George Allen’s parting shot.
By on Nov 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
George Allen’s parting shot.
“As a last little gift to America, Senator George Allen, who was narrowly defeated by James Webb this month, has introduced what may be his final piece of legislation: a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Great, he’s planning to be a NRA Lobbyist…
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:53 pmcause them deer will GEET YAH!!!!!!
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 pmIDIOT!!!
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:56 pmWow, even for the NYT editorial page, thats pretty biased.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pmS.D. sez:
That was my first thought exactly…this bill is pretty much his résumé to the NRA.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pmThey have transitioned the National Guard (Read State Militia) to basically a Federal Government controlled entity. I can see some implications about the right to bear arms.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:06 pmuhhh…good? Why is this bad? You can already carry concealed (with a Concealed Carry License) in USDA Forests.
Noops
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:09 pmThis figures from someone as twisted as Macaca Allen!
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:12 pmwow, this is pretty biased. Come on, I’m a liberal guy, which is why I spend so much time reading Think Progress. But the NYT states that the 2nd amendment supports a collective right as though that were fact. Miller did not really decide that issue, and we have two competing circuit rulings on it (Emerson (5th) and Sylveira v Lockyer(9th)). This is bad stuff.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:14 pm13,000 americans dead by guns each year. And then one wonders how Columbia happened.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:28 pmI’m a very liberal person who’s never had a problem with guns. Without the guns, how can we defend ourselves against our own gov’t? Give me liberty or give me death.
I think gun control laws are a political third rail that will put the Democratic party back in the minority real fast.
However, I’m not really sure why you would need a concealed weapon in a national park..
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:42 pmHuh? Concealed guns in national parks?!? I’m a public lands researcher, and from what I know, national parks are among the safest places one can be in. There’s gotta be some statistics out there on this, and I’m sure they would show that parks are very safe places.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pmmy idea of gun control is learning to aim well.
But concealed weapons in National parks? Why concealed?
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 pmIf your going to allow them use something like the Az laws.
No hidden weapons, it has to be visable in a holster.
Wow, its as irrelevant as he is.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:54 pm“macaca” is the sound of a pistol being cocked.
hmmm… that doesn’t quite sound right….
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm“Being essential to a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The term arms means firearms, pikes, knives, axes, shovels, bats, hammers….my point is, it means what it says. Criminals are the problems not law abiding citizens……
Evidently our founding fathers had enough past experience with red coats to ensure that never happened again. Goes hand in hand with the army shall not take over your home and kick you out……..Lord knows we live in such peaceful times. The more things change the more they stay the same.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 pmBy the way, virginia laws states that you can carry the firearms in open view. National parks unlike National Forests do not allow firearms at all.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:14 pmWhy I am not surprised that a gun nut like Joe GOP can’t even correctly quote the 2nd Amendment?
Here it is fer real:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:20 pmIs that your only response, that I’m a nut……The true issue is violent felons not the tool they use. Lets discuss alchol and the destruction it has done to countless American families. Funny how advertising dollars discount the evil in that product. Tougher sentencing for felons. Virginia has a no parole policy as well as a project exile. Why would you cater to the seedy criminals that cause problems?
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:25 pmBTW its called paraphrasing which liberals do quite often.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:27 pmDefend your right to arm Bears…
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmGeorge Allen just wants a clear shot at a big “black” bear.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pmWhy I am not surprised that a gun nut like Joe GOP can’t even correctly quote the 2nd Amendment?
Here it is fer real:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.â€
Comment by Disputo — November 22, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
The NRA has engraved over the entrance to its headquarters these words: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.†But Disputo is correct about the full phrasing of the Second Amendment. There is no Constitutional right for private citizens to own and carry weapons, which is why the NRA is careful to never raise a court challenge to gun regulations on this basis. All of their constitutional challenges are formed on some other basis.
