You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #70: Unrec for citing Sugarmann without comment [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-12-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
70. Unrec for citing Sugarmann without comment
The entire piece is bullshit, which is par for the course with Sugarmann. If you put his alarmist rhetoric in context, what it comes down is that the possibility of encountering an openly armed citizen is now the same in any given National Park as it is in the state in which the National Park is located.

Quick fisking of a few points:
Anyone hiking in the backcountry can openly carry guns, increasing the risk to other hikers and park wildlife.

The increase in risk is about on a par with the extent that smoking contributes to global warming. This is known as the "genuine but insignificant cause" fallacy.

<...> while standing on Mather Point, enjoying the breathtaking view of the canyon, you could see another visitor with an assault rifle slung on his shoulder.

The likelihood of any licensed owner of an automatic weapon (unlike so-called "assault weapons," assault rifles are by definition capable of automatic fire) carrying it around in public are exceedingly slim.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (TN and NC): This park is an example of one of the problems visitors will face with the new law. In North Carolina, there are few gun restrictions and visitors could be seen openly carrying guns. However, if you happen to be a gun-carrying visitor, you will need a "carry permit" when you cross into the part of the park located in Tennessee.

Whereas previously, it was possible for a CCW permit holder to be legally carrying in his home state, and then break the law merely by driving along a stretch of road over which the NPS has (or claims) jurisdiction, such as the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia, or the stretch of US 101 that runs through Olympic National Park in Washington state.

Mount Rainier National Park (WA): While hiking the famous "Wonderland Trail" you could encounter other hikers openly carrying handguns, rifles or shotguns.

While the legality of openly carrying handguns in Washington state is well established, the status of openly carrying a long gun is not so unequivocal; see State v. Spencer (1995) http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/legal/State_v_S...
Sugarmann didn't do his research; surprising for someone who is supposedly an expert on this topic.

Also note the generous use of the term "prominently displayed." Most open carriers do not carry their handguns in a particularly prominent fashion; most casual observers don't even notice the holstered handgun. The insinuation is, of course, that anyone open carrying seeks to intimidate those around him; actively and deliberately doing so, however, is typically illegal. And the fact is that those who intend to use firearms for unlawful purposes typically carry their weapons concealed, which is why most gun crimes are committed with handguns, and why rifles and shotguns with an overall length of 26" are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

