Harry’s a helluva poker player, isn’t he?

He’s one of the best Republicans around.

you are too kind

I’m no fan of Harry Reid, but neither am I a fan of banning firearms from Federal parks.

Too many Federal parks are wilderness areas that have the risk of encounters with large predatory wildlife, and the ability to carry a firearm can make the difference between a successful camping trip and dying. Several Federal lands in Texas alone have bears and mountain lions that are unafraid of humans. Having the ability to effectively protect myself from them is a good thing.

FWIW, I believe the amendment actually requires that the firearms laws of the state in which the park is located be followed. That means you would be no less safe in the Federal park than in the rest of the state.

Besides, you don’t really think it’ll survive the conference committee, do you?

Why don’t we just ask the thugs to put an (R) after his name since they seem to be in a rebranding mode?

My question is: How the hell did this worthless POS get his so-called leadership position?

Why don’t the thugs and dims just contract with all the gun manufacturers to give one out free to every person in this country? Supply of ammo required and KBR or Blackwater can be in charge of distribution.

My question is: How the hell did this worthless POS get his so-called leadership position?

Because enough of the 59 Democrats wanted him there. Sad as that is. We’ll see if the Coburn provision gets stripped out in conference. One would hope.

How many people were killed by bears and mountain lions? How many people are killed by drunks running around with guns during hunting season?

neither am I a fan of banning firearms from Federal parks.

I understand that reasoning but give it five years and look at the stats…….I’d be willing to wager a goodly sum there’ll be a lot more people dead from armed crazies than are killed/injured by predatory animals….unless humans get classified as “predatory animals”.

I’d sure like to see some documentation on how many encounters with “predatory wildlife” were needed to show the necessity of this amendment. I’ve been around for quite a while and don’t remember a lot of incidents that would merit carrying weapons, particularly concealed weapons, in our national parks. I know the Rethugs make the parks sound like the Mekong in 68 but you can take my word for it that they don’t know what they’re talking about. As usual.

How long before militia groups set up “training” in national parks” How long before serious poaching?

Perhaps, if you’re an avid trekker and afraid at the same time, you should only go camping with an armed squad, have a point (expendable) man, and all carry arms at the ready. Although I guess the best way to address predators is to kill them. America, home of the brave. Yeah, right!

can you document five incidents in a national park in the past 5 years where a pedatory animal killed a camper or hiker?
how about two?

what foolishness.

A can of pepper spray keeps the grizzleys away.

Anyone think Harry Reid is going to do anything to piss off Nevada gun voters when he’s up for reelection next year and his numbers are bad?

See Daschle, Tom.

Are you a backpacker? Do you actually go into the wilderness? If you do, you’d know that you take the normal precautions. You don’t wipe yourself with bacon greases before you go to bed, you keep an eye out for bear tracks and scat, and if you see them and they are fresh, you either turn around and go back, or you make a lot of noise to let the bear you are coming. You don’t pack in any kind of greasy food, and you don’t cook near your tent.

The only aggressive big animal in the woods is the grizzly bear. There aren’t very many, and the last I heard, there aren’t any at all in Yosemite or any other park except Glacier, and possibly (I’m not sure) Yellowstone and North Cascades. People that get attacked by wild animals only have themselves to blame for not taking precautions. You don’t need a gun to go into the woods unless you are hunting, and last I heard, hunting is vorboten in national parks.

It’s really sad that Reid and McConnell are the best the Senate can come up with for leaders, or for that matter our Senators are the best we can come up with.

Metapeeve, BT: Please be more clear about the attributions for your block quotes.

Yeah, I knew that……which pretty much says it all about the people who voted for him……..oh, wait! A light bulb just went off; they voted for him because they knew they could run all over his miserable ass.

Since we’ve not been introduced, my apologies if that language offends. ;-) I just so forkin’ mad after that performance he gave yesterday I can’t see straight.

Back on topic. I think it’s time for Harry to step down, and let someone younger and more energetic take his place. He’s old before his time, and he needs to be put out to pasture. I can’t believe he let Coburn put this one over on him. The Repukes got nothing. Oh, wait; they’ve got Harry.

you don’t really think it’ll survive the conference committee, do you?

