McD: Don’t pack heat in national parks (McDermott - D Washington)

[shadowrider]

In a display of defiance at the U.S. Capitol’s governing gun lobby, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and eight colleagues have introduced legislation to reinstate a ban on carrying loaded firearms in America’s national parks.

The legislation was prompted by January’s murder of Mt. Rainier National Park ranger Margaret Anderson. Anderson was shot as she set up a road block for a car that didn’t stop at a chain-up checkpoint.

“The dreadful and deeply saddening event that occurred on Mt. Rainier makes me question why on earth people should be allowed to carry loaded weapons in our national parks,” said McDermott.

It became illegal to pack heat in national parks in the early 1980?s under the Reagan Administration.

The gun ban was overturned in 2009. Senate Republicans attached a pack-heat provision to legislation designed to control excesses and hidden fees charged by credit card companies.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/02/17/mcd-dont-pack-heat-in-national-parks/

Personally, even if this does pass, I'd take a weapon in there with me. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Besides, the guy that shot the ranger was obviously a law-abiding citizen who has no history of criminal activity.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. Got It

You'd break the law. Hope I'm on that jury.

[PavePusher]

25. Why do you want it to be illegal to carry a defensive tool?

You can still have it be illegal to use offensively to commit harm without due cause.

See how those are actually seperate things?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

56. I Do?

I want it to be illegal to carry a 'defensive' weapon?

Where did you get that impression?

Do you think all guns are used 'defensively'?

Out if curiosity, how many guns does one individual need for 'defensiveness'?

[spin]

71. Interesting question, "how many guns does one individual need for 'defensiveness'?...

The answer would largely depend on the person.

In my case I have a concealed weapons permit from the state of Florida and my prime choice for carry is a snub-nosed five shot .38 caliber revolver. It's small and lightweight and I merely drop it and its pocket holster into my pants pocket when I leave the house. Other larger weapons might be more effective but are heavier and require more effort to carry. Before I obtained the smaller and lighter snub nosed revolver, I often left the house unarmed. I don't really expect to ever have to use my carry weapon but I prefer to be prepared. If you plan to use a firearm for self defense, the first rule is to have one with you.

For a home defense weapon I have access to a several handguns in 9mm and.357 magnum and a double barreled 12 gauge coach gun which is unloaded with the ammo locked up. I have a 9mm revolver in a lock box in my living room, my .38 carry gun in a lock box and a .357 magnum revolver in a small safe in my bedroom. If I ever move to a more rural area, I might purchase a semi-auto rifle which would qualify as an "assault weapon". Once again, I have little fear that I will ever have to have a legitimate reason to use these weapons, but I prefer to be prepared as sometimes life comes at you in unexpected ways and there is wisdom in being prepared.

I enjoy target shooting and own a number of revolvers and pistols which are dedicated to that sport but which are not in my opinion as well suited to self defense. They are locked up in a larger gun safe and are far more difficult to access in an emergency.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Well

I can only state that I have never felt safe with a gun.

I can't speak to your experience but I can tell you mine. Decades ago (and I mean decades) my boss opened a safe, where I worked, for a robber and decided to use that weapon in the safe. He was killed after the robber put a few of us in the freezer.

Perhaps the outcome would have been different. Would of. Could of. I lived the decades he never did and yes.....I have some anger issues about whether it was worth pulling that gun. It wasn't (imho). You have the luxury of dismissing my experience. It's clearly taken me on a different path than you.

So....punch away....but regardless of our differences, I hope you never have to open one of those lock boxes.

[spin]

73. No, I will not criticize your views...

or dismiss them.

Your views are every bit as valid as mine. As you mention we have different backgrounds.

I also hope and pray that I will never have to use a firearm for legitimate self defense. That is absolutely the last thing that I would ever want to do. If I do it will be because I believed that there was no other choice and I realize that I will question that decision for the rest of my life.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Thank You

I'll say the same prayer and truly hope you or your family are never put in that position.

[spin]

77. Thank you. (n/t)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

85. lawyers are pretty good at discerning prejudicial tendencies

you would probably be excused as a no contest....

[Live and Learn]

2. Personally, I felt a lot safer in the National Parks

being able to assume that most of my fellow campers were law abiding citizens and were not carrying. I'd be more that happy to return to those days.

[gejohnston]

4. If they are law abiding citizens

and not bank robbing fugitives, what's the difference?
When the issue came up, most of the arguments against was "those loud (rural blue collar) rednecks getting drunk and having impromptu shooting matches."
Meanwhile, my concern was the Hummer driving suburbanite who would panic at the sight of wildlife start shooting at a moose with his .25 ACP. The moose would win.

Having a daughter, I feel better that she can carry.

[PavePusher]

26. Why are you concerned about fellow campers who are law abiding citizens and do carry?

Have they been particularly vexing in your 'neck of the woods'?

[ellisonz]

45. Welcome to DU!

[baldguy]

3. The guy that shot the ranger was seemingly a law-abiding citizen - until he shot the ranger.

You continue to cling to the false assumption that merely being able to meet perfunctory & nearly non-existent requirements to be able to obtain gun legally automatically means that a person is "law-abiding". Until and unless it becomes the case that the requirements to get a gun actually prevent criminals from getting them, guns will remain a threat to everyone in society.

[shadowrider]

5. I give up. Exactly how do you prevent a criminal from getting a gun?

And I want specifics please.

[BiggJawn]

6. (crickets)

They sure are quick to offer their ideas on how to disarm criminals without stepping on MY rights, aren't they?

Pass all the laws you want, build all the "Symbolic Sculptures" out of seized weapons you can stand, the criminal will STILL have his weapon.

If not a firearm, then a knife, if not a knife, then a baseball bat. What then? Do we make Little League illegal?

And if they come at you with their finger nails, what THEN? Laws requiring all the Subjects to have their nails surgically removed?

[shadowrider]

8. Agreed

[petronius]

9. Pretty speedy crickets in your neck of the woods!

I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with baldguy's answer, but at least give him more than 14 minutes to put fingers to keyboard before releasing the insect chorus...

[shadowrider]

10. I know I know

but it takes time to come up with an answer that DOESN'T step on my rights.

[BiggJawn]

14. Yes.

It's all the Meth labs. They don't chirp anymore, they whine like skeeters...

Been over an hour now, anyway.

[Hoyt]

33. One way is to close/restrict the spigot. You could help do that by buying less guns and

promoting more guns in society. Since the "gun culture" is not likely to do that voluntarily, we need more laws. Personally, I think after a certain number of guns are accumulated, one should be flagged as a gun polluter.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Once again, we hear from the General Jack D. Ripper school of gun control.

I tell you, I sleep better at night knowing Hoyt is concerned about the dangers that guns pose to our precious bodily fluids...

[rl6214]

69. Kinda like flagging a certain number of senseless posts by an anti-gun zealot?

Now that's pollution.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Your interlocutor seems to have left the building.

Color me unsurprised...

[PavePusher]

22. "The guy that shot the ranger was seemingly a law-abiding citizen - until he shot the ranger."

Ummmm..... WTH?

Really?

Don't you mean the guy that was a suspect in a previous shooting and reputedly had issues prior to that?

http://today.seattletimes.com/2012/01/park-ranger-shot-at-mount-rainier/

That "seemingly a law-abiding citizen"?

Do tell....

[shadowrider]

28. Seems like nobody wants to investigate the bad guy

and automatically assume he's a law abiding, grade A citizen who simply went crazy pointing to why we need to outlaw guns for everyone.

It doesn't cross their minds that bad people do bad things.

[baldguy]

60. Did you even bother to read the OP?

Besides, the guy that shot the ranger was obviously a law-abiding citizen who has no history of criminal activity.a

I guess not.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. That was sarcasm.

Nice that you aren't able to distinguish.

[Straw Man]

29. Oh really?

The guy that shot the ranger was seemingly a law-abiding citizen - until he shot the ranger.

A dishonorable discharge from the military due to charges of DUI and illegal transportation of weapons, an order of protection against him from his wife after threats of violence and suicide, an earlier shooting incident in which he wounded four people, and running a roadblock in order to enter the park: that's the backdrop to the shooting of the ranger. Does that sound "law-abiding" to you?

Are you familiar with the "perfunctory & nearly non-existent requirements" for purchasing a firearm? He would have been disqualified on several points. What you are seeing here is a failure of enforcement: by all accounts, he was a "prohibited person," yet no attempts were made to confiscate his weapons.

The notion that a weapons ban in parks would have had any effect whatsoever on the outcome of this incident would be laughable if it weren't so tragically stupid.

[baldguy]

61. And another who didn't bother to read the OP.

[Straw Man]

65. I read the OP.

Have I erred in some particulars? Perhaps you could point them out.

[ManiacJoe]

59. You seem short on facts.

The guy that shot the ranger was seemingly a law-abiding citizen - until he shot the ranger.

The guy who shot the ranger was on the run having shot 3-4 others earlier that day.

[baldguy]

62. And another.

[gejohnston]

63. I think he forgot the smilie

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Indeed. He failed to make allowances for the sarcasm-impaired...

