Interior Dept. rule allowing guns in national parks may violate White House directive.
Interior Dept. rule allowing guns in national parks may violate White House directive.
Earlier this month, the Department of Interior overturned a Reagan-era regulation, allowing loaded firearms at most national park sites such as the National Mall. Yesterday, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sued the administration, saying the rule “jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law.” The release notes that the Interior Dept. violated the White House’s own directive:
The suit charges that the Interior Department violated several federal laws in its rush to implement the rule before President Bush leaves office, including failing to conduct any environmental review of the harm that the rule will cause, as is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The Department also violated a White House directive that no rules should be issued after November 1, 2008, except in “extraordinary circumstances,” issuing the last-minute rule change on December 10, 2008.
The Bush administration also violated its own directive in November with a last-minute rule gutting worker protections.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
97 Responses to “Interior Dept. rule allowing guns in national parks may violate White House directive.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sure, guns in national parks makes a lot of sense. Just what we need boozed up yahoos running around formally safe national parks taking pot shots at Yogi the Bear and Bullwinkle the Moose.
How many dead animals, maybe dead people too, will it take to see the folly in this.
Keep guns out of parks!
December 31st, 2008 at 11:09 amGeorge W. Bush's infrastructure plan: build more saloons.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:10 amAnother day, another violation of law or regulations by the Bush Abomination. Yawn.
As a retiree from 31 years with an agency of the Department of the Interior I am dumbfounded and perplexed as to why anyone would need to carry a gun in a National Park. Maybe the squirrels have been taking steroids or something? Maybe the Great Egret's have been sharpening their bills? I'm sure the NRA will say its to provide for personal protection - again its those pumped up squirrels and well-honed egret bills. I'll have to be more careful and look over my shoulder next time I'm in Everglades National Park I guess.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:11 amThe more lawsuits, the better. The reich-wingers hate anyone's day in court except when wal-mart feels the need to wipe out the little guy for half a million bucks. Press on over the objections of the "frivolous lawsuits!!" water-carrying neocon leg humpers.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:16 amI find it odd that all these "rules" and "directives" keep being treated as if they have the force of law. Things that affect me should be laws, not internal agency policies or whatnot. It's easier to keep track of the former, whereas the latter can be somewhat opaque.
As far as I'm concerned, this sort of thing just goes to demonstrate the across-the-board incompetence of the Bush Administration, from top to bottom - "Did we get that guns in parks order settled? Yeah, let's do it. Oh wait, we're not supposed to change things after this date? I didn't notice." These people shouldn't be running a McDonald's, much less a federal agency. I don't know if I'd call it a court issue, though.
.
COProgressive Says:
Sure, guns in national parks makes a lot of sense. Just what we need boozed up yahoos running around formally safe national parks taking pot shots at Yogi the Bear and Bullwinkle the Moose.
Well, you have to bring a gun to defend yourself from them. Problem solved. In wingnutland, the "right to bear arms" gets pushed to the degree that everyone has to bear arms, or die.
As for the safety of the critters, perhaps the Left should organize armed vigilante patrols to defend them. Can you picture a bunch of hopped-up PETA and ALF hippies with semiautos hiding in the bushes just waiting for some eedjit to shoot a squirrel? The Right isn't the only one with a rabidly angry, potentially murderous wing among them. Mix up a bunch of tree-sitting sniper hippies with the inevitable wingnut yee-haws, and you've got yourself another Civil War.
Yeah, on second thought I'll just stay out of any national parks until this all gets fixed.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:28 amNot content with trashing the Constitution, Treaties and International Laws, this sinking Administration just Has to find one more thing to break. Now they're breaking their own self-made laws. Amazing to realize that they can't even follow their own directives. No bottom to this swamp, the Worst Administration of the Worst President Ever continues to set newer, and worse, lows.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:28 amCome On January 20th!
I'm sure the simple minded, fanatic, NRA gun nuts will be up in arms over this. Poisoning the rivers is fine, destroying the wilderness (and the heart of prime hunting areas) is OK, but don't tell them they can't carry a gun somewhere.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:34 amHow did they keep guns out of National Parks before this regulation was lifted? Common sense tells me every visitor didn't have to pass through a metal detector, go through a pat down, or let all of their things be searched. Seeing as how it's something they can't really check, would you prefer only the lawbreaking citizens have guns in National Parks?