And ultimately, the gun control organizations have nobody to blame for the present situation but themselves. Originally, the alteration to the federal rules would only have permitted licensed concealed carry; no open carry, and certainly no long guns. But gun control groups field suit to prevent the rule change, and the Dept. of the Interior opted not to appeal. The Coburn Amendment wouldn't even have been introduced were it not for the gun control groups' lawsuit. That came round to bite them in the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -"Coming Soon to the National Park: Guns!" amborin  Feb-12-10 11:42 AM   #0 
  - It's about time.  farmout rightarm   Feb-12-10 11:44 AM   #1 
  - This  SsevenN   Feb-18-10 04:11 PM   #105 
  - The sheer stupidity of this new regulation is breath-taking...  joeybee12   Feb-12-10 11:45 AM   #2 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-12-10 11:49 AM   #4 
  - Oooo, Lorien said "penis." Hhhh-h-h-h-h, hhhh-h-h-h...  SteveM   Feb-12-10 12:24 PM   #7 
  - Ah, Joeybee, if you really believe in "capitulation to right-wing nutjjobs..."  SteveM   Feb-12-10 12:19 PM   #6 
  - Yeah! For once we aren't capitulating to those park ranger/police nutjobs!  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 12:37 PM   #12 
     - What? Park rangers/police have guns? Why dat? nt  SteveM   Feb-12-10 12:52 PM   #14 
        - Someone has to keep an eye on the rightwing nutjobs. nt  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 01:46 PM   #31 
  - Well, there are bears, wolves and mountain lions.  sharesunited   Feb-12-10 12:31 PM   #10 
  - Man  cowman   Feb-12-10 01:02 PM   #18 
  - same argument, modified to whatever situation: if they have guns they will shoot everyting in sight  aliendroid   Feb-12-10 01:27 PM   #26 
  - Your statements only show that you really have no undersatnding of legal gun ownership.  rd_kent   Feb-12-10 01:42 PM   #28 
  - Ignorant.  proteus_lives   Feb-12-10 02:37 PM   #36 
  - You are very ignorant about this subject. nt  Tim01   Feb-12-10 04:05 PM   #57 
  - Why, is it a problem now in the National Forests?  AtheistCrusader   Feb-12-10 04:09 PM   #60 
  - "No reason to carry a gun in a national park, none whatsoever"?  Euromutt   Feb-13-10 05:44 AM   #99 
  - When my wife was a child...  Suuko   Feb-14-10 08:02 AM   #104 
  - Yes because only humans live in the woods...  Suuko   Feb-14-10 07:57 AM   #103 
  - Coburn. The man should be committed to a padded cell and undo  AndyA   Feb-12-10 11:45 AM   #3 
  - Yes, he is nuts, generally speaking but that doesn't mean he must therefore be wrong  farmout rightarm   Feb-12-10 02:55 PM   #42 
  - This one is ripe for repeal if Democrats can get some of that spine Howard Dean was talking about  DFW   Feb-12-10 12:14 PM   #5 
  - Are you under the impression people, both good and bad, have never taken guns  farmout rightarm   Feb-12-10 12:32 PM   #11 
  - I am under the impression:  DFW   Feb-12-10 12:55 PM   #16 
     - Cite to legal (i.e. Constitutional) or historical support, please?  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 01:00 PM   #17 
     - This is 2A gibberish, and I'm not playing  DFW   Feb-12-10 01:10 PM   #21 
     - Hahaha! Facts are now 2A gibberish huh? No wonder your side is losing.  rd_kent   Feb-12-10 01:45 PM   #30 
     - It's great, actually.  proteus_lives   Feb-12-10 02:39 PM   #38 
     - That's probably  rrneck   Feb-12-10 02:30 PM   #35 
     - Ha! "My personal experience with my family is what I base my opinion on..."  DonP   Feb-12-10 02:37 PM   #37 
     - Yeah, well so-called "constitutional rights" also end at airport gates,  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 02:54 PM   #41 
        - They end at security check points where  pipoman   Feb-12-10 04:33 PM   #66 
        - Let me know where "security check points" appears in A2 nt  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:11 PM   #79 
           - There isn't a single person  pipoman   Feb-12-10 08:27 PM   #93 
        - I'm sorry, maybe I missed something...  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 05:54 PM   #73 
           - The airlines nor the TSA guarantee your safety either  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:07 PM   #78 
              - "the colonial meaning of "militia" is no longer relevant"  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 06:32 PM   #85 
                 - .  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:53 PM   #87 
                    - Let me help you avoid your next fail-post.  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 07:15 PM   #89 
                    - The colonial meanings of 'speech' and 'press' are no longer relevant  friendly_iconoclast   Feb-12-10 08:28 PM   #94 
     - Okay, what exactly kept the "whackjobs" from taking guns into them in the past,  farmout rightarm   Feb-12-10 01:14 PM   #23 
     - man!  aliendroid   Feb-12-10 01:36 PM   #27 
     - So, because YOU don't want them, EVERYBODY must not want to either, right?  rd_kent   Feb-12-10 01:44 PM   #29 
     - No, because YOU want them, everyone ELSE must want them!  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 03:08 PM   #47 
        - We're just Pro-Choice.  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 05:55 PM   #74 
           - Then you must be entirely open to the idea  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:24 PM   #82 
              - Oh, please...  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 06:30 PM   #84 
              - You too!  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:54 PM   #88 
              - As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I don't care what you think.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-18-10 04:39 PM   #107 