[AtheistCrusader]

88. ...example of you not understanding the OP?

Finished your sentence for you.

They read it, AND they comprehended it. You didn't.

[Muskypundit]

70. Actually he was on the run from the authorities.

So no he was not a seemingly law abiding citizen.

Next.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. But he was known to be unstable and dangerous.

The idea that people just "snap" and become violent is known to be false. Yes, it does happen on occasion, but most people who commit murder have a long prior criminal history. This is well known in criminology and you can easily turn this up with any google search.

Even when people "snap" and shoot people for their first criminal action, such people almost always end up being found out as having known prior instability issues.

This shooter, Benjamin Colton Barnes, was no exception. He suffered from PTSD and his wife feared for her safety and that of her children and filed a restraining order against him.

[ileus]

7. It's true...this guy would have disarmed before running the checkpoint...

What a gang of idiots gun grabbers...

[safeinOhio]

11. gun grabbers and

gun nut crazies are both idiots.

[msongs]

12. let's give the gun worshippers their own stat. how about alabama nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. nice.

really nice.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. yes, and the flamebait posted in this group alone is enough to keep DU's homefires burning

Last edited Tue Feb 21, 2012, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)

into next century but, try to find a jury that understands what is flamebait in this group.

and when bigotry is pointed out and people are finally pushed beyond their limits of civlity theirs are the posts that are alerted and hidden because jurors do understand when a post is offensive and can not rule on the previous post that started the mess in the first place.

so the bigotry remains for all to see . . .

I want to make it clear that you and I are in full agreement extremists of any ideology are not good for either side.

edited for typos

[bowens43]

13. the death merchants are trying to turn the US into Afghanistan.

and many here support it. Ican't think of more ridiculous or foolish then allowing guns in parks.


Our country is going to hell riding on the coat tails of the NRA and people are cheering our decline


A COUNTRY CANNOT BE FREE WITH AN ARMED CITIZENRY

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Fixed that for you.

A COUNTRY CANNOT BE FREE WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY

[shadowrider]

17. One of my favorite sayings..

With guns we are citizens. Without them we are subjects.

[oneshooter]

27. Thats what the gun grabbers want. A nation of subjects, living in fear of the goverment.

Gun control is about control, not guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. A nation of subjects

There are many. They're a plane ride away. Hopefully the door won't hit them on the way.

[Hoyt]

34. If that is how you feel, why not leave your guns at home until the revolution?

[ileus]

35. Why chance being a victim between now and "then"???

Why volunteer to be a potential victim if you don't have to?

[Hoyt]

37. Lord, you are one paranoid individual.

[ileus]

40. Lord, you are one trusting individual.

[Hoyt]

44. Much rather be trusting of -- seemingly law abiding citizens -- that paranoid and suspicious.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. Me too.

That's why I trust others to be armed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. "Much rather be trusting of -- seemingly law abiding citizens." Unless they have a CCW permit...

[Hoyt]

57. That's pretty much it. Would never turn my back on anyone that bent on packing in our society.

Be they cowboy; police wannabee; protector of society; paranoid; TBagger; afraid of boogeyman; mentally ill; devotee of Randy Weaver; intimidater; budding terrorist; poor, pitiful confused member of gun culture; or whatever -- It ain't right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. Looks like you'll be staying in the basement 24/7, then - CCW is legal in your state.

So if and when you do go out, you'll never know who to avoid...

[ileus]

54. it's not paranoid or suspicion...it's being aware.

The armed individual doesn't have to be paranoid, scared, or suspicious of others that's the good part. There's comfort in the iron...sweet merciful comfort of knowing you have the potential to save lives if the need arises. Knowing you have the training, care, compassion, and love to care for your being and those you love...all by taking the time to prepare for what we all hope never happens.

[shadowrider]

36. No. Next question?

[Hoyt]

38. As I thought, just another BS argument to rationalize your need to strap gun on before venturing out

[shadowrider]

39. No is a BS argument?

[ileus]

41. As I always say safety first; victim later.

or rather victim never....at least have a fighting chance when out and about.

[gejohnston]

18. it was a non issue before Reagan banned it

So are you saying
Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Czech Republic, and Canada are not free countries? Their gun ownership rates is not that much different than ours. Some studies show Finland's as actually slightly higher.
Afghanistan never was really a country with a central government, but it always was the place where empires to go to die.

[DonP]

19. "A COUNTRY CANNOT BE FREE WITH AN ARMED CITIZENRY " - That's F'n priceless

Thank you for so clearly stating the obvious principle of the gun control side of the argument.