December 31st, 2008 at 11:34 am#7
If it means fewer guns in the hands of people, then yes.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:37 amohplease Says:
How did they keep guns out of National Parks before this regulation was lifted? Common sense tells me every visitor didn’t have to pass through a metal detector, go through a pat down, or let all of their things be searched. Seeing as how it’s something they can’t really check, would you prefer only the lawbreaking citizens have guns in National Parks?
You're kidding, right? We need guns in national parks to defend ourselves from the forest criminals? I'd really love to see your data on the national park armed crime rate up to now. While I understand that creating a problem to solve a problem that didn't exist is the Wingnut Method, it's still stupid. It was stupid the last hundred times y'all did it, it's stupid this time, and it'll be stupid next time.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:43 amI personally think it's a great idea, especially with a sniper rifle!
December 31st, 2008 at 11:59 amSo when a bunch of those noisy ski-mobiles interfers with YOUR solitude on a clear,beautiful day,you could pick them off one by one!
Go for it,it's a great idea NRA!
The Department also violated a White House directive that no rules should be issued after November 1, 2008, except in “extraordinary circumstances,” issuing the last-minute rule change on December 10, 2008.
Yeah, but, this is an "extraordinary circumstance"!! Bush's legacy-turd polishing has to include the NRA, ya know.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pm"I personally think it’s a great idea, especially with a sniper rifle!
So when a bunch of those noisy ski-mobiles interfers with YOUR solitude on a clear,beautiful day,you could pick them off one by one!
Go for it,it’s a great idea NRA!"
And no more being bothered by those pesky noisy animals...Just adjust that sight and fire away.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pmThe fear mongering around this issue is just a non starter. And you guys are as guilty as republicans of spreading FUD. All this does is allow National Parks to reflect the laws of the state they are in. I'm a liberal, Democrat, voted for Obama. I carry a gun every day, every where. I'm effectively allowed to carry everywhere in Oregon EXCEPT Crater Lake National Park. Do you all think that somehow, some way the rest of Oregon is just insane, but you're safer in Crater Lake? Somewhere around 5% (a lot of the Democrats here) of Oregon has a permit to carry a firearm. You see them in the grocery store and everywhere else, but in Crater Lake they're somehow more dangerous?
Blah... You're showing your ignorance on the issue.
As for people who don't think the open spaces especially here in Oregon have crime problems, then mayb you need to get out of your cities. In Oregon, where do you think the methheads go to cook?
Maybe read this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html
December 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pmp.s. A quote from that article:
Do you really know about the huge wilderness out here? Or are you guys just spouting? We've got bad people and wildlife that you should probably figure out how to protect yourself from. Because out in the sticks, your on your own. I LIVE out in the sticks.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:18 pmnoops Says:
The fear mongering around this issue is just a non starter. And you guys are as guilty as republicans of spreading FUD. All this does is allow National Parks to reflect the laws of the state they are in.
Some parks are in more than one state. Should citizens in one state that allows carrying be allowed to carry within the park, while the citizens of the other isn't? This violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, I believe.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pmBecause out in the sticks, your on your own. I LIVE out in the sticks.
But you don't live in a national park.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm"The fear mongering around this issue is just a non starter. And you guys are as guilty as republicans of spreading FUD. All this does is allow National Parks to reflect the laws of the state they are in. I’m a liberal, Democrat, voted for Obama. I carry a gun every day, every where. I’m effectively allowed to carry everywhere in Oregon EXCEPT Crater Lake National Park."
Good. Other sources state that the majority of gun incidents are by and far against park rangers, not civilians.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pmCivilians should not be able to bring guns into protected wilds under any normal circumstances.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:24 pmThe Bush administration also violated its own directive in November with a last-minute rule gutting worker protections.
Bush: "Rules, smules... what is it with all these gawd-damned pieces of paper telling the Deciderer what to do?"