     - Oh, you mean a police state.  DonP   Feb-12-10 02:23 PM   #34 
     - Since when has a legal prohibition on the presence of firearms prevented a 'college campus romp'?  AtheistCrusader   Feb-12-10 04:11 PM   #63 
     - So you think the nut jobs who go on shooting sprees would obey the NP rules? LOL.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-18-10 04:37 PM   #106 
  - Please read #6. Thanks. nt  SteveM   Feb-12-10 12:41 PM   #13 
  - I did.  DFW   Feb-12-10 01:04 PM   #19 
     - What sort of law would effectively insure that no mentally ill person would ever take a gun  farmout rightarm   Feb-12-10 01:19 PM   #24 
     - So your thinking is....  dmallind   Feb-12-10 03:14 PM   #49 
     - Are you saying there are cougars and bears and meth labs in kindergartens and bake sales?  AtheistCrusader   Feb-12-10 04:12 PM   #64 
     - Feelings, nothing more than feelings,  pipoman   Feb-12-10 04:47 PM   #68 
     - "...the public's best protection... ...for no firearms at all allowed in there for civilians."  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 05:58 PM   # 
     - "where people can feel safe"  X_Digger   Feb-12-10 09:17 PM   #95 
  - What the  cowman   Feb-12-10 01:12 PM   #22 
  - You do realize...MANY democrats support this??!?!  virginia mountainman   Feb-12-10 01:22 PM   #25 
  - You are very uneducated. nt  Tim01   Feb-12-10 04:07 PM   #58 
  - "Ripe for repeal"? It doesn't even enter into force until the 22nd!  Euromutt   Feb-13-10 05:56 AM   #100 
  - Thanks, Tom.  TheCowsCameHome   Feb-12-10 12:24 PM   #8 
  - Take a clue, pardner, the guns are already there...  SteveM   Feb-12-10 12:29 PM   #9 
  - Wow. Hysteria, much?  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 12:54 PM   #15 
  - Be Afraid!! Be Vewwwy Afraid!!  benEzra   Feb-12-10 01:06 PM   #20 
  - Great news!!!!!!!!!  Hoopla Phil   Feb-12-10 01:58 PM   #32 
  - So the entire argument against this is "YOU MIGHT SEE PEOPLE WITH GUNS"!!!  rd_kent   Feb-12-10 02:15 PM   #33 
  - Yep, that's how this article reads. (nt)  brendan120678   Feb-12-10 02:46 PM   #40 
  - Wonderful!  proteus_lives   Feb-12-10 02:40 PM   #39 
  - Crime slowly creeps into parks, forests ..  spin   Feb-12-10 02:55 PM   #43 
  - Then why don't park rangers endorse it?  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 02:59 PM   #44 
  - Link? nt  rrneck   Feb-12-10 03:15 PM   #50 
  - Look up  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 03:19 PM   #52 
     - Ah. Of course. Thanks. nt  rrneck   Feb-12-10 03:42 PM   #54 
  - Police who live in gun friendly states have a far different attitude...  spin   Feb-12-10 03:39 PM   #53 
  - Florida's violent crime rate is also 7th highest in the country  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 03:58 PM   #56 
     - Yep, Florida's violent crime rate was REALLY bad before 1987...  spin   Feb-12-10 04:49 PM   #69 
  - Gee...  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 06:01 PM   #76 
     - Seeing as they work there day and night  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:16 PM   #81 
        - Naw...  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 06:29 PM   #83 
           - What is "trumping the Constitution"?  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:43 PM   #86 
              - Doesn't mean it's correct.  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 07:17 PM   #90 
  - Yes, there are criminals in them thar hills...  Dappleganger   Feb-12-10 05:48 PM   #71 
  - They were always there  Taitertots   Feb-12-10 02:59 PM   #45 
  - So people who legally carry guns don't commit crimes?  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 03:01 PM   #46 
     - Very, very little according to state police and the FBI  DonP   Feb-12-10 03:12 PM   #48 
     - Your logic is inane.  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 03:18 PM   #51 
        - It may come as a shock to you...  Euromutt   Feb-12-10 04:07 PM   #59 
        - Statistically you WOULD be more likely to commit a crime ...  spin   Feb-12-10 04:11 PM   #61 
        - I think you are confused.  Tim01   Feb-12-10 04:11 PM   #62 
        - In FL they also have to go through background checks...  Dappleganger   Feb-12-10 05:51 PM   #72 
           - Same here. nt  Tim01   Feb-12-10 08:01 PM   #92 
        - No genius, safer than the average citizen, like you, NOT a non-permitted gun carrier ntxt  DonP   Feb-12-10 04:33 PM   #65 
        - whatever.  wtmusic   Feb-12-10 06:13 PM   #80 
           - No, that's not true, you just cant seem to accept the proof set in front of you.  DonP   Feb-12-10 07:50 PM   #91 
           - You know  cowman   Feb-13-10 09:54 AM   #102 
           - The old ostrich tactic, nice one.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-18-10 04:41 PM   #108 
        - You can apologize any time now.  DonP   Feb-12-10 04:34 PM   #67 
        - It does imply that  Taitertots   Feb-13-10 07:08 AM   #101 
     - True, those who have carry permits are in no way angels ...  spin   Feb-12-10 03:53 PM   #55 
     - Who ever said that?  Taitertots   Feb-12-10 05:58 PM   #75 
  - Unrec for citing Sugarmann without comment  Euromutt   Feb-12-10 05:15 PM   #70 
  - "Sugarmann didn't do his research; surprising for someone who is supposedly an expert ..."  PavePusher   Feb-12-10 06:04 PM   #77 
  - Great news!  Hoopla Phil   Feb-12-10 09:22 PM   #96 
  - Wooohooo. What the world needs now is Guns sweet guns  donheld   Feb-13-10 12:40 AM   #97 
  - No just for those who want them and are legally permitted to possess them.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-18-10 04:42 PM   #109 
  - State laws are adequate. I'm in favor  bhikkhu   Feb-13-10 01:00 AM   #98 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC