Texas senators pushing to allow guns in national parks

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Texas senators pushing to allow guns in national parks

[SHANEA]

You know, I'm all for the 2nd amendment, etc.  But, I'm not for allowing fire arms into National Parks.  If they are worried about Constitutional rights, then why can't you carry a firearm on a plane?  I mean, FAA, DHS, etc. ban the carrying of firearms onto a commercial airplane.  Isn't that a violation of your 2nd amendment rights?

Political fodder is all this is.

Ok, so the NPS says you can carry fire arms into parks.

How about This Park

How about the list that you can't bring into the Capitol

[presidio]

You know, I'm all for the 2nd amendment, etc.  But, I'm not for allowing fire arms into National Parks.

And you don't think firearms aren't already there, regardless of what the NPS says? Got news for you, there are far more guns in parks than you want to believe. Some folks are happy pretending the parks are an idyllic world. If having blinders on makes for more comfort, so be it.

I don't try tell you that you have to carry a gun, don't try to tell me I can't or shouldn't. Some folks accept restriction of their  constitutional rights. I have to abide by laws until they are changed, but I sure don't accept the restrictions.

Are you afraid of people lawfully carrying concealed weapons? I'm not. I'm afraid of two things: a) criminals who carry because the law does not dissuade them at all and us not having the option to counter that and, b) people who believe and expect that the police will protect them 100% of the time. The latter group is a huge liability because they have surrendered their common sense and will to act, even in the face of repeatedly demonstrated failures of that premise. They have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Just last week there was a graphic example of this situation. Remember the Colorado church shootings (In a CHURCH, for Christ's sake). Finally, we had an incident where a civilian was present with a concealed weapon. That gal didn't flinch, didn't run willy-nilly, didn't cower because she had no means of protection, didn't wait for the police. She engaged the deranged person and put him down...as it should be in any such incident. Where were the police (or rangers)? They got there after it was all over, which is almost always how it works. Who was there to protect society until they arrived? No one, but a brave woman with a concealed weapon. She was reported at one point to be a police officer but, in fact she is not (once was). She was a regular person, lawfully carrying her concealed weapon and a lot of people are alive because of her.

So what if it's a national park? It's a political title, not a sanctuary from crime. Excepting in very few cases (those parks where the crime levels are urban-like due to the high visitation) the NPS is very ill-equipped to deal with capital crimes (you know, the ones like murder and rape and robbery....not the dog-off-leash stuff they are so skilled at enforcing) and, even if they were, they do not have the staffing levels to be effective. Just how many law enforcement people do you think work at Big Bend, or any large park? Not many and few of them have the necessary mindset of police officers, which is one reason they have a high level of officer injury because they approach situations in ranger-mode rather than police-mode (criminals see this difference immediately and take advantage of it).  Even if they ever were right there when you needed them in a serious situation, it would be a fluke.

If they are worried about Constitutional rights, then why can't you carry a firearm on a plane?  I mean, FAA, DHS, etc. ban the carrying of firearms onto a commercial airplane.  Isn't that a violation of your 2nd amendment rights?

Yes, it is.

You want to believe the restrictions are 'minimal', 'acceptable', 'reasonable' or some other rationalization. I doubt you'd feel that way if your right of free speech was similarly restricted or some other right you think is more important than ALL of our constitutional rights.

Those dead guys that put the Bill of Rights together were orders of magnitude smarter than the folks trying to rewrite or eliminate those same rights. The founders were concerned with 'freedom', the politicians of today are concerned about 'control'. That we have allowed such a perverted interpretation to take hold ought to scare the hell out of everyone.

[badknees]

I don't try tell you that you have to carry a gun, don't try to tell me I can't or shouldn't.

AMEN

[okiehiker]

rights rights and more rights....

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.

We just hate those words so much we forget they are in the constitution...

How about Section I, article viii. 
     To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

If, under the 2nd amendment I choose to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, the government also reserves the right to call me up into its service.  But virtually no onewould argue for that today. 

I own a number of guns.

I am according to the National Rifle Association a "Distinguished Expert" marksman.  I wish that there had been some effective means of registering my guns when they were stolen from my camp in Colorado in 1995.  They would have been almost valueless instead of worth a considerable amount of money and untraceable through the network of gunshows, etc.

The hunting/sport-shooting argument is obviously so far from the intent of the constitution as to be a joke.  I am in favor of allowing gun ownership beyond what the constitution actually says, it just doesn't say what most people on either side of the argument think it says. 

The constitution does not bestow upon you the right to carry a gun into my home or office, school or church.  If you wish to carry a gun onto an airplane, buy one, charter one, learn to fly, check it in your bag... I don't care.  I don't want you shooting at bad guys on my plane.

I had a gun in the trunk of my car every day that I went to high school and never thought anything of it.  I am in favor of most people who want to own guns being able to do so.  I am SHOCKED at the ineptitude of many gun owners.  They would be safer going in the closet and shooting themselves than they would attempting to use the weapon against an intruder. 