Worse things have already happened. Too numerous to mention. Pick 1, or 75.

Besides, whut th’ gee-hose-a-phat are you desirous of doing with an Ack Ack 47!?!

You gotta carry one of those to feel like a man? Then stay the heQQ outta the people’s parks.

Harry needs to stop playing the rope-a-dope stall or retire while the rest of us still have a few rights left, including several species supposedly protected from frivolous overloaded humans.

Yep, right now Tapper’s citing Reid in the Gibbs presser.

Harry Reid — American fraidy cat.

How many people have died or been mauled by wild animals in national parks?

I think we got ourselves a hit-and-run troll. Another name to add to the list. Dime a dozen, these trolls.

I am more upset with Reid about his Gitmo posture (or lack thereof).
And for allowingthe Republicans to dominate the Senate process from the Minority as well as the Majority.
His gut reaction is to flinch, which the Republicans have exploited so many times I see him as more of a Charly Brown character than MC Steele.

Shoot (pun intended). I was planning on having some fun while recharging my ipod.

The word must be out that if a troll sticks around first we break one off in its ass then hand its ass to it.

I’d guess more people are attacked/killed by mountain lions in the Berkeley foothills than by bears in Yosemite.

Bear encounters are due primarily to foolish human behavior like failing to secure food properly in campgrounds or feeding them from cars.

I’d posit that the problem is really stupid human behavior, not scary wild animals. But I’m sure if we gave ‘em guns, it’d make ‘em a lot safer. The wild animals, that is.

Harry’s bad numbers

I happend to vacation in Yosemite this spring. Our tour guide, who is a park ranger there told everyone on the tour that they have never had even one case of a bear attack against a human. Not one.

These clowns wouldn’t even think of taking a firearm into a park if the animals were so armed.

I did a lot of backpacking in earlier decades. I had a couple of bear encounters (once got pockets ripped off my backpack which was right next to my tent), but never would want to carry a gun to protect myself. If for no other reason than weight. I even took the tabs off my teabags to save weight.

Thanks.

Thanks BT.

An easy “private sector,” innovation would be requiring gun owners to buy insurance for all non-hunting weapons. That wouldn’t split the NRA lobby, but legislation like that would scare the crap out of them, because it makes so much sense. It would also slow gun sales in the secondary market, because the weapon is tied to an insurance policy.

I guess sittin’ on the couch consuming brews like there’s no tomorrow while the little lady watches nature shows put the fear of animals into them.

Back to the cesspool.

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things. That includes fraidy cat Senators and macho loud mouthed lounge lizards.

Namaste

Heading off. You guys just aren’t as much fun as trolls. *g*

I wish the girl that got kidnapped and beheaded in North Georgia 2 years ago had been packing. She was a martial arts practitioner, had her dog and that didn’t help her, or the people he did the same to in Florida and North Carolina. It’s not the wildlife, it’s the low-lifes.

http://www.jurorthirteen.com/G…..fault.aspx

Daymn, Dragon! Please don’t tell me I went out of my way to be extra ’specially polite to a troll! I have seen the name before, tho’ but no memory of whether it fits that category.

Have you heard the one about bear-proofing yourself with a whistle? heh

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ADVISORY ON BEARS

Helena Montana, January 31, 1999 – In light of the rising frequency of human/grizzly bear conflicts, the Montana Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, hunters, and fishermen to take extra precautions and keep alert for bears while in the field. “We advise that outdoorsmen should wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as not to startle bears that aren’t expecting them,” a spokesman said. “We also advise outdoorsmen to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear”.
It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear paw prints and scat.
A grizzly’s paw is larger and its claws are longer than that of a black bear. Black bear scat contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

and why. ’tis important. Anyone who has seen video of people shoving their kids forward toward a bison or bear to have their picture taken should get the point. But many don’t. Do we then insist on letting them carry heavy heat? Thot not.

And I gotta sneaky feelin’ it’ll be the low-lifes packin’ the heat. :-(

Anybody who ‘believes’ that they can’t go into the ‘wilderness’ without being armed to the teeth, probably shouldn’t go.

