiple use (abuse) in National Forests versus protections afforded our National Parks. This should be a "no-brainer."
Posted by OneVote at 05/20/2009 @ 1:36pm
i'm of the opinion that organized crime gangs and syndicates should be declared domestic terrorist criminal organizations and dealt with thusly. shoot first and ask later.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 12:10pm
Madness! With their wellknown penchant for carefully identifying criminals and never, ever shooting civilians, we should let the police loose in people of color communities across the countries, and in all those rural areas where pot is grown and meth manufactured. What you're calling for is the War on Drugs on steroids, just when state governments and even the public are starting to realize that overzealous law enforcement is bankrupting them.
And knowing some of the nuts we've had in government over the last few decades, how soon would it be before non-violent activists of the left and the right were classified as domestic terrorist organizations along with the real crazies.
Madness!
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 1:39pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 1:23pm
Hey, Larry, given HIS history...
do you think Dick Cheney should have the right to own firearms?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/20/2009 @ 1:41pm
antisocialist-Nothing I have posted has anything to do with interpreting the law nor does it show that I'm against having a constitutional republic.All I have stated is that it is impossible to interpret such a poorly written amendment.Actually,most Americans do not agree on what the second amendment means because few give it much thought,but you guys who do interpret it a certain way want to violate my constitutional right to own a tank and you do not want to go though the hassle to change the amendment to exclude tanks.SCOTUS are not the only ones who have ruled on the subject of guns.It is you who should study US history.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 1:43pm
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
so do people have rithe right to bear a gun ANYWHERE?
how bout at an obama speech? be very careful with your answer...
how bout that "well armed militia" clause by the way?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 1:54pm
The second amendment was not written in order to fight crime.It was written so that there would be an armed population that could keep the government under control,but preventing Americans from owning the same weapons as the govt/military eliminated the reason why it was written in the first place.Your hunting rifle will not do much when shooting at a tank.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 1:59pm
hey.... im not a gun guy, but you would be dead meat if you went into alot of national parksin the western united states without a firearm for rotection... think denali alaska...bears... thing crater lake oregon...cougars... not every gun person is a nutjob...
Posted by PAULYG at 05/20/2009 @ 2:40pm
paulyg-Typically,when you shoot a bear it only makes them angry and rarely kills or even slows them down unless you are one very good shot with a high powered weapon.Most who go into our national parks are not the same ones who are the skilled hunters with high powered weapons,but are,typically,city people and do we want such inexperienced people running around our parks with heavy and high powered weapons that can kill at hundreds of yards or high powered handguns that they use to make bears angry and kill each other with while they mistake each other for being bears?Go with a group,make noise,avoid mama bear areas and you'll be fine.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 2:51pm
How would you phrase the Second Amendment...if it were up to you?
Posted by fram at 05/20/2009 @ 12:39pm
humans are too stupid to possess guns.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 2:52pm
That Harry Reid isn't up to the job has been apparent from day one of the Obama administration. Why is this guy the majority leader? We need something like a Democratic Tom Delay. Schumer might be the guy or Durbin. I like Webb, but he is too junior.
Posted by SK9 at 05/20/2009 @ 2:58pm
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There are plenty of hunting and plinking areas. Poaching is a very serious problem. Likewise, national parks tend to get used heavily by people engaged in activities and sports (hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, canoeing, kayaking, fishing) that don't involve shooting and it probably isn't a good idea to mix guns in. Being in an area where people are actively shooting - and the only reason to bring a gun into the park is because you plan on actively shooting - is a very different thing.
Really, the tackiest part of the entire issue is the way these legislators put the guns-in-the-parks bit onto the credit card bill. That's just plain crass.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/20/2009 @ 3:06pm
I used to work for a gun company and am very pro-gun. Many people in my family have had guns for years and there have never been any problems. None of us have ever had any need to take guns or use guns in our National Parks. From the get go our National Parks have been places where if you think you need a gun you should not visit them. (Our cities, towns and National Forests are another story). National Parks are sacred places where hooligans are not welcome and a good way to keep them out permanently is NO GUNS. No waiting to see if they are going to do something wrong or trying to prove that they did. They are armed, they go. By the way in the 30 years that I have been visiting the parks the only time I have ever had a problem was because some jackass was firing his gun for fun in a campground. He was immediately kicked out of the park. The second amendment did not cover his "right" to have fun at everyone else's expense.
Posted by curtisp at 05/20/2009 @ 3:54pm
....National Parks are sacred places where hooligans are not welcome and a good way to keep them out permanently is NO GUNS. No waiting to see if they are going to do something wrong or trying to prove that they did. They are armed, they go....
Posted by curtisp at 05/20/2009 @ 3:54pm
Scene Three, Act One.....
Hooligan drives up to the Estes Park entrance to Rocky Mt. Nat'l Park......
Park Ranger Smith: Sir, you could be a hooligan since you have lots of tatoos & three bullet holes on your driver door.....may I ask if you're carrying firearms, crossbows or any other apparatus that most hooligans would know how to use for bodily harm?
Hooligan Tiscur (thinking to himself, hmmmm, should I tell the good ranger of my sawed-off in the spare tire wel, the 9mm in the backpack and the Sat. night special taped to the underside of the dash by the brake pedal....all 3, just 1 or 2, or maybe just lie and say none?): Well, how ya doing yourself, Ranger...uh, Smith? I have never handled firearms in my life and naver hurt a fly.
Ranger Smith: Thank you, Sir! Enjoy your stay!
Posted by Happy at 05/20/2009 @ 4:21pm
All right, so a lot of this is silly:
1) The Second Amendment is meant to be an individual right to bear arms. Fram already explained how the militia part still supports that interpretation. The history that went into its writing does as well; DC v. Heller articulated this very nicely.
2) The Second Amendment is functionally irrelevant here, unless you believe that the government also cannot outlaw guns in schools. Let me be clear: banning guns in schools overreaches the Commerce Clause, BUT it DOESN'T violate the 2nd Amendment. Nor does banning guns in national parks.
The current regulations make sense, the amendment is stupid. It doesn't make any sense, seeing as how whatever problems currently exist are generally solved by the current system. Doing otherwise raises the risk of poaching, because for one thing, you won't have "citizen intervenors" to stop a poacher from doing their thing; it's just not plausible. Letting poachers openly bring their guns, however, is just bad policy. Moreover, the violence that takes place in these parks is minimal and solveable by park rangers.
National parks were meant to be generally gun-free. Maybe we should keep them that way?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/20/2009 @ 4:46pm
Thrawn-The fact that you had to express an opinion as to what the second amendment is meant to mean seems to suggest that it was poorly written.I have no strong opinion as to what it is supposed to mean and the majority view is that individuals can bear arms,but the problem is that the reason given for having individuals bear arms is to protect our rights from the govt,but we cannot have their weapons so if you take away the reason for why the amendment exists does that not make the amendment rather meaningless?That is like giving us freedom of religion,but eliminating most religions from the list that you can believe in.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/20/2009 @ 5:17pm
I don't feel any safer at all knowing there will be people with guns in the parks.
The National parks used to be quiet G rated family entertainment to be cherished and remembered. Picnics, camping, hiking, site seeing, taking pictures.
It all seemed very safe to me.
Have the parks changed in some way that we now have to carry guns around?
I have never felt threatened at a national park.
Funny the name of the bill is keeping Americans safe at the national parks.
Well, I have no guns and i don't plan to buy any just so I can go and feel safe at a park.
Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 05/20/2009 @ 5:27pm
Nice try happy - bottom line is if some jackass is touting a gun in a National Park that person gets tossed out. No questions asked. No benefit of the doubt. They just have to leave. There are plenty of public spaces in America where you can brandish a gun, shoot in the woods, ect. National Parks are not included in those spaces. That is the way it should stay and there is nothting in the second amendement that says otherwise.
Posted by curtisp at 05/20/2009 @ 5:41pm
Madness!
Posted by cka2nd at 05/20/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well i'm for legalization of MJ. huge waste of resources trying to shut that down.
looks like to me people of color suffer a hell of a lot more from those in their communities who are involved in crime and violence than police trying to curb the same.
these stupid, violent, and evil gangs are a plague to any community unfortunate enough to host them.
i don't equate a war on these sickening, murderous, pain bringing thugs with war on communities of color. you might be surprised at how many people in these communities would love to see something like what i advocate.
lots of good people in these communities suffering terribly from the actions of these violent parasites.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 5:48pm
I thought the left liked AK47s... They seem to love the countries and governments that use them.
Posted by pyeatte at 05/20/2009 @ 6:53pm
Here we go again kneejerking the mass's. The law has always allowed hunting in the National parks where the BS starts is the association of "assault type" weaponry in the National parks. Anyone who thinks this is something new is misinformed again.
Of course those who cry violation of their 2nd amendment rights are the other extreme, we need a median policy here. Been a hunter for the last 50yrs I've seen to much BS about guns. In my opinion what we need is a nationalized data base to track guns so hunter's like myself in Calif can buy guns in other states while allowing law enforcement the tool to track illegal weapons back to the fools who sell them to thugs.
The worst part of this debate is that those who hide behind the 2nd amendment (about 5% of gun owners) are the same twits who ambush cops sell heavy firepower to irresponsible idiots whose kids either kill themselves mimicking the clueless parents or take revenge on their teachers and piers, parade around at TEA parties with armament on their hips. and expect respect from god knows who so their paranoia can be sated.
Can't we find a workable medium here for everyone?
Posted by dycel8r at 05/20/2009 @ 7:12pm
I don't feel any safer at all knowing there will be people with guns in the parks.
Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 05/20/2009 @ 5:27pm
"will be people with guns in the parks"? Got news for you! For years, my family of 4 traveled every year in a Ford custom van, a week to 17 days at a time, driving around the country. Sold that `91 van w/100k+ miles on it a few years back......nearly all on highways. I never went on these road trips w/out a gun under the driver seat....along the way, we've visited damn near every Nat'l Park in the West except the Pacific NW.
You think all those out-of-state cars in whichever Nat'l Park are all gun-free?
===================================
....if some jackass is touting a gun in a National Park that person gets tossed out. No questions asked.....
Posted by curtisp at 05/20/2009 @ 5:41pm
The key words to CYA for your silly post of 3:54pm, are duly noted here: "touting a gun"........your quasi-apology accepted....:)
Posted by Happy at 05/20/2009 @ 8:35pm
I think it's very important that Citizens be able to Bear Arms, because at any time the redcoats may Gather in Force, and try to tar and feather our leaders. Will they be safe in the National Parks? I think not.
Once the British are no longer barracking in the homes of good upstanding American citizens, and not before then, only then can we afford to reconsider our policy of having an Armed Citizen Militia. No, first we must Send them Packing to the Other side of the Atlantic where they Belong.