December 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pmUmmm...why?
December 31st, 2008 at 12:28 pmLet's see those other sources? And are you saying civilians shouldn't be able to defend themselves when there are no cops around to help them?
December 31st, 2008 at 12:28 pmSo what's your point? Am I more likely to shoot something or someone if I transition from Oregon state owned lands to national park lands?
December 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pmEveryone who has ever had to defend themselves with a firearm raise your hand. Getting drunk and angry at your bowling buddy doesn't count...
December 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pmAtlease the terrorist wont be breaking any laws when they have their guns to kill people. As Bush helped Israel design the Palestine massacre this is the way things are done now. Just kill who ever you don't like or disagree with and if you feel it necessary kill woman and children too. Pictures of Israel bombing of a children's school was horrorible. Now with guns allowed in parks and homes the US can expect the Wild Wild West to be back. When JFK was assassinated there was no law for murdering a President, who knows what else George W. Bush and his lawyer Karl Rove have changed in 8 years.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:40 pmdbadass Says:
Everyone who has ever had to defend themselves with a firearm raise your hand. Getting drunk and angry at your bowling buddy doesn’t count…
December 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Neither do making your children behave, dragging your wife out of her best girlfriend's bed, or an irrational fear of butterflies.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:42 pm"Urban Crime Hits National Forests"
December 31st, 2008 at 12:51 pmhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0802/p02s01-ussc.html
December 31st, 2008 at 12:51 pmIn Oregon, where do you think the methheads go to cook?
In double-wides, like in every other state.
You live in a trailer park or something?
December 31st, 2008 at 12:54 pmMosquito Hunting with Monty Python.
LINK
There's really no better definition of the fcukwit mentality of most gun owners.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pmnoops Says:
I LIVE out in the sticks.
If by "the sticks" you mean suburbia, then probably. Your romanticized portrayal of national park land being a grisly fight for survival against a constant stream of implacable and deadly foes seems to suggest you've never actually been to any of the places under discussion.
.
noops Says:
Ummm…why?
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, let me tell it!
(points at the chalkboard)
Because that's what the word "protected" in "protected wilds" means.
.
noops Says:
So what’s your point? Am I more likely to shoot something or someone if I transition from Oregon state owned lands to national park lands?
If you cross over into national park lands, then follow the rules for national parks. Quit crying about it. The landowner gets to set the rules of behavior for guests. The U.S. is the landowner. Quit crying about the rules.
You should have an actual plan for where you're going, or leave your gun at home. If you can't read a map, you've got no business wandering about in the wilderness with a gun anyways. I've never heard of anybody who demands the right to meander randomly across state and park lines while armed, until I heard from you.
.
noops Says:
And are you saying civilians shouldn’t be able to defend themselves when there are no cops around to help them?
I use my Kung Fu to defeat all of the bears and highwaymen that attack me when I go on hikes.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:04 pmdbadass Says:
Everyone who has ever had to defend themselves with a firearm raise your hand. Getting drunk and angry at your bowling buddy doesn’t count…
Does that include when I was serving in the military in a combat zone?
Thats the only time I ever had to defend myself with a firearm.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:08 pmAssuming that combat zone wasn't in a national park, I would have to say no.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pmallowing loaded firearms at most national park sites such as the National Mall.
Looks like Shrubby and his Gang O Pirates screwed up, big time. I can't wait to see GOP pissypants' heads explode when 10,000 gun-bearing Black people show up on the National Mall for Obama's inaguration?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pmI'm bringing my Glock!
Can I bring my rocket launcher?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pmOnce again, not knowing the issue. Firearms will STILL not be allowed on the National Mall because the park adopts the rule of its state (or in this case district).
Also interesting that none of you have responded substantially.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pmWell there's an irony. I'm not the one crying about the rules. You guys are. By following the rules (after January 9) I will be able to move from state lands to national parks with a firearm. Oh, and I already could in National Forests.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pmHah! you got me. Look up McKenzie Bridge Oregon.