But there is no arguing with people like Joe GOP, who seems to think that his fabricated version of the amendment is the same as the real thing.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:56 pm“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.â€
I had the following question:
When your states “Well Regulated Militia” is sent overseas to fight in a war, what is used to secure your free state?
Upon looking it up:
U.S. law allows states to raise and maintain state defense forces (SDF). These forces can be critical to states when their National Guard forces are deployed on federal missions.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/tst050406a.cfm?renderforprint=1
Just thought it was interesting.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:04 pmIt is critically important to the security of the United Campers of America that every person entering a National Park be armed to the teeth.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:07 pmWithout an arsenal of hand guns, rifles, mortars, and white phosphorus grenades in the hands of campers, the nation will not be safe from terrorist bears and coyotes.
#10 Juan – mean Columbine??
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe gubnit will have to pry my cluster bombs from the cold, dead hands of hundreds of children who mistook them for toys.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:19 pmThere is no Constitutional right for private citizens to own and carry weapons, which is why the NRA is careful to never raise a court challenge to gun regulations on this basis. All of their constitutional challenges are formed on some other basis.
Really, show me where else the “Right of the People” in the constitution or amendments applies only to a collective right. There is no such instance. It’s amazing how liberals (and I count myself here) want to view individual rights expansively, except when we disagree with one of them. It is after all, the Bill of Rights. Not the Bill of Collective Rights.
According to Emerson (5th Cricuit), the phrasing was intentional, and should be read in pari materia, meaning they are complementary, not exclusive, as so many collective readers believe. Further, if it was to be enumerated as a collective right (and not both collective AND individual), the Circuit Court found that the language of traditional constitutional law would read, “The right of the STATES to keep and bear arms…” Rights enumerated to the people in the constitution are either collective and individual, or individual. In no other place have these rights been stated to be collective only unless stated so through phraseology like in the 10th Amendment.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:23 pmOnce again the “no accountability group” has provided no substanial argument. My question would be are we safer as an un-armed society or an armed society? Read the Virginia constitution and see whom is listed as being part of the”State Militia”. Also, I would challenge with the question…when was the last time you were in a wilderness area. How many coyotes are now in the eastern states. I spend several weeks a year hunting, fishing and camping in remote areas of Virginia and can tell you that a gun does come in handy with varmits. Concealled or not you guys would ban all firearms-everywhere. You obviously are Fedralists (Hamiltons) and not States Rights (Jeffersonings) . The same disconnect from rural thinking. The same type that beleive in the federal Govt bailing you out of trouble instead of handling your issues yourself….NO Accountability. did I mention everyone in prison is innocent also.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:30 pmJoe GOP, the question is whether to allow CONCEALED hand guns at National PARKS. No one is talking about banning hunters from National, State, or private FORESTS.
*Yawn.*
Ya got anything other irrelevancies you’d like to share with the class before we put you to bed?
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:42 pmJoJo – You go hunting in National Parks?
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:43 pmNo hunting is allowed in NPs. It is like “do not ask, do not tell”, so if it is concealled how would you know……Going to bed now…..
BTW- we are LOL as we stir up you guys. We had a bet at work that the only real points that would be made were in the defense of gun advocates……you guys have no game and i’m $20 richer.
……and I’m $20 poorer….joe Crat. We are both independants with no party affiliation or feelings about the subject in any way shape or form….
BTW…get back to work and get the heck off the internet your affecting our gross domestic product percentages.
IDIOTS.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:52 pmThere is no Constitutional right for private citizens to own and carry weapons, which is why the NRA is careful to never raise a court challenge to gun regulations on this basis. All of their constitutional challenges are formed on some other basis.
— RealScientist
Hate to disagree with you but that has already been decided by the courts that it is an individual right as well as being a states right to form a militia ( the guard).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.–September 23, 2005
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:14 pmI just hope Macacawitz goes to a National Park with a gun and blows his brains out. That would be doing the world a favor.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:18 pmGeorge “Macaca” Allen has his eye on a nice park ranger for Christmas Dinner.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:32 pmOnce again the “no accountability group†has provided no substanial argument. My question would be are we safer as an un-armed society or an armed society?–Joe Goper
Most of your post is nonsense and the topic of the thread has no bearing on your question.
I am a supporter for the 2nd ammendment but I dislike the NRA and its tactics.
I also dislike room temperature IQ trolls like you that try to change the subject of a thread to try to create an argument where there was none, tomake some insane point that has no relevancy. Go grow a mind troll.
The point of the thread was the idiotic “concealed” weapons bill Allen was trying to push.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:41 pmWell said, Wayne.
I think Sen Macaca’s only goal with this bill is to obtain a lobbyist position with the NRA, or somthing similar.
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:40 pmI just hope Macacawitz goes to a National Park with a gun and blows his brains out. That would be doing the world a favor.
Comment by Tom3
Are you sure he has any brains to blow out?
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:52 pmAre you sure he has any brains to blow out?
Comment by Lora
Hopefully he’s a good shot.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:13 pmPens cause forgery.
matches cause arson.
guns cause murder.. right?
A gun is a weapon. By itself it’s not dangerous. In the hands of a crimonal, that’s a different story. Concelaed handguns should not be an issue, as long as it’s a law abiding citizen. Which, btw will be the ONLY people that this bill will effect.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:18 pmDouglas G,
Can you tell people are law abiding just by looking at them? Wow.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:25 pm41 wow, you can’t.. The one’s who aren’t are going to break the law ANY way. it’s doesn’t matter! the ONLY thing this will do is allow someone who is a LAW ABIDING citizen to carry a concealed weapon. Someone who is going to break the law doesn’t care and is going to do it anyways.
Like I said, it will only affect law abiding citizens. WOW.. Reality. . .
Whatta concept!!!
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:30 pmConcelaed handguns should not be an issue, as long as it’s a law abiding citizen. Which, btw will be the ONLY people that this bill will effect.— by Douglas G.
Sorry, guns are not allowed at all in National Parks. Hunting is not allowed in National Parks.
Handguns have one purpose, shooting people, whether it is for protection or not. I own several and I do not fool myself as to what a handgun is usefull for.
Handguns are not accurate for hunting, they are made for killing people at a shorter range, unless you are using a gun made for competition target shooting.
Since there is no hunting allowed in a National Park and handguns are not usefull for hunting anyway, concealed handguns in a National Park is stupid.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:35 pmSo all the bedwetters are carrying concealed weapons, and so are the bad guys, how do you tell each other apart?
I hope you feel safe in that dream world.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:37 pmWayne,
You said it WAY better than I did. Thanks.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:38 pmThanks.
—- Zooey
Anytime=)
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:50 pmAllen is going down in a blaze of glory…see ya Mr. Macacawitz!
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 pmAnti-gun attitudes cost the Dems the 2000 presidential election by losing them West Virginia. Maybe it will cost them a future election too.
The citizens guns are the last line of defense against a tyranical government. You think tyrany can’t happen here?
Rabbit (from W.Va.)
BTW, there are many poor in my state who feed themselves by hunting. Dems say they care abt the poor but I don’t believe them. Poor people don’t give campaign money.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:59 pmWayne says: “Handguns are not accurate for hunting, they are made for killing people at a shorter range, unless you are using a gun made for competition target shooting.”
Rabbit says: Wayne you don’t know what you are talking about. I know several people who hunt with handguns. You can take bear with a .357. That is if you have the guts.
November 23rd, 2006 at 12:13 amI shoot vermin with a .22 pistol. I have a .44 black powder hand gun that is just plain fun shooting.
Ever see a .44 mag with a scope? I’ve seen a few and they aren’t target weapons.
Rabbit
Two people were killed in a national park near Ocala, FL last year. A man went to the park with an AK-47 and killed the young couple because he wanted to see what it was like to kill people. With crap like this being an unfortunate part of the world we live in, why is it a problem for me to protect myself with a handgun if I go camping?