Folks like Mr Hayes want to have it both ways. They want the British to leave the colonies, but they forget that the the redocats are as likely to rally in National Parks as anywhere else in our great land. We must act boldly and pre-emptively to prevent another Massacre from happening - this time in Yellowstone, at the hands of the Vile Redcoats.
Also, Fram makes an excellent point. Mexican drug lords, Colombian drug cartels, Communists, Hostage Takers, and other such Opportunists have long Flocked to our National Parks in search of easy prey. To the Criminal Mind, the phrase "National Park" is as the call of a Flock of Geese to the Wily Fox. We must be able to defend ourselves if we want to preserve our right to Recreate.
Posted by canaro71 at 05/20/2009 @ 8:39pm
Well add insult to idiocy seems the added measure was to allow loaded guns in game refuges - as the pendulam swings to the right!
Key provisions of credit card reform bill
Two of the opposing senators -- GOP Sen. John Thune and Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson -- were from South Dakota, where thousands of jobs depend on the industry. Thune estimated up to 5,000 workers in the state would lose their jobs as a result of the changes.
Included in the bill is an unrelated measure by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that would allow people to bring loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges.
The House approved that provision separately on Wednesday by a 279-147 vote.
Posted by dycel8r at 05/20/2009 @ 9:12pm
Guns and abortion are great for the global warming problem.
Less people.
Posted by bleedingheart at 05/20/2009 @ 9:13pm
Standby for a new Alicia Silverstone movie-
A Well Armed Melissa
Posted by Sorelish at 05/20/2009 @ 9:48pm
Posted by Sorelish at 05/20/2009 @ 9:48pm
Can't wait to see that one!
Posted by Benchrest at 05/20/2009 @ 9:51pm
Posted by Benchrest at 05/20/2009 @ 9:51pm
Yeah, the bivouac scene, field stripping....
Light em up..
For those with ROTC background- You may smoke if you wish..
Posted by Sorelish at 05/20/2009 @ 10:19pm
Hey Happy glad you accepted the quasi apology. Now there are thousands upon thousands of acres of National Forests for gun guys to play with their guns in. There is not much public interest in changing that. And for the past 25 years you and thousands of other Americans have been fine not being able to carry guns in our National Parks. No second amendment rights are being violated here.
Posted by curtisp at 05/20/2009 @ 10:49pm
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (most recent) by country
# 4 United States: 9,369
WOOF! WOOF!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/20/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You were FOUR times more likely to have died of the flu last year like the 36,000 that did! Be careful!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 10:56pm
"I'm sure interfering with the credit card reform at this moment of financial hardship would serve only to cement their minority status."
Obviously did not read that bill. It appears more likely drafted by the BANKERS that funded Obamanation and the Demoncrats wins from the language that basically changed little and solves nothing!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 11:06pm
"Republicans don't mess around when it comes to taking advantage of parliamentary tactics."
You must mean like when Gingrich in his "Contract with America" graciously allowed the MINORITY Demoncrats to always have a voice, input, and to bring bills before the House of Representatives as was allowed during the Bush years also!
Funny how Pelosi has in turn TOTALLY shut out the Republicans from all like activity in this Congress! Who is the HYPOCRIT and LIAR about openess in that respect?
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 11:11pm
Antisocialist;
Intresting what kind of fools would think that rifles and shotguns in National Parks would NOT set off all the alarms of Park Rangers when it is obvious they are not there for self defense?
See you already have your answer from all the reactionary idiots posting above!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 11:14pm
This is just the usual leftist hyperbole among anti-gun advocates.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 11:01am
Actually that's pretty much exactly what Hayes said. So it wasn't a "leftist hyperbole". I ask you logically what is someone bringing high power rifles into National Parks for? To sit them up against a tree? You are probably hunting. So if you employ logic instead of just reading the law as what it says, this law to a degree has an ancillary effect on the ability to hunt. If they weren't allowed to bring rifles in at all it would make hunting much harder than allowing them to bring them in and then someone employing "the bunny tried to attack me" defense when asked why they blew a rabbit to itty bitty pieces with a high power rifle.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/20/2009 @ 11:21pm
This is just the usual leftist hyperbole among anti-gun advocates.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/20/2009 @ 11:01am
Agreeing with limits on guns does not make one anti-gun or leftist. Personally I believe every gay person in Alabama should have a gun and pay minimal taxes. But I don't believe people should carry guns in National Parks. Even if the park is in Alabama.
Posted by curtisp at 05/20/2009 @ 11:46pm
Number of deaths for leading causes of death: 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
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (most recent) by country
# 4 United States: 9,369
Yep, sure will lose a lot of sleep worrying about homocide by firearm!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 11:53pm
More Americans are shot by other Americans in one year than were ever killed by terrorists...And still, there was more change in this country's laws and law enforcement than ever, focusing on terrorism. The US even invaded 2 countries because of terrorism.
Cheney's still yapping about how we're in danger from terrorists and he actually shot someone in the face with a firearm.
Posted by koroviev at 05/21/2009 @ 12:45am
Number of deaths for leading causes of death: 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
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (most recent) by country
# 4 United States: 9,369
Yep, sure will lose a lot of sleep worrying about homocide by firearm!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 11:53pm
Uh - So why are you so worried about not being able to take a gun into our National Parks? Are you afraid someone might steal your wallet?
Posted by curtisp at 05/21/2009 @ 01:24am
A bow and arrow was good enough for Burt Reynolds and John Voight... too bad for Ned Beatty, though.
Posted by koroviev at 05/21/2009 @ 02:09am
Uh - So why are you so worried about not being able to take a gun into our National Parks? Are you afraid someone might steal your wallet?
