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…

Is it too early to start drinking…?

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.

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.

My sons live in Portland, and they love it. I love it cuz it’s on my way to the coast. :)

Noops

And a Happy New Year to you. May you never have to use your concealed weapon.

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.

Be Safe.
Reall men use their fists and not guns…

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

Besides that, noone here seems interested in a conversation based on anything other than emotional pleas and name calling…

Poopyhead.

I win!

It appears noops has been pwned.

Well done, TP troll bashing squad!

Ah 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.

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?

Well done, TP troll bashing squad!

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.