And once again, no substantial reasoning except ad hominem. You guys really own this issue. No wonder the Democratic party is abandoning this issue, especially in places like Oregon. We actually have an official Gun Owners Caucus here in Oregon that is part of the Democratic Party of Oregon (and yes I'm a member of both of those things).
December 31st, 2008 at 1:31 pm"Also interesting that none of you have responded substantially"
By whose determination?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:31 pmnoops Says:
Also interesting that none of you have responded substantially.
Most of us are uninterested in replying to nonsense posted by idiot trolls...
/big hint to idiot troll
December 31st, 2008 at 1:31 pm** think the troll will actually get the hint? Do they ever?
We have a winner for most Republican argument. Good job Jackie! Teh Terrorists are here!
December 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pmWe actually have an official Gun Owners Caucus here in Oregon that is part of the Democratic Party of Oregon (and yes I’m a member of both of those things).
Oh well why didn't you mention this sooner! That makes your argument more "substantial". LOL
December 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pmApparently Wayne's. Jokes aside, none of you have shown any danger here through either history or social science. You would restrict our liberties withouth any science, history, or law to back you. How is that different from Bush?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pmThe reason the Rule says MostNational Parks, is to specifically Exempt National Parks in Washington D.C. like the National Mall.
That Bush Administration...sharp as a tack.
This is all just a ploy to make Obama reverse the ruling...thereby increasing NRA donations to the GOP.
A few hikers have been attacked and killed while on the National Trails...but until I hear of a Violent Crime wave in the National Parks...this make no sense.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pmnone of you have shown any danger here through either history or social science.
LOL And you have shown that the only danger you have is being afraid of something that could not happen more than getting hit by lighting.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:36 pmSo are you saying that it is by your determination?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:37 pm"You would restrict our liberties"
So we can opening smoke pot in the national parks too?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:40 pmnoops Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The danger comes from idiots like you who are pissing their pants thinking someone is looking to harm them, while my family is just trying to enjoy nature's wonders.
Let's see some scientific proof from YOU as to how often people are victims of crime, and how often they have successfully defended themselves with a gun (see the criteria in #24 & #26, above).
December 31st, 2008 at 1:41 pmSo you're saying we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves when there is zero chance of police protection? By the way, our Oregon Constitution specifically associates the right to arms as associated with self defense. Imagine that.
I think, that when you want to restrict someones liberties, the burden should be on YOU, to prove that something bad would happen. All of the OK-Corral scenarios that ant-gun-rights people have wailed about as carry laws liberalized over the last 20 years have NOT come to fruition.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pmExcellent point. The lowest recorded number of "Defensive Gun Uses" is 108,000 in 1993 (including situations where a firearm was used but NOT fired). That's well more double the number of people actually killed with firearms (and that includes suicides). That 108,000 is considered low because it was recorded in the National Crime Victimization Survey which is not anonymous. Most social scientists consider that number low as they believe people would be afraid to identify themselves had they NOT reported the defensive case to the police. Klecks research showed over 2 million, but has been shown to have some bad research. So the number is probably somewhere between 108,000 and 2 million.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pmAll of the OK-Corral scenarios that ant-gun-rights people have wailed about as carry laws liberalized over the last 20 years have NOT come to fruition.
Oh no, not one single person has been killed by gun toting nutbars in 20 years. You must really live in the sticks. Did you not here how Santa Claus protected himself last week?
So you’re saying we shouldn’t be able to defend ourselves when there is zero chance of police protection?
Why oh why didn't those people that Santa killed have guns of there own to protect themselves?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pmnoops Says:
So you’re saying we shouldn’t be able to defend ourselves when there is zero chance of police protection?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Here's the phone number for the Lane County Sheriff: (541) 682-4399.
F ucking loser.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pmnoops Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Nice cut & paste job. Link?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pmyou forgot to define terms. See that is the problem. Waving a gun around doesn't equal defense.
On a different note, if the ants are gonna have guns at that national park picnic, that changes everything...
December 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pmSeriously, have you - has anybody - ever thought to themselves "I'm about to enter national parkland. Maybe I better not go in. I can't carry a gun there and it's not safe." I've never even imagined such a scenario before this discussion.