Posted by curtisp at 05/21/2009 @ 01:24am |
Because it's far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Does that answer your silly question?
Posted by fram at 05/21/2009 @ 07:42am
Posted by canaro71 at 05/20/2009 @ 8:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol...well said!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/21/2009 @ 08:37am
Allowing loaded firearms in National Parks is paranoid testosterone driven madness. National Parks and wilderness areas should be off limits for weapons. If law enforcement is inadequate in these areas to protect patrons, then the federal government should bolster it -- vigilantism is not the answer. If we can bailout GM, AIG and B of A, we can certainly find a lousy billion -- or less -- in the fed budget to increase the number of Park Service Rangers.
These peerless areas, a tiny fraction of our public lands, have been preserved for a natural experience, one where the threat of gun violence -- if not completely eliminated -- should be reduced. These are the last places in America where such an experience is possible, and now they will be lost.
The NRA, which donates millions in campaign contributions to politicians, is completely out of control in its misguided policies and advocacy. It equates ANY restriction on the "right to bear arms" as an attack on the Second Amendment, which is an extreme and ultimately dangerous position. I own two guns and keep them at home, for personal protection. Like many Americans I am in favor of the right to possess guns. But that right must be framed with common sense restrictions.
Folks, if you don't feel safe in a National Park, buy some bear spray!
Posted by desertrat at 05/21/2009 @ 09:24am
commancheamerican-You constantly whine about being scared of terrorists,but you are far more likely to be killed by your own gun than a terrorist making your disease list rather silly..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 09:47am
If you are too scared to look at the Grand Canyon without a gun then,please,stay home and work on becoming brave or just hide under your bed so you will not kill some unarmed person who is just taking a picture of the Grand Canyon.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 09:51am
"Why do you need a gun at a National Park?"
"Flick says he saw some grizzly bears near El Capitan!"
"You'll shoot your eye out!"
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 10:11am
Any petty thug on the lam & cooling their heels in a National Park will soon give themselves away if only by overstaying their welcome.
Rumors fly in the concession domiciles & campgrounds. Not many secrets after awhile.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/21/2009 @ 10:13am
A bow and arrow was good enough for Burt Reynolds and John Voight... too bad for Ned Beatty, though.
Posted by koroviev at 05/21/2009 @ 02:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
Guns are Okay but I shoot the bow instictively (no sights) and still only rarely miss with it.
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/21/2009 @ 11:12am
commancheamerican-You constantly whine about being scared of terrorists,but you are far more likely to be killed by your own gun than a terrorist making your disease list rather silly..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 09:47am | ignore this person | warn this person
Thats not even close to the truth. However, be real careful the next time you get in your car since auto deaths are about FIVE times the gun deaths!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/21/2009 @ 11:17am
commancheamerican-Someone using your ids whines about being scared of terrorists.Find out who uses your id besides yourself.I find it to be quite interesting how those of you who label yourselves to be conservative Christians never show any concern for your fellow humans, as you make light of all of these deaths.They mean nothing to you and just allow you the opportunity to make jokes about their deaths.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 11:23am
label yourselves to be conservative Christians never show any concern for your fellow humans, as you make light of all of these deaths.They mean nothing to you and just allow you the opportunity to make jokes about their deaths.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 11:23am
Speaking for myself and not comanche, I would just like to point out something. You have just confirmed that it's all about emotion. I don't like sterotypes but this is one that cannot be ignored. The left is obsessed with emotion and consequently it dictates most of their actions. I was taught when I was young that emotions cloud one's judgement and never let emotions dictate your decisions or actions.
Comanche wasn't making fun of anyone's death. He's merely pointing out that deaths from firearms pale in comparison to other causes...natural or otherwise. When viewed as a percentage, the number of firearm deaths is less than .005% when compared to the total number of firearms owners in the country,(both homicide and suicide combined). I'm not trivializing anyone's death but please step back and look at the overall picture and leave emotions out of it.
Posted by fram at 05/21/2009 @ 12:02pm
Rights are rights, and should stand together. I see one issue of civil rights, in which I support the right to keep and bear arms, the right to an abortion, the right be be and marry gay, the right to enjoy your constitutionally protected right to pursue your happiness by using drugs, the right to drive a car and travel where you wish without government harassment, The right to be odd, the right to say strange things nobody wants to agree with. Rights are an inseparable cause, and you cannot defend your own rights by attacking those of your neighbor. As a christian based society, we are tolerant, and concern ourselves with our own correct behavior before we try to correct the lifestyle choices of others.
Posted by gordonbuild at 05/21/2009 @ 12:09pm
fram-I'm not a left winger and he was dismissing these deaths and having fun doing so.When one is talking about the deaths of innocent people( children in particular) then only a sociopath would be able to leave emotion out of it.Trying to dismiss human suffering by mentioning cold statistics shows an extreme lack of concern for your fellow humans.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 12:11pm
Posted by fram at 05/21/2009 @ 12:02pm
Stifle your obsession with comanch. I'm sure he's only got oranges, not oil, if he's even Osage at all.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/21/2009 @ 12:13pm
Antisocialist has it right. To carry a firearm it must be concealed, you must abide by state laws, including carrying a valid concealed carry permit. Here's a fact; you cannot carry a shotgun or an AK-47 concealed! It just ain't possible except under a raincoat and puleez don't even attempt to go down that liberal paranoid road. This is ultraliberal claptrap. There is nothing extraordinary in this provision as it is legal thoday, this very moment, to 'carry' in national forests and BLM lands. Personally, I am a middle of the road Independent (with Democratic leanings) and I believe in the rights granted to me as a law abiding citizen under the Second Amendment.