If you think owning a gun for protection is a good idea, my attitude is like my attitude about protecting water sources in BIBE, go the extra mile.  The requirements to qualify for a permit are a joke.  Actually learn to be a good marksman.  Know how to use and care for your gun.  If you don't (and perhaps even for many who do...) your gun is almost ten times more likely to kill a friend or family member in the heat of the moment or by accident than it is to be used against an intruder. 

These are the cold hard facts.  Only your careful thought and diligent preparation can make the difference. 

If guns are allowed in the parks take this to the bank:  in park murders and poaching and wildlife shot for the hell of it will increase dramatically.  Park staff will become more cautious and less visitor friendly.  These are human beings we are dealing with on both ends of the gun.

[presidio]

If guns are allowed in the parks take this to the bank:  in park murders and poaching and wildlife shot for the hell of it will increase dramatically.

A variation on the arguments advanced by gun control groups to oppose concealed carry. Regardless of how you cut the deck on statistics on this issue, the facts do not bear out your statement.

What always gets lost in these arguments is the fact that the criminally-minded already are doing these things. Lawfully armed people do not begin violating other laws just because they can carry a weapon somewhere they supposedly could not do so before. It is a specious premise that allowing concealed carry (or even open carry) suddenly means there is more crime. Quite the contrary.

What is so remarkable are the spikes in violent crime in any nation that successfully bans firearms. Why would that be? Probably has nothing to do with the fact that criminals are assured that nearly all citizens abide by the bans and thus are not able to protect themselves.

I always marvel at Switzerland. It is armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons (that's 'machine guns' for those who don't know what that means). Every male (maybe every female at this point) has one of these machine guns in their closet at home because, as a small neutral nation, they have to be ready to defend themselves without delay.

Now, since the premise is widely bantered about in the US that the mere presence of guns begets violence, what exactly explains how millions of machine guns in the hands of civilians does not result in a nation that self-destructs in an orgy of gun crime? Is Switzerland more 'civilized'? Nope. Does Switzerland have gun crime? Sure. But not very much.

Why is it that US cities, like Washington DC, that attempt to totally ban firearms have the worst gun violence of all?

Despite the fact that places like DC want to blame their inability to control crime on surrounding states that don't attempt to deny their citizens their rights, it surely isn't the hardware that causes this. But, it is easier to blame an inanimate object (especially one that most urban dwellers have been taught to view with abject fear) rather than failed social policies and programs and inadequate administration of justice.

There was one negative outcome of a concealed carry law. It occurred in Florida (which was the first state to create a concealed carry law). Violent crime spiked early on, but it was against hapless tourists who were easily identified in their clearly marked rental cars. Criminals correctly assumed that if they assaulted a resident they very likely might get their a$$es blasted to smithereens, but also correctly assumed a tourist was unlikely to have a weapon. The state quickly solved that problem by forbidding rental car companies to put any kind of identification stickers on the vehicles. What does that say about utility and deterrence? Tells me that criminals generally want to avoid situations that place them at risk, while gun banners want to place us all in the center of the risk target to satisfy their own inexplicable agendas.

[Undertaker]

If folks really believe you are more likely to be killed or harmed by you own weapon you have that right but no serious study has indicated this is true. My question is why is it everytime someone does as the highjackers did on the Airlines the answer is disarm the law abiding, for years I carried a pocket knife on every flight and never had a problem. Maybe if everyone on the flights of 911 had a long bladed knife only the highjackers would have died. If you chose not to carry then don't, and when you are attacked or robbed call the police, in fact call before the criminal breaks the door down. When my wife found a guy sleeping on the front porch at night and called the police she was told if he is not attepting to break in it was not a problem.  It is not lawful for police to act prior to a crime, the crime must be commited.  If you have fear of your life from a threat then get a peace bond to protect youself (when did this last stop a beating or wrose). If am walking along the road and see you being robbed, I will not use my concealed weapon to defend you I will call the Police while you are getting the s..t kicked out of you or worse.  If you really believe, place a sign in your store or home that states there are no guns in this home, we call the police, let me know how that works. I obey the current laws in national parks and will continue to do so but if allowed will carry. Let me think of the last time the fact that robbing a bank is against the law stopped the criminal.  Criminal means outside the law they don't care about your damn laws, look the word up in the dictionary and while your at it, look up illegal.  No more soapbox.    PS: HOW TO CALL THE POLICE

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DON'T MOVE FAST ANYMORE.

George Phillips of Gold Coast, Australia was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. ( Boy does this sound familiar! )

George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again.

"Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now because I've just shot them." Then he hung up.

Within five minutes three police cars, an Armed Response Unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the Policemen said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"

 I LOVE IT - Don't mess with old people!!

 

[Ay Chihuahua!]

 Wow!  How did all this get started?

Note to self...don't post gun related newspaper articles.

[badknees]

Carrying a gun is like having hurricane insurance. Something you have but never really want to use. I opine that is good to have both.

[presidio]

The park is within the boundaries of the State of Texas, so why shouldn't the laws of this state apply?

Because, there is a fine legal distinction with Big Bend. While it is in Texas, it is not a part of Texas and state laws do not apply. Big Bend is one of a small number of national parks that are exclusive federal jurisdiction. The Brewster Sheriff and the DPS have no authority within the park boundary, which is why you've never, ever seen them enforcing any laws there. All enforcement and punishment is handled at the federal level. How did this situation come to pass? The legislation creating the park stipulated that the NPS would take possession only upon relinquishment of jurisdiction and transfer of all land ownership by the state (the state actually bought the land in the park and then deeded it to the federal government). That kind of thing would not happen today (can you imagine the state ceding authority?) and Big Bend may be the only park that was created in such a manner.

Now, that doesn't mean the park ought to be regulating possession of weapons. But, their doing so is just another facet of the Disneyland experience in national parks (they're not part of Frontierland since that implies a certain freedom and wildness, they are not part of Tomorrowland since that implies forward thinking, so they only can be a part of Fantasyland where everything is pretend-perfect).

[presidio]

Carrying a gun is like having hurricane insurance. Something you have but never really want to use. I opine that is good to have both.

The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have this sort of thing all figured out.

'BE PREPARED'

It applies to everything you do.

[uh_clem]

I always marvel at Switzerland. It is armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons (that's 'machine guns' for those who don't know what that means). Every male (maybe every female at this point) has one of these machine guns in their closet at home because, as a small neutral nation, they have to be ready to defend themselves without delay.

Now, since the premise is widely bantered about in the US that the mere presence of guns begets violence, what exactly explains how millions of machine guns in the hands of civilians does not result in a nation that self-destructs in an orgy of gun crime? Is Switzerland more 'civilized'? Nope. Does Switzerland have gun crime? Sure. But not very much.

  I was just curious, where did you get this information?

[Ay Chihuahua!]

I was curious too.  You say they keep their machine guns in their closets.  Do they ever come out of the closet, or do they just sit locked up until the Government says otherwise?  What is the penalty for using your machine gun without proper government approval?

[presidio]

I always marvel at Switzerland. It is armed to the teeth with fully automatic weapons (that's 'machine guns' for those who don't know what that means). Every male (maybe every female at this point) has one of these machine guns in their closet at home because, as a small neutral nation, they have to be ready to defend themselves without delay.

Now, since the premise is widely bantered about in the US that the mere presence of guns begets violence, what exactly explains how millions of machine guns in the hands of civilians does not result in a nation that self-destructs in an orgy of gun crime? Is Switzerland more 'civilized'? Nope. Does Switzerland have gun crime? Sure. But not very much.

  I was just curious, where did you get this information?

Well, a quick internet search will produce lots of hits, and the very first one (searching on 'switzerland' and 'guns') produced this article from the BBC (that would be the British Broadcasting Corporation, not our august chat line  ). The BBC article is all the more interesting since Britain has essentially banned firearms from private ownership (with predictable violent results) and yet they have factually commented on the situation in Switzerland without injecting their own political viewpoint.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=switzerland+guns

Switzerland and the gun
Swiss troops

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives. Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home. Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not. The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced. Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection. Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue. Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

Low crime

But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated. Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated. It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility. From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.

The last two paragraphs are rather interesting. It is an attempt to find a 'reason' for why the Swiss don't have vast crime with easy gun availability. They cannot accept that guns do not cause crime. It's much more simple than the spin they are attempting to put on this. Everybody has a gun, and everybody knows it. An armed society is a polite society. What you have in Switzerland is the equivalent of concealed carry on steroids. Here, you have to guess whether a person might have a gun. In Switzerland you KNOW they do. Criminals know what will happen should they test the waters. And, should one of these fine Swiss gun owners run amok (sure it happens...people run amok with knives and cars and baseball bats and anything else that can hurt you, too), guess who is next door and more than willing to correct this poor behavior? The neighbor, with his gun. Imagine that.

[presidio]

I was curious too.  You say they keep their machine guns in their closets.  Do they ever come out of the closet, or do they just sit locked up until the Government says otherwise?  What is the penalty for using your machine gun without proper government approval?

Well, I don't know that I can answer those questions. However, what is clear is that the Swiss Government 'trusts' its citizens to own/possess/control weapons that are all but denied to US citizens. Some may not be aware that machine guns are not completely outlawed in the US. However, unlike Switzerland where they give you one to keep at home, US citizens must have a tax-stamp from ATF that authorizes possession of the fully automatic firearm. Unless it has recently changed, it is a one-time fee of $200 for the stamp and must be obtained anew at each sale of the weapon.

There is a small community of machine gun owners and they compete in shooting contests and get-togethers, just like other hobbyists. The well-regulated concealed carry subset has had almost no criminal use of a handgun by a permitted person. LIkewise, there have been no instances of criminal use of any lawfully possessed automatic weapon in the US. Makes it pretty clear that these things don't shoot themselves and that a lawful person is not a threat to anyone but a criminal. Hence, the restrictions on carry in any number of places, including parks, are not based on crime prevention or even safety (though they are couched in those terms), but on controlling you.

As to penalties in Switzerland for improper use? Well, they prosecute you just like would happen here.