BTW, anybody done a "right to arm bears" joke in here yet? Cool - dibs!
December 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pmI didn't say that. I was referring to people with concealed carry permits. What is their violent crime rate, because those are the people talked about here. You're throwing specious facts out there.
That's a really good question. How could something like that happen in one of the states with the most draconian gun laws?! It shouldn't be possible!
December 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pmYou got me! Quality discussion here. And someone called me a troll.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pmnoops Says:
That’s a really good question. How could something like that happen in one of the states with the most draconian gun laws?! It shouldn’t be possible!
December 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
This dingleberry is answering his own questions now. :-D
December 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pmWow, you got me again. Terrifyin'!
December 31st, 2008 at 1:55 pmnoops Says:
F ucking loser.
You got me! Quality discussion here. And someone called me a troll.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Keep that phone number handy, Mr "zero chance of police protection" drama queen.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:55 pmI haven't seen that link yet, noops. You're concerned with name calling, and we're concerned about facts.
Try to keep up.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:57 pmI am particularly taken by the "drama queen" line. Classic...
December 31st, 2008 at 1:58 pmSome have criticized Kleck's methodologies and sample sizes. My research has still failed to turn up a single solitary individual who has ever ever in their life had to defend themselves with a firearm outside a military or police scenario. How many times have you noops?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pmThank you, db. :)
The poor dear hasn't actually been able to answer any question without a copy & paste -- likely from the NRA website.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pmI was referring to people with concealed carry permits. What is their violent crime rate, because those are the people talked about here.
Oh I didn't know Santa didn't have a permit. That makes all the difference in the world.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pmMight I add criminal venture to police and military...
December 31st, 2008 at 2:03 pmLinky love (written by the department of Justice):
here
You can find out more about the NCVS at DOJ's website here
December 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pmOnce. And you need better research skills. I posted the requested links above. But maybe on a more anecdotal basis you should read this:
December 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pmCivilian Self Defense instances
Actually I have fine research skills. The problem seems to be that you are just posting links to stuff but not showing the pertinent pieces you wish to examine nor have you critically examined the methodoligies and findings because you need to accept them so as to reinforce your predetermined mindset.
So tell me about your big self defense incident. Oh and all the rest of you can feel free to chime in with yours since I am to believe this goes on all the time
December 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pmI like the lady that claimed 51 self defenses in a year. Sure! See the thing with self reporting is that it is not very solid methodology. Maybe you could point to the police report data.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pmnoops Says:
Civilian Self Defense instances
Your link seems to go to a whole bunch of stories of people shooting people who were committing nonviolent crimes.
What you consider "defense" I find offensive.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pmElBruce, I was about to post the same thing. It's sickening how people like noops justify non-adjudicated death penalty for petty crime.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:38 pmAnd once again, no substantial reasoning except ad hominem.
He must have missed my previous post:
Some parks are in more than one state. Should citizens in one state that allows carrying be allowed to carry within the park, while the citizens of the other isn’t? This violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, I believe.
Nothing substantive?
Riight.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:04 pmYeah, I'm sure Bruce Pardo needed every single gun *he* had.
You know, for protection...?
December 31st, 2008 at 3:08 pmOnce. And you need better research skills. I posted the requested links above. But maybe on a more anecdotal basis you should read this:
Civilian Self Defense instances
Didn't happen in a national park, did it?
What's your point?
December 31st, 2008 at 3:10 pmSo here's a story of armed people defending themselves. And here's why it's a problem. Same story, different perspective.
I don't know, maybe guns in National Parks isn't the most horrific idea in the world. I'd mainly be concerned about the increased possibility of poaching. But when you make the issue about how you need guns everywhere to "defend" yourself, red flags go up all over the place.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pmWhat possible reason could there be for allowing guns in our parks? Some payment to the NRA for their support?
Surely there should be one place for families and children or individuals to go for a day. To see nature. For quiet or fun without getting their head blown away accidentally or on purpose. Is there to be no place left in this country without guns? I cannot begin to fathom any possible reason for such idiocy. This brain dead administration continues, to the last minute to try and advance their own dark vision of the world.