Posted by bullfrog01 at 05/21/2009 @ 12:34pm
Number of deaths for leading causes of death: 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
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (most recent) by country # 4 United States: 9,369
Yep, sure will lose a lot of sleep worrying about homocide by firearm!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/20/2009 @ 11:53pm
so, why are you so worried about terrorists?
after all, they <i>only</i> killed 3,500.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 12:35pm
bullfrog-I have carried concealed weapons into the woods many times,but never had a permit and never was questioned even though I ran into numerous park rangers..The thing is that a concealed weapon is concealed and state laws mean nothing in national parks.The reason for the second amendment is to have an armed population that can keep the govt under control,but we cannot have weapons that can accomplish that because the govt took away that right and we just get pea shooters.The second amendment means nothing since the govt took away it's reason for existence.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 12:48pm
The second amendment means nothing since the govt took away it's reason for existence.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 12:48pm |
When did they do that?
Posted by fram at 05/21/2009 @ 1:24pm
fram-they did that when they took away our ability to have the same arms that the govt has.I was a member of the NRA for years and realize that they are not too bright and believe that a hunting weapon will be effective if used against a tank.I used to laugh at the gun nuts up in Montana who buried guns just in case the govt showed up like those guns will matter when faced with a tank in your front yard.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 1:45pm
i'm nobody: I'm in total agreement with you. As far as I'm concerned the only permit that I need is the Second Amendment. And I do understand that state laws do not apply on federal lands in regard to CC though a bit of insurance in the form of a CC permit might be helpful as in our current society there tends to be a prevailing belief you might be tempting the justice system of the jurisdiction to which you may be held accountable. There are way too many that really believe that if you 'carry' you must be a criminal. There are way too many people that seem to actually believe that there is a cop on every street corner and behind every tree; until they find out otherwise and suffer the consequences of their naive beliefs.
Posted by bullfrog01 at 05/21/2009 @ 1:45pm
When did they do that?
Posted by fram at 05/21/2009 @ 1:24pm
when they invented the tank.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:47pm
when they invented the tank.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 1:47pm
Tank shmank.
RAPTOR!!!!
Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2009 @ 2:08pm
The thing is that a concealed weapon is concealed and state laws mean nothing in national parks.The reason for the second amendment is to have an armed population that can keep the govt under control,but we cannot have weapons that can accomplish that because the govt took away that right and we just get pea shooters.The second amendment means nothing since the govt took away it's reason for existence.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 12:48pm
Which shows that you didn't bother to read the legislation. I posted the applicable paragraph stating that permission will be IAW the aplicable state laws for which the NP is within.
S1067
<(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals to Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located>
Seems pretty clear to me. State law will control who and what.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:19pm
get in the tank, honey. we're going to yellowstone!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:21pm
antisocialist-The idea of allowing this is so idiotic that I did not read the entire thing and not sure that they will be able to apply state laws in National parks and some cross state and national lines making this whole thing even more idiotic.Fortunately,I never go to such parks because there are too many people there and would never go now that I have discovered that they are hotbeds filled with violent criminals and armed tourists.I prefer the roads less traveled.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 2:30pm
but i SURE don't want a bunch of yahoos running around with firearms everywhere. Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 11:53am
Ibble...what'chu got against all them yay-hoos running around with guns everwhar? Where I grew up in Texas, if you didn't have no gun, you musta been a fag. Or a girl. And where I live now in Cali, if you ain't got no gun, you must not live in the hood ('cause even the girls have guns out here). Yo!
This was a cheap shot by Coburn (hmmm, a cheap shot by a cheap shot) to attach what is a legitimate piece of debatable legislation to a bill it has NOTHING to do with. It not only destroyed the integrity of the credit card bill, which could have been a nice bi-partisan bill and could have been considered a "win" even by the Republicans to say, "See? We can work with Obama and the Dems. We can find common ground."
But of course, the far rightwingnuts want EVERYTHING to be a fight and since they control their party and Rush is "il Duce," then they must make everything a fight. And I'm pretty sure the Repubs WANTED the 2nd Amendment fight (again).
So, while some might consider Reid smart for NOT letting them have the fight, I think Reid is a weasel for letting him do it and Obama is a weasel for not vetoing it, sending it back to Congress and saying, "Give it to me without the gun legislation."
And as for the States controlling what happens in a National Park, by definition, that shouldn't be the law of the land.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:37pm
I prefer the roads less traveled.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 2:30pm
you mean like in detroit, flint, gary, st. louis, cinci....?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:39pm
GUN AND KNIFE SHOW, YELLOWSTONE!
bring your rv.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:40pm
Curious, is it just "National Parks" or ANYTHING that falls under the US Park Service?
For instance, does that mean you can carry a loaded gun into...
the Lincoln Memorial? Which would be quite ironic.
Posted by Mask at 05/21/2009 @ 2:47pm
But of course, the far rightwingnuts want EVERYTHING to be a fight and since they control their party and Rush is "il Duce," then they must make everything a fight. And I'm pretty sure the Repubs WANTED the 2nd Amendment fight (again).
So, while some might consider Reid smart for NOT letting them have the fight, I think Reid is a weasel for letting him do it and Obama is a weasel for not vetoing it, sending it back to Congress and saying, "Give it to me without the gun legislation."
And as for the States controlling what happens in a National Park, by definition, that shouldn't be the law of the land.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/21/2009 @ 2:37pm
Ok, how is this a solely the "rightwing"?