On behalf of Josef Stalin and his ilk, thank you so very much.

Worth bookmarking for future reference when we're told; "Nobody wants to take all your guns."

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. I'm *definitely* bookmarking this thread, if only for that statement.

Gun control advocates are second only to Republicans in their lack of awareness that what you say on the net will be remembered.

Here's one of my favorite examples- note the blatant revisionism:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3031131#3032492

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x431371#431380

[krispos42]

64. So is it your opinion that the converse is true?

A country can be free with an unarmed/disarmed citizenry?



And do you agree that, if the converse stated above is true, that freedom does not necessarily follow from civilian disarmament?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Wow, I never knew Bashar al-Assad was a DUer.

Learn something new every day here...

[Callisto32]

75. "Ican't think of more ridiculous or foolish then allowing guns in parks. "

Really?

That's the best you can do?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. The implications are...

that, in this regard, Independence National Historical Park and Denali National Park, would both be free of firearms and that firearms have no place in them. While there may be some argument for that at Independence, which has numerous security staff, Denali has about 10 bears per staff member.

[Live and Learn]

20. And with firearms in the hands of travelers who shoot anything they fear,

the bear population will decrease greatly or become extinct all together. My guess is that while animal attack injuries would also decrease a bit they will be replace many times over by firearm injuries.

[gejohnston]

21. history is usually a good guide

was that a problem before 1981? I'm guessing not.

[Live and Learn]

43. Not sure what 1981 has to do with it

Looks like 1983 and 1966 are the pertinent years. As far as I can tell, loaded guns haven't been allowed at least since since 1936.

http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/08_12_2_brief_history_nps_firearm_regs.pdf

[gejohnston]

53. The 1930s regulations were more about

poaching with long guns and traps. Outside of Vermont, licensed concealed carried pistols was a non-issue (since Vermont was the only state that allowed CCW, and still does not require a permit.) The other years were changes of the same regulation.
I was off by two years when Reagan signed the bill.
No one is going to poach a bear or deer with a .32 pistol or any other common CCW caliber pistols. If they do, they either belong on the Olympic shooting team or stupid. If big bears like Kodiak and Grizzlies are a concern, I would recommend pepper spray over most handgun calibers (outside of hunting calibers like .44 magnum or .500 S&W). Even then, I would pick the spray, more effective against bears and dogs and everyone leaves vertical.

[PavePusher]

24. Stats, please. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Stats???

You're kidding, right?

[Live and Learn]

42. Didn't really need stats for my "guess"

since it was based on common sense but here are some:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Nothing about national parks in that. Keep trying.

[gejohnston]

55. your bullet-in

was written by an economist that works for that department. That department is funded by the same foundation that astro turfs all of the gun control groups.
Funding for Bulletins is provided by the Joyce Foundation
In other words, it is not that much different than climate science denial, just without the Kochs.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. Nice dodge.

You guess poorly.

[Callisto32]

76. Unfortunately for your "reasoning"

months of data do not bear it out.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Surely you can show that happening in the last year.

Oh shit, you can't, because it isn't. Nice playing with you.

[Old Codger]

50. Typical

Knee jerk reaction, makes no real sense at all...just stop and think for a little bit and see how illogical it is to force law abiding citizens to go unarmed when the ones that do the damage don't give a rats ass for the law anyway... inanities galore in this shit.

[ManiacJoe]

58. Some days I am embarrassed to admit McD is my rep.

Legally owned guns are not problems in national and state parks.

Armed fugitives from justice are problems everywhere. Reps McD and Dicks need to buy a clue.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. No problem, we can shoot that law down.

I'm a little interested to know why McDermott seems to think a fleeing murder suspect would give a flying shit what the law says about taking a gun into the parks, and why oh why law-abiding citizens IN the parks would want to be unarmed again.

Hell, I carry in case 4 legged-predators, long before considering the two-legged predators at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. So...

...you want to shoot all the furry little critters as well as the other campers and picnickers?

[AtheistCrusader]

82. If they try to eat me, you bet.

I am a damned menace*



*to things that want to eat or kill me

[ellisonz]

86. You do realize...

...that bears, mountain lions etc. are generally afraid of humans and have no desire to eat you. In order to be attacked, you would generally have to threaten them or their offspring or do something stupid like leave food out and then startle and run. Most people in the National Parks don't need a firearm for protection from the wildlife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks#List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks

[AtheistCrusader]

87. You do realize...

That flat tires are rare, and you could always call a tow truck.
What's that, you carry a spare so you are prepared?

Me too.

If I thought I would HAVE to use my rifle every time I went out, I probably wouldn't go at all.