This bunch of corrupt, stupid people in one place. How do they find each other? By scent or some secret hand shake. What a sewer of minds.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:15 pmIt appears noops has been pwned.
Well done, TP troll bashing squad!
December 31st, 2008 at 3:50 pmI was in a Arcadia park in 1993 when a guy began shooting people with a rifle. Fortunately, a neighboring camper had a shotgun and stopped the madness. Fortunately, only the gunman died. I am okay with law abiding citizens carrying guns. In fact, it's why I live in Texas. It's comforting knowing that my neighbors are armed since I do not have the courage to own or fire a handgun at another human being. It's nice to know we have brave men and women out there who will. Even in a park. Besides, D.C. is usually the most dangerous city in the nation.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:02 pmArcadia? If you mean Acadia, I can find no reference to this event. Could you point the way? Now how does that DC afterthought fit in?
December 31st, 2008 at 4:13 pmdrew3rd Says:
I was in a Arcadia park in 1993 when a guy began shooting people with a rifle. Fortunately, a neighboring camper had a shotgun and stopped the madness. Fortunately, only the gunman died.
Inability to find any reference to this newsworthy event aside (did y'all just bury him secretly in the woods?), let me try telling your story from a slightly different perspective:
"I was in Arcadia park in 1993 when two guys, one with a rifle and one with a shotgun started having a goddamned shootout. Fortunately, only one of those two idiots died. That's why I don't live in Texas."
I would prefer if there were not anyone shooting people, whereas your preference is to have somebody shooting shooters. In your version you just pretty much sided with somebody who killed somebody else, and called that an ideal outcome. Quick question - if the first guy was "shooting people with a rifle," why weren't any of them dead by the end of your story? Just wounded?
December 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pmAh yes, pwned. Really. By presenting no facts, and calling me names, you really showed your quality and defended justice for all Americans. I lay down my arms and run in fear of you. You are a superhearo.
Or maybe I went to lunch.
Besides that, noone here seems interested in a conversation based on anything other than emotional pleas and name calling. But there's a reason that Democrats are starting stay away from this issue, and it isn't all the NRA. When a group like the CDC releases a report (2003) that says gun laws don't affect violent crime, even some Democrats get the picture. I'm one of those. A democrat that thinks all of our rights are important, and doesn't think we should cede our right to defense to the state when the state has no obligation to protect us anyway (Castle Rock v Gonzales). I'm pretty sure I'm not the only Democrat like that. There may not be many of us in Massachusetts (I lived there for 25 years), but there are plenty of us in places like Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Montana, etc. And we're holding our own. So thanks, but I'm not interested in the name calling, or trying to have a discourse with people who have they're minds closed already.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:14 pmnoops Says:
- wah wah wah, ignore argumentation, mischaracterize posts, wah wah wah -
Besides that, noone here seems interested in a conversation based on anything other than emotional pleas and name calling...
Poopyhead.
I win!
December 31st, 2008 at 5:21 pmnoops:
December 31st, 2008 at 5:30 pmHello. Have I not politely engaged you in a discussion of research methods and outcomes? Have I not asked you to share your self defense experiences. Have I not solicited the self defense experiences of others. Have I call you any names? You seem to be whinning now...
dbadass,
Not really. You just confirmed others ad hominem (drama queen), and misdirection (smoking pot in national parks, which last I checked isn't an enumerated right).
What you haven't really done is show that somehow, people will be in more danger now that vetted citizens with concealed carry permits are somehow a danger to national parks or the people within them when they already can move freely throughout the rest of that state. You haven't shown that more restrictive gun laws work in terms of altering violent crime. You haven't even really tried.
As for my own self defense incident, it would just sound concern trollish. Not my style. There are plenty of resources for finding out how often people defend themselves with firearms. The Bureau for Criminal Justice Statistics is a good one (they're the people that run the National Crime Victimization Survey). I linked to it. You said that wasn't specific enough. But it wasn't that hard to read.