24 Democrats including liberals like Feingold, Leahy, Kohl, Klobucher, Shaheen, Wyden, and the Socialist Sanders all voted for this amendment.
In the final bill, only 1 Democrat voted against the bill (Johnson SD).
And it is quite common to defer some specifics so the states on a bill such as this.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 2:55pm
Frosty-Those roads are becoming less traveled,but still too much for me.I prefer those parts of the wilderness where you do not have to worry about being mugged by a human.One time I did have a big bull moose bash the crap out of my truck,though on a very narrow mountain road,but he just stared at me after the bashing and did not demand that I hand over my wallet or harm me.He just wanted me to know that this was his territory and not to touch his women.I assured him that I did not swing that way so he stepped aside and let me pass into his territory..True story.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
The problem is that the bill re: firearms was tacked on to another bill that has nothing to do with firearms!!! The merits of the firearms bill do not matter. It's just stupid that we allow unrelated pieces of legislation to be added to a proposed bill!!!! It allows troglydytes like Coburn to hold Congress hostage. It's undemocratic and and idiotic, just like our system of government has become.
Posted by k20thmaine at 05/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
How much do you guys want to bet that all the street signs in the national parks will have bullet holes in them in short order?
Ah, guns n alcohol, a great mix.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2009 @ 2:59pm
Because it's far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Does that answer your silly question?
Posted by fram at 05/21/2009 @ 07:42am
But the comancheamerica guy said we need to be more afraid of death by things like cancer and heart attacks. Guns, apparently, are not that big of a deal so why all the fuss? You are more likely to die from too many hot dogs than from guns. By the way if you really need to have a gun in a National Park, you can if it's concealed because no one will know, no one checks and it has been legal for the last 25 years if the gun is not loaded and packed away. Yes, I know, an unloaded gun is useless, but still, this bill is basically for gun guys don't want the "Lefties" to tell them what to do or maybe Benchrest is on to something, they may have run out of signs to shoot up in the National Forests.
Posted by curtisp at 05/21/2009 @ 4:37pm
bring your rv.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 2:40pm
Hell, when you're bringing your RV all honeyed up, I'm coming w/my Caterpillar with them 9 ft. tires!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 4:39pm
I assured him that I did not swing that way so he stepped aside and let me pass into his territory..True story.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009
So - how do you convince a Moose you do not swing his womens way? That sounds dangerous.
Posted by curtisp at 05/21/2009 @ 4:40pm
It's just stupid that we allow unrelated pieces of legislation to be added to a proposed bill!!!!
Posted by k20thmaine at 05/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
Something like an ~$100 billion of stimulus balls hanging off the underside of an $800 billion Porker?
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 4:44pm
guns n alcohol, a great mix.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2009 @ 2:59pm
Guns n Alcohol.....great name for the next smash hit video game....
Get it trademarked......capitalism, ain't it great, anybody can do it!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 4:46pm
antisocialist -
this bill was an example of throwing the Republicans a little political Second Amendment red meat to chew on while the rest of the nation gets onto the serious business of the credit card companies screwing the American people, using biblical proportion usury. (Personally, I would have LOVED to see the Republicans defend usury.) I don't know if you've noticed, but millions of people are out of work and the credit cards are still coming due...then again, maybe having the whole country go bankrupt is what the Republicans want.
There was obviously some backroom maneuvering to get the amendment on the bill...Coburn spoiling for a Second Amendment fight and the Dems denying it to him. That's why I stated that some would see that as good political maneuvering on Reid's part.
As for why Johnson of SD voted against the bill, uh... it might have had something to do with the fact that many credit card companies are located in South Dakota and he recognized that the bill would negatively affect their business...so he was actually voting for his constituents (the credit card companies and their employees).
I don't know why all those liberal (and the socialist!) democrats voted for the thing. I have a feeling it was for political reasons, primarily to see the credit card bill passed (and who cares if they piss off the far left...where else are we gonna go?).
The bill never should have had the amendment attached, because loaded guns in our National Parks deserves a national debate and now will only get one after the fact and to no avail.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:50pm
curtisp-I was driving up a narrow mountain road when the bull moose stepped out and blocked my path,bashed my truck,and then stood there looking at me.I yelled out of the window that I had no desire to have his women and he stood there for a moment and then moved aside and let me pass.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 5:10pm
.....he stood there for a moment and then moved aside and let me pass.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 5:10pm
Maybe one good look at your head "out of the window", he figured you ain't much competition? Just a possibility :)
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 5:13pm
so, why are you so worried about terrorists?
after all, they <i>only</i> killed 3,500.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 12:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Funny thing is I never said I was, ever, anywhere! I did think about pointing at the Islamic Terrorist fascists killed 3,000. with "one shot" using an airplane,but then you know how the simple minded foolish over react to anything obvious.
There is no reason to "fear" any man as they can only kill the body!
"Matthew 10:28 (King James Version)
28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
That doesn't mean to stand ignorantly by and let someone else kill you as most would have us do for our nations enemies!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/21/2009 @ 5:20pm
Happy-I see that you are a city boy.I did not stick my head out of the window.I yelled out the window. It was the truck, and not me, that the bull moose saw as competition.I did not bring attention to myself by sticking my head out of the window and yelling because his mouth is bigger than my head.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 5:32pm
I yelled out the window.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 5:32pm
OK, so he figured your mating cry wasn't competition! I'm sure he's seen plenty of trucks....he had you stopped to `evaluate'!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 5:55pm
Happy-As I stated,I was going up into the mountains on a narrow road where a bull moose was hanging out with his women.A bull moose will not hang out with their women in a place where they would see many trucks.That is why he got to be so old, large,and had his own herd of women..The reason I yelled out was so that he would notice that my cry was not competition since the sound would not be one that he feared.He was too old and too large to fear my human voice coming from inside a truck..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 6:14pm
I don't know why all those liberal (and the socialist!) democrats voted for the thing. I have a feeling it was for political reasons, primarily to see the credit card bill passed (and who cares if they piss off the far left...where else are we gonna go?).
The bill never should have had the amendment attached, because loaded guns in our National Parks deserves a national debate and now will only get one after the fact and to no avail.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/21/2009 @ 4:50pm
It was voted on separately as an amendment. So all of those Dems and Sanders voted to attach it to the bill. They could have voted it down and it would not have been attached.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/21/2009 @ 6:57pm
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 4:46pm
smart alecky Texas yay-hoos...
Guns n Alcohol is the name of a band.
wait...
Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2009 @ 7:47pm
capitalism, ain't it great, anybody can do it!
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 4:46pm
except aig, gs, jpmorgan, citi.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/21/2009 @ 9:08pm
Hammer your guns into plowshares and plow for those who do not.
Posted by bleedingheart at 05/21/2009 @ 9:31pm
wait...
Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2009 @ 7:47pm
I see you wasted no time.....do I get a cut?
============================
Amazon Game Room's Blog
Video Game Announcement: "Guns n Alcohol"
6:19 PM PDT, May 20, 2009
It looks like Sega has secured the rights to the merchandising of the Guns n Alcohol for gaming and as such have plans for a whole series of new games.....will be available on Next-Gen and the PC platform in early 2010. The game is being developed by UK outfit Rebellion Developments......this has got to be seen....The video below doesn't tell or show you much about the game other than that players will be given the choice of playing as a human, Lassie or as a horny moose out for Nobody. Each choice has its own storyline too. Sounds good.....
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 9:55pm
Happy-You city people need to get back in touch in with nature.The moose was not horny.It was protecting it's territory.What do you men teach those boy scouts when you take them camping?How to watch TV in the woods?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 10:07pm
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 9:55pm
That is wrong on so many levels.
"So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice." Carl Spackler : Caddy Shack
Posted by Benchrest at 05/21/2009 @ 10:54pm
If the right to carry a particular weapon is subject to the state law wherein the park is located, it will mean that park police and rangers will have to familiarize themselves with the local laws. No biggie; state conservation officers have to do that anyway, and it's not rocket science. I'm pretty sure that no state allows assault weapons with high-capacity clips to be carried as hunting weapons; furthermore, per most state laws, one is generally not allowed to carry a loaded rifle around without a permit to hunt, and the amendment does not require the Park Service to amend its rules to allow hunting. Thus the fear of rifles and assault weapons may be a red herring. As to handguns, there is the legitimate fear of bear attacks in some parks, but most easily-concealable handguns are insufficient to stop a bear. One needs a 44 magnum minimum, or one is better off with pepper spray. A rule allowing open carry of bigger revolvers would be most useful to that end. All that being said, I think the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot, and the future will not bring a flare-up of violence in our national parks. Those that want to bring their loaded pistols into a NP will no longer have to do so on the sly, as they always have. We may even see some potential crimes foiled (such as the murder of two unarmed women in Skyline National Park by some misogynist asshole several years ago). Or not. I agree with those who found it craven and weak to attach this amendment to the credit card bill, but being craven and weak is what some members of Congress specialize in.
Posted by huntervanv at 05/21/2009 @ 11:52pm
Allowing guns in the National Parks will just make things less safe and more miserable for the rest of the park users & the park rangers.
I'm not against guns generally - I've got a hunter safety card & am planning to re-arm myself in anticipation of rifle season. I just don't see why people want to carry them into the National Parks, where no hunting is allowed, and the population is mostly families enjoying the scenery.
What cracks me up about the gun nuts is that they feel a need to be armed in situations which many of us manage to face without weapons. What a bunch of weenies.
Posted by cdlepthien at 05/22/2009 @ 07:01am
Posted by Happy at 05/21/2009 @ 9:55pm
Throw in a MILF character and it could be called "World of Wasilla-craft"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/22/2009 @ 08:00am
Good post Chris and so true about Harry Reid who's always been a Republican at heart. He's much too wishy-washey to represent Americans, like many in Congress. I see you got the expected comments from the gun-nuts mis-quoting the Constitution, right out of their NRA bible. It's sad these people feel the need to have their AK47's and other assault weapons to protect themselves from those families that frequent our national parks.
Posted by papabob at 05/22/2009 @ 09:53am
The great part about all this is that Bush tried to sabotage his regulations allowing concealed carry in the Parks by missing some steps in the rulemaking process. A Democrat judge then threw out the new rules. The Democrat Obama administration declined to appeal. Then the Democrat Congress passed a much stronger law, which was not just restricted to concealed handguns, but allowed people to openly carry handguns, rifles, shotguns and machineguns in the Parks. Then the Democratic president signed it into law. I just love it when Democrats and Republicans in government - in all three branches of government - work together. Especially when it something that none of them wanted. And all because they are afraid of their constituents.
Power to the people!
Posted by SDr at 05/22/2009 @ 10:31am
It's sad these people feel the need to have their AK47's and other assault weapons to protect themselves from those families that frequent our national parks.
Posted by papabob at 05/22/2009 @ 09:53am
Right out of the NRA bible, huh? Yet you use talking points straight from anti-Second Amendment, anti-freedom groups. Don't look now, but your hypocrisy is showing along with your ignorance.
Posted by fram at 05/22/2009 @ 10:59am
fram-they did that when they took away our ability to have the same arms that the govt has.I was a member of the NRA for years and realize that they are not too bright and believe that a hunting weapon will be effective if used against a tank.I used to laugh at the gun nuts up in Montana who buried guns just in case the govt showed up like those guns will matter when faced with a tank in your front yard.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/21/2009 @ 1:45pm |
Please don't take this personally, but the level of stupidity demonstrated in posts such as yours is beyond belief. Do you honestly think that our military, assuming it could ever be convinced to attack our own people and cities, could survive the onslaught from 100+ million armed citizens. The left has been screaming at the level of damage the Iraqi insurgents have inflicted. Now, consider the damage that 100 million armed American insurgents could cause.
Posted by fram at 05/22/2009 @ 11:28am
Posted by fram at 05/22/2009 @ 11:28am
Thank you. I sometimes tire of being a lonely voice in countering some of the bizarre arguments that Imnobody raises.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/22/2009 @ 11:54am
lots of good people in these communities suffering terribly from the actions of these violent parasites.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/20/2009 @ 5:48pm
I don't dispute this at all, but to expect the police or the FBI to exercise sound judgement and restraint in going after the gangs, hell, in even properly identifying the gangs, is naive.
The best solution to many of the operations that organized crime are involved in - drugs, prostitution, gambling - is to legalize AND regulate them. Conflating the War on Drugs with the War on Terror will almost certainly combine the worst aspects of both.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/22/2009 @ 4:44pm
America is a killing ground where it is open season on human beings 24/7 365...
"Let the games begin...!"
Posted by TJColatrella at 05/22/2009 @ 6:47pm
The best solution to many of the operations that organized crime are involved in - drugs, prostitution, gambling - is to legalize AND regulate them.
Posted by cka2nd at 05/22/2009 @ 4:44pm
you forgot derivatives...
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/22/2009 @ 11:25pm
. Now, consider the damage that 100 million armed American insurgents could cause.
Posted by fram at 05/22/2009 @ 11:28am | ignore this person | warn this person
It took Hitler about 2 minutes to figure that one out and he was no genius, just Satan inspired evil! He banned citizen owned weapons and took over fast!
Posted by BigPasture at 05/23/2009 @ 01:24am
OK for what is worth. The next time I visit a National park and see someone walking around toting a gun I will immediately call a park ranger report an armed individual. I will report that it scares me and that I am afraid because of it and that I don't feel safe in this situation and that I want it stopped or for the individual to take his gun and leave ASAP. If everyone in that visits a park does that then guns would disappear in short order. When the citizens complain the Park Officials would have to act. People walking around carrying guns make me very nervous. I have never felt nervous in a park before. I will be nervous in the future. How do I know that someone carrying a gun is licensed or unlicensed and not some sort of crackpot like the kid with the guns at Columbine High Schoool. You can be a card carrying NRA member and still crazy as a bed bug. Crazy without a gun is different than crazy with a gun. I don't believe that the NRA requires background checks or psychiatric exams to certify that their memebers are not psychotic.
Posted by paflyer at 05/23/2009 @ 3:41pm
Posted by paflyer at 05/23/2009 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So, tell us how to identify unlicensed carriers of concealed weapons in the general public and parks so we will know!
Posted by BigPasture at 05/23/2009 @ 11:00pm
Posted by BigPasture at 05/23/2009 @ 11:00pm
Look for a bulge under the coat. That's why Rudolph Valentino gave "Dasher Jack" Cannon of the San Francisco Police Dept. an "ultra thin" pistol.
A couple of ladies men with a mutual admiration.
For you, Big Pasture, I recommend cleaning off your shoes before going into town.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/23/2009 @ 11:40pm
They only get fouled after visting this blog!
Tell us about your job MANCHO FOOLO, you keep dodging it on the other thread?
Posted by BigPasture at 05/24/2009 @ 10:14pm
All Americans really should carry large weapons at all times. In parks, in malls, at the bank, at the kiddies' playschool... Children, the insane and the very old should also carry them. The ability to kill people and animals instantly at any time is a basic right. If anyone f**ks with this right, shoot them at once!
Posted by mikecope at 05/25/2009 @ 09:15am
This is the best idea for Darwinistic-preservation that I've ever heard, great job congress!
Being that our national parks are home to some of our nation's most endangered species, doesn't it make sense that we should be allowed to go out and shoot at them, in order for the smart and quick ones to get away and reproduce, creating a more superior race of endangered animals, where as the ones who weren't on the cutting edge of predatory evolution get to be on our dinner plates!
It's a total win/win situation until Dick Cheney shoots the face off your 4 year old while you're camping out in Yellowstone this summer. May I suggest for Americans to camp out in your own back yard from here on out?
Posted by Clandestine_Consciousness at 05/25/2009 @ 12:56pm
I am a liberal who believes in the right to bear arms. I am not upset about this. The only thing that bothers me is that the Democrats are trying to take away my right to have a gun because criminals will always be able to get them. Get over this issue and you will get more votes.
Posted by sundog58 at 05/25/2009 @ 5:18pm
Maybe all of the antigunnuts will stay the hell out of the national parks now.
More campsites for the gunnuts.
Posted by bleedingheart at 05/25/2009 @ 9:39pm