November 23rd, 2006 at 4:24 amOne of the duties as being a citizen of this country is to rise against government should it become a tyrannical government. One of Hitler’s firstn moves after coming to power was to remove guns from the hands of the populace. If this is ever accomplished here, we will have no means of resistance should, say, martial law be declared and an attempt made to populate the Halliburton concentration camps. As you should recall, Herr Bush has signed away posse comitatus, making it legal to place the army and national guards under his authorty to move against the citizenry if he should deem it necessary. I don’t know about you but this scares the shit out of me. Even more so than the terrorists. I consider myself as liberal as the next guy, but I beleive I will keep my guns, Thank You very much.
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:23 pm#41. Criminals are going to carry their gunsm no matter what the law says, so it doesn’t matter what they look like. As the old cliche says, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is very true. If tough laws about using a gun in the commission of a crime were enforced with no parole sentences, there would not be near the problem that there is. But they are not. Do you recall the episode in Killeen TX where the man drove through the window of Luby’s restaurant, got out and began killing people? He killed 14 people. Had concealed carry laws been in place at that time with a few responsible, law abiding citzens carrying, he may have only killed 2 maybe 3 innocent people and he would have been taken and dispatched to Hell. The point is the criminal with the gun can look like your own brother, but with concealed carry, they are less likely to brandish their arms than they will be in a state with strict gun control because they don’t know who may shoot back.
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:41 pmYou gun nuts are funny. You love giving guns to criminals…nice job…
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:59 pmHey Al, hypothetical, what if we DID outlaw all guns and made it a capital offense to own one. Do you think that would lower gun crime?
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 pmI’ve read all of the posts….some entertaing…some concerning.
The only point concerning the proposed concealled firearm legislation that I have is this; The process for obtaining a concealled weapon permit involves, a criminal background check and Magistrate’s signoff. This alone does not ensure that the carrier of the permit is not a violent criminal with harmfull intent but it does lessen the probability substantially. However, I do feel that one should be able to have the level of security one wants while hiking in remote areas.
Some points concerning National parks, just for knowledge, not inciting anyone.
While travelling through a NP in your car, your firearms are to be cased and unloaded, in the trunk or in an unaccessible place. The locked glove box is not one of those places if it is loaded or ammo is in close proimity.
So if you travel down the Blue ridge pkwy on your way to the National Forest, make sure your gun is not in the gun rack…you will recv at least a $100.00 fine. First hand IN-experience.
I wish the NP laws were more publicized.
November 24th, 2006 at 10:07 am#55. To do this would only exacerbate the problem. As I mentioned, the criminal could give a shit about this or any laws for that matter. If they did they wouldn’t be leading a criminal life. Laws mean nothing to them. Make gun ownership felonious, and only the law abiding citizen will turn his in and you just made the criminals way of life that much easier. You would see a 200% increase of home invasions, because you just made us all easy pickens. Robberies and muggings would soar. Every state which has passed concealed carry has had significant reductions in violent crime. Not knowing who has a weapon is a deterrant to gun crime. And yes, before the argument comes up, crimes have been committed by licensed handgun owners. But this percentage is not large, most licensees are good law abiding people who will probably never use their weapon on anything but a target. Normal, average, everyday people just like you and me with no thought of hurting anyone except those who would make victims of them.
November 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#54. We are not putting guns in the hands of criminals. This seems to be going right over your head. Criminals will continue to put guns into their own hands with or without a law against handguns. As I said, law doesn’t mean SHIT to a criminal. But, hypothetically, if you could eliminate every gun from America, do you actually think that would stop murder? What about knives? Outlaw knives? Sticks and stones?
November 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pmJessie
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 21st, 2008 at 10:55 pmBankruptcy Court District Eastern Louisiana State United
It is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me -
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 am