I think you're concern trolling me a little yourself. I guess I believe that there are more fertile grounds for this type of argument. There are plenty of Democrats right here in Oregon. I've even convinced a few that maybe they should reconsider the issue. I did. I was an extremely anti-gun Democrat from an anti-gun typical Massachusetts family. Until something bad urged me to reconsider my stance.
I like thinkprogress, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a place for opposing viewpoints. I find that unfortunate, because I agree with the site 99% of the time. Apparently, the other 1% I'm a loser. Oh well. I was already a loser 100% of the time. People in this conversation should try a little harder to be cognizant of the fact that all this type of conversation does is alienate middle of the road people like myself. And for better or worse, us middle of the road people swing a lot of elections and issues in this country.I may disagree with many of you on this issue. But I didn't call you names.
I'm driving to Portland now for some festivities. Don't worry about my safety though. I'll be armed and hanging out with my metrosexual hipster bubba gun toting Portland rednecks.
Happy New Years to you all.
Noops
December 31st, 2008 at 5:55 pmOh come on the drama queen thing was funny. I suppose I may have to doubt your self defense incident now that you feel you can not support it. I read your link. See that is how I knew about the self reporting and the lady with the 51 alledged events. We can go around the block endlessly but I would still argue that way you wish to interpret the second ammendment may not be the same as I nor that which was intended so spare me the innumerated rights suggestion. If you really believed that you would welcome me and my rocket launcher into your neighborhood and parks...
Be Safe.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:08 pmReall men use their fists and not guns...
noops Says:
I was an extremely anti-gun Democrat from an anti-gun typical Massachusetts family. Until something bad urged me to reconsider my stance.
So the sample size of the data that you base your entire approach to this issue = 1?
Well, I've never been shot but I don't want to be, so I've decided that all guns are bad. Thus, I'm using the exact same logic as you, with an equal amount of support.
.
noops Says:
I’m driving to Portland now for some festivities. Don’t worry about my safety though. I’ll be armed and hanging out with my metrosexual hipster bubba gun toting Portland rednecks.
Crap, I live in Portland...
Here's the thing I don't think you're grokking. I'm more afraid of people like you than I am of whoever you're afraid of. Carrying a gun specifically for the purpose of self-defense is pretty much the definition of violent and paranoid.
I'm not saying gun ownership is bad per se. It's written into the Bill of Rights, and is an integral part of American culture and history. Own a gun because you own a gun. Own a gun just because you get to.
But if you need a gun primarily because you're concerned that you're going to be shot at wherever you go (even way out in the woods) then you're actually the guy that the rest of us need to be worried about.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pmHappy New Years to you all.
Noops
And a Happy New Year to you. May you never have to use your concealed weapon.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:22 pmElBruce,
My sons live in Portland, and they love it. I love it cuz it's on my way to the coast. :)
December 31st, 2008 at 7:28 pmElBruce Says:
But if you need a gun primarily because you’re concerned that you’re going to be shot at wherever you go (even way out in the woods) then you’re actually the guy that the rest of us need to be worried about.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Nail. On. Head.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pmBesides that, noone here seems interested in a conversation based on anything other than emotional pleas and name calling.
Second time:
Some parks are in more than one state. Should citizens in one state that allows carrying be allowed to carry within the park, while the citizens of the other isn’t? This violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, I believe.
Didn't call you anything, unless posting your handle is "name calling."
Is this really the best you can do?
I think my point is one you don't want to consider, because it exposes the fallacy of the your argument.
Happy New Year, and come back with something a little stronger, next time.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:32 pmHappy New, to you too, Zoo.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:34 pmHappy New year, barfly!
Is it too early to start drinking...?
December 31st, 2008 at 7:36 pmIs it too early...
Nahhh...
But take a few aspirin before going to bed.
Luckily, I'm located near several pubs, and I think I'll do a little hopping.
After all, I am the barfly...
December 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pmBush does not understand how anything works, and he has no interest in learning how things work. He wants what he wants. He is the decider. Too bad he has spent eight years in the most powerful office on the planet.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:56 pmguns for all abortions for none...
December 31st, 2008 at 10:28 pmThank You For Much
Forum
mirc
March 29th, 2009 at 7:07 pm