If folks are that frightened at the prospect of encountering something big enough to eat them in a national park, then such folks would do far better (for themselves and such wildlife as they might encounter) to go to Disney (World-Land).

Asinine; from Reid to those just itchin’ to pack some (concealed) iron, it is totally mindless, stupid, arrogant and wrong-headed, and, quintessentially 21st Century ‘Murikan … a suburban cowboy mentality.

I’ll take the bears and lions any day, they, at least, kill for a legitimate purpose. And, if you have any genuine knowledge about their habits, and you should, before venturing into their territory, then you will likely have some idea of how to NOT behave stupidly. Nothing is as deadly in the wilderness as ignorance. Maybe the same applies to the rest of the world as well?

And yes, humans are the most dangerous of predators because they kill just for the hell of it.

At a certain point, after seeing Reid get rolled over so many times, even with a massive majority in place, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Democrats are entirely satisfied with this state of affairs.

Jeezus, even *I* want to kick sand in their faces.

Don’t take a knife to a gun fight.

Ooooh, I know what we need. A Bear Patrol! And then, we deport all teh furriners!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..ut_Nothing

Ah, geeeeeeez, Adie….after thinking about reid, I needed a good laugh. *smooch*

I’d just as lief not take either, please and thank you very much. ;-)

your choice

Please to tell him to wear a bell next time hims attempts to ack ack around blind old ladies holding sharp-tipped umbrellas. ;->

I don’t think allowing an AK is any more of a threat than most other firearms. An AK-47 is roughly the ballistic equivalent of a .30-30. Limit the magazine size to 5 rounds, and it’s just another gun. Like Raven said, it’s the low-lifes, not the wildlife. The all-too-frequent assaults against campers in the Ocala National Forest in FL has taught me to pack heat when camping, just in case. One never knows.

Why is that man Reid still in my government?

I’ve stopped wondering when the Democrats are going to remove worthless, pointless Reid from his leadership position. I’m going to help fund whoever decides to run against him next election. This despite the fact that I don’t live in Nevada and never vote Republican. I’d rather have 59 seats and an effective leader than 70 seats and Reid still in charge.

People are occasionally killed by bears, though usually in areas other than national parks. Wikipedia has a list. The number seems to be about one a year over a century. Some victims had guns and died anyway.

I also found a page on mountain lion attacks in California: six fatalities in over a hundred years.

If people take guns into national parks thinking that this will keep them safe from animal attacks, it’s nearly certain that they will shoot animals that they believe to be a threat, even if those animals are not a threat. I’ve encountered black bears in the Sierra while backpacking, and once it was a mother with two cubs (which is the most dangerous situation: a mother bear will attack if she thinks there’s a threat to her cubs). We yelled a lot and banged on pots, which was more effective than shooting in a situation with multiple bears.

Don’t take a knife to a gun fight.

This comes right after Rule #1:
“Don’t fuck with crazy people.”

If Harry’s numbers are so bad, I hope Nevada Democrats are looking at a strong primary contender for the spineless one.

yes, dear god, yes. please keep us posted on any developments.

don’t fret. i sometimes sport with them by talking in tongues. they generally turn beet-red & scoot.

sorta like w – can’t find the door? Gee, I’d help if i lived in NV.

he’s a walking, talking ad for cattle prods.

the above was written by my evil twin.

It’s depressing to be reminded that we have leaders like this – even more so because we voted for them.

Thanks for explaining this, Mithras.

i’m… i’m… dumbfoundicated… no tabs on yer bags? are u libertarian by chance?

While I can certainly deride the ridiculousness of attaching this amendment to this particular bill. I am at a complete loss to explain the derision toward the position of the amendment itself. I can certainly understand it in the context of a State vs. Federal jurisdiction issue, but most of the consternation seems to involve a completely irrational viewpoint on firearms and civil-liberties.

Is it any wonder that the right-wing won’t take us seriously on drug-policy reform, when we level precisely the same specious arguments against their firearms-policy platform?

I honestly expect better than that from folks here.

pioneer teabagger huh?

and why is that?

If we want to get Harry out of leadership who would be the best Senators to help us? There must be those who would like to see him removed but I don’t know who or what the best way to push would be. We need to move on this right away.

Harry seems to fold every hand he has No Confidence but is he worse than Confident lost over a million and counting Bill Bennett?
To be fair though all the Blue Dogs during the Bush years had no confidence and folded when ever Bush asked.
Now that Obama is President they seem to have found a Spine.
Is it Racism? Or is it because big business Owns them?
I think every body we run against the Blue Dogs should be asking that question of the Blue Dogs.

Feingold?

Forget the cattle prod, darlin’…..let’s go for the high tech stuff and use tasers (since they’re claimed to be so forkin’ “safe”).

P.S. Tell your evil twin she should hang around the Lake more often. *G*

Would you please send up a regular series of flares when you launch one of your daring-doo-doo camper-extravaguries sir lance a lot. Thank you so much.

disney’s nice, they say. never been.

and an imperial whoop-dee-doo-to-u-too. is it hard to flow up-hill in your neighborhood, sire?

Harry Reid is a lot more effective Republican Majority leader than Mitch McConnell is as Republican Minority leader.

And Mithras, what kind of animals do you have in your woods that you need an AK-47 to protect yourself? Are the squirrels packing where you come from?

There’s a question to put to Whitehouse.

National Parks are for families or for hunters? I’m all for having a few beers and shooting stuff just not where there are any families around.
Separate parks for hunters or closing National parks to only hunters during hunting season and only then letting in guns sounds good.

a. how do these sneak-under-the-table amendments get in there and why don’t they stop this practice with some heavy pushback?
b. I’d be worried of gun people chasing and hunting non gun people; people hiding behind their guns will surely resent smarter people who don’t need to hide.

Back when Dick shot Harry in the face, FDL was the best place for information about hunting quail in Texas, shotgun spray patterns, penned quail, hunting safety regulations…. Lot of hunters here at FDL, who don’t seem bothered by our railing against assault weapons.

I see the similarities between decriminalizing marijuana and gun control, but I don’t see the two issues as identical.

I think it’s time for Harry to step down, and let someone younger and more energetic take his place.

Is there any sense that someone can lead a revolt against the stagnant leadership? Possibly Whitehouse? Is there anything we can do to cover his back?

That is an inaccurate characterization of my point. I am no more a threat to anyone than you are. I simply hope for the best, and plan for the worst.
I have been to Disney, but I despise crowds. I’d rather be out in the woods, and I refuse to have my ability to enjoy said woods taken from me by fear.
You are so very welcome.

Talk about being “PUNKED”with the truth,enter Glenn Beck.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..05845.html

The Bush restoration continues.

I pity the poor rangers and what they will have to deal with now.

You are a feckless ass, Harry Reid.

Sensible gun control is the same thing as the War on Drugs? Really?

i couldn’t do that to a dumb animal, much less a sentient being of any sort. i doubt he’s ever seen one. that would be cruel, as would prods, come to think of it.

never mind.

P.E.A.C.E. is good. Natural untrammeled back country is good.

never understood the need for hunter/adventurers to rely on repeater-firepower, except to compensate for bad aim.

evil twin usually on short leash, or penned up.

NO ! Hunters can go somewhere else. People go to the national parks to see the wild animals and they belong to all of us. A few years ago the Make A Wish Foundation granted the wish of a boy (17, I think) who had cancer (was in remission) and wanted to kill a polar bear. My disgust was boundless.

He went out tiger hunting with his elephant and gun
In case of accidents he always took his mom
He’s the all american bullet-headed saxon mother’s son.
All the children sing

Hey bungalow bill
What did you kill
Bungalow bill?

I was guessing pesky chickadees trying to land on his trigger finger, looking for snacks.

Why do I expect better? Because there seem to be a preponderance of progressive civil-libertarians around here, and with that should come some pretty fundamental recognitions:

- Sometimes you may not like the liberty afforded to someone else, but it’s essential that yours and theirs be protected. In a free society you don’t have your rights infringed until you violate those of another. Possession and non-aggressive use don’t meet that standard. It’s just not consistent with the rest of what we supposedly promulgate as core principles.
- That demand-side material prohibitions are functionally failed, and reactive penalization (DUI) and non-prohibitive harm-reduction (education and training) are not only more protective of people’s liberties, but also historically more effective solutions.
- That irrational arguments based on fear, lack of information, and worse are utterly falsifiable don’t make for very good platforms, nor are they very persuasive. As we constantly observe coming from the “other-side.”

maybe I’m stating the obvious, but is Coburn going for a ridiculous amendment that he thinks will a. get dems to vote against the credit card bill and b. add to the charge that Obama is taking our guns away! ZOMG!

You know the out of control drunk campers three sites down from where you usually are? You know, the loud obnoxious ones with the loud radio who curse out the ranger when he comes to quiet them down?

Those’ll be the ones who come armed to the teeth to protect themselves from Stephen Colbert’s nemeses the bears.

Getting drunk and shooting things randomly would seem to fall under, public intoxication, brandishing a firearm, and legitimate public endangerment. A series of things that I think any reasonable person would find probably criminally punishable.

I don’t think it helps to characterize the issue so irresponsibly as creating a causality between carrying firearms and drunken gunslinging. Criminalize the latter, the former can quite easily fall under responsible and safe behavior.

Yep, Stephen’ll be giving Coburn a Tip of the Hat for sure!

Not Feingold. He is compromised by his close ties to Israel.

i think something came loose. hear the rattle? did you swallow yer little bell again? pity.

An early sign of hope would be the Trad Med publishing FDL scoops about Blue Dogs lining their pockets with our TARP/TALF money laundered through the bankers.

Killers like that get close to you unless you are willing to put your hand on your gun every time a stranger comes by and give up sleep completely you can’t protect yourself.
Even then if the killers are free to bring in guns then they will just ambush you from a distance with a silencer.
Go camping with a group that discourages the killers.

never understood the need to rely on repeater-firepower

Multiple targets at close range.

Marcy! Upstairs!
Mark Your Schedules

Irrational preemptive material prohibitions with a long history of failure to produce harm-reductive outcomes at expense to civil-liberties for otherwise safe and responsible citizens as it relates to fundamentally demand-side (not supply-side) issues is a commonality between both the War on Drugs and the seemingly irrational response to firearms by subsets of liberals in the United States.

Yes.

Trust me on this one, darlin’…..some of the low-lifes who call themselves “hunters” don’t obey ANY laws, including not trespassing on posted PRIVATE land, much less alone public lands. It’s a *real* sore point with me since I own some timber/farmland that’s well stocked with deer….among the biggest assholes are those who “spotlight” ie. park in their big macho dick trucks and shine lights out into the fields so they can shoot in comfort.

I know some mighty fine hunters who use the meat for food and I’ve got no problem with that but just doing it to have a trophy head to hang on their walls is some kind of weird and fundamentally warped.

My life motto is: I don’t want to die because you’re stupid.

I mean “you” as in the person standing next to me lighting up a cigarette next to the fireworks display on July 4th. Yes, this really happened when I was helping friends with their fireworks show one year.

There is a concept called criminal negligence. If this passes, I don’t think I’ll go camping again any time soon.

wow. that’s a load of imperial. expensive?

I think you’re reading this all wrong. AIPAC remains in power, because of the blue dogs. I can think of few U.S. Senators who cave less frequently to the blue dogs than Russ.

like mallards on a pond? deadeye’s canned quail hunts? ooooooh.

Boo, what are the similarities?

Freedom?

Liberty?

Justice?

(Truth?)

Or “The American way”?

“I was cleaning muh bowl and, and, it went off …” sob!

“Bud … osifer, I didit know dat it wudz against da raw to smoke a A-Kay … um forty, um forty … say … wud do you mean muh car and muh house are four fid?

:~D

Sober Hunters they are all sober? Gun accidents Numbers how many involve drinking how many lie about drinking so as not to get their friends in trouble?
Seriously Families at separate times from hunters in National Parks is that to much to ask so that there are no accidents?

i don’t want you to die because of something stupid i might have done, so i’m careful, for your sake and mine.

Agreed those jerks well maybe some nail strips like the police use.

But we’re not discussing simply caving in to blue dogs, we’re discussing assuming a strong leadership role. I don’t see Russ filling the bill.

whut to do about cheney? just a accident. hic.

AK-47’s wouldn’t be permissible in Yosemite – California bans AK-47s. You might want to change the headline to say welcome in Yellowstone.

Someone going to a shooting sports competition or hunting outside of the National Parks may want to visit a Park as part of their trip. Possession of a firearm isn’t the same thing as having a loaded fire arm in hand. This could be solved by having secure storage at designated park entrances.

Is that really what you got from what I’ve written? An unwillingness to consider other people’s positions does not lend itself to an open-minded exchange of ideas.

Private parks for hunters then or special hunter only days.

My life motto is: I don’t want to die because you’re stupid.

I mean “you” as in the person standing next to me lighting up a cigarette next to the fireworks display on July 4th. Yes, this really happened when I was helping friends with their fireworks show one year.

There is a concept called criminal negligence. If this passes, I don’t think I’ll go camping again any time soon.

How do you go out in public at all today? People all around you have the capacity to carry firearms without your knowledge. You’re always at risk of getting killed because someone else is stupid. How do you travel abroad where gun ownership laws are ostensibly more liberal than they are here? Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.

What exactly are you objecting too?

Off on the business of the Queen. See all later.

Point taken.

Somebody needs to tell NORML that the NRA is its bestest fwiend!

No that is attempted murder or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon and probably the kind of drunken behavior that does happen quite often among gun nuts who do not respect guns.

Sober Hunters they are all sober? Gun accidents Numbers how many involve drinking how many lie about drinking so as not to get their friends in trouble?
Seriously Families at separate times from hunters in National Parks is that to much to ask so that there are no accidents?

Can you construct your argument more clearly? I feel like I’m not understanding what you’re trying to say.

Canada? Do a Diary also explain our much higher rates of gun deaths. In Canada I admit I would not be worried to have a gun in a park or not to have a gun.

listen, don’t try to convince me. I have guns and I DON’T consider them protection except in the rare case like three weeks ago when the prof killed 3 people up the street and, because we had warning and did not know the situation, I loaded up. I don’t carry and have ammo away from them.

wow. that’s a load of imperial. expensive?

Huh? ??? :-(

Well obviously you don’t believe that other people are entitled to have opinions. Please forgive my hubris, I didn’t realize this was your blog.

Fortunate to have a wildlife biologist who lives adjacent and keeps a very close eye on things…….plus he knows every forkin’ game warden in the state….I think he’s got ‘em on speed dial. *G* He gets to hunt for food and I get the best neighbor possible; the lawless twits who appear to think they have a right to hunt any bloody where their littl’ ol’ hearts desire (and the local druggies) have pretty much figured out *not* to mess around with him.

Its two arguments first I doubt that sober hunters are the problem its the drunk ones and yes there are drinkers hunting.

Second What is wrong with letting hunters in the parks during hunting season on special days and not allowing families in so that they won’t be exposed to gunfire.
Also My 92 in response to Raven argues against guns protecting people in national parks camping in large groups works better.

Who in your opinion would be less bad than Russ?

Ok

Hi DW.

My position is that liberals/progressives routinely get our butts kicked, even when we have support from the unions and the black caucus.

I think Imperial Flow is trying to float a coherent position, which is libertarian. Those were our allies in our failed fight against FISA and while I don’t consider myself libertarian, I was just trying to search for some common ground.

Our much higher rate of gun deaths is related to two things, almost ironically the drug-trade, and wealth disparity. Our GINI co-efficient is markedly lower than most of those nations. Meaning that there’s more socio-economic tumult, overlaid (or underwritten, depending on your view) by the drug-policy problems. Over half of all people in Federal prison are there on drug charges, the next highest number by far is people there on firearms charges, and the overwhelming majority of those in on firearms are in so as related to the drug-trade. At least according to the DoJ’s numbers for 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. It’s startling really.

There are many nations which have statistically similar per-capita rates of firearms ownership with almost non-existent firearm-related violent crime or deaths. There are also nations with draconian firearms laws like Japan where they have incredibly low rates of firearm-related violent crime and death. Then there are places like the United States where we have both, and despite having comparatively restrictive gun laws to places like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

What that fact pattern produces is a condition that per-capita ownership is not a controlled variable in understanding the violence and deaths. Which is precisely why I’m a left-progressive civil-libertarian, because I view it more plausible to guarantee and promote stability, safety, and freedom in a society that has worked to mitigate the underlying causes of what induce symptomatic affronts to those things. Economic inequity has a lot more to do with gun violence and death than the gun does.

Thanks Adie! I appreciate your consideration for my life and I return the favor! :)

Jane is upstairs!
GOP Corporate Thugs Project Their Own Behavior onto Unions

I don’t really think of myself as a Libertarian, as I’m quite sure I’m far too Keynesian and Neo-Keynesian in economic and fiscal policy to qualify. :-)

Our much higher rate of gun deaths is related to two things, almost ironically the drug-trade, and wealth disparity

That is the argument you should have led off with. Wealth disparity is something the Left cares about.
Still National parks Families and hunters get different days at the parks.

Huh? Sorry, I was actually agreeing with you quite enthusiastically…and if you hear anything on a primary, please share the news.

In that case, my bad. Maybe I’m too used to the unneeded sarcasm and scorn found on so many blogs. Mea Culpa. :)

Whatever. I’m responding to the context of guns in parks. Have you ever gone camping ever? There’s a lot of time to fill.

I’m done arguing with you. I’m not worried about “reasonable people” owning their guns. And people packing on the street are just going about their business. I really don’t care. but I’m smart enough to size up unsafe situations on my own thank you whether the behavior is legal or not.

hakuna matata. :]

I can see how I came off sarcastic. no prob.

I sent the following to the Prez, and a similar letter to my two Oregon Senators who supported this measure. I am a gun owner and sometime hunter.

Dear President Obama,

It’s my understanding that a provision that would allow visitors to National Parks to carry loaded firearms if the state they are in allows same has been inserted into the credit card reform legislation. I cannot even begin to tell you how that offends my wife and myself. One of the more enjoyable things about our National Parks, at least the ones I’ve visited here in the West, has been the absence of worry about people carrying loaded firearms, and now Senators have the incredible nerve to take that away from us. This move was adamantly opposed by the National Parks Foundation, of which I am a supportive member.

I can’t see this as anything other than a symbolic gesture of acceptance of the ugly violence that pervades our society, and it ruins, going forward, our otherwise peaceful experience of fine vacations I have enjoyed in our National Parks. Now we will have to deal with thuggery and potential gun violence even there.

That’s not even mentioning the tension it will create for the Park Rangers, particularly the law enforcement officers. Have you no perspective, taking away the peace found in our wonderful Parks?

Inserting this provision stealthily in the credit card reform legislation is disingenuous in the extreme.

So, my policy question is: why would anyone place such a burden on the Park Rangers, who are Interior Dept. employees?

As to those showing animal fear in this thread, I have been vacationing in Glacier National Park in Montana eight years. There are 500 grizzlies by biologists’ estimates in that Park. There are no recorded fatal attacks on any hiking group of three or more people. Grizzlies do not like humans and go out of their way to avoid them if they hear them in advance (sorry, Mr. Cute with the little story about bells and pepper in grizzly scat). Bear-sized pepper spray canisters used properly are totally effective against grizzlies, they would stun a human for six hours. The Park warns people profusely about human-bear encounters and how to avoid them.

If you shoot a charging grizzly with a rifle and get it wrong, you are going to be toast. If you shoot a charging grizzly with a handgun you are going to be toast unless it’s a Dirty Harry style .45 and you are one hell of a shot under pressure (grizzlies can run around 35 mph).

Bunch of animal paranoia in this thread, IMO. Stay in your car if you think you need a gun, the bears deserve freedom from hunting and guns as they have in our National Parks.

If the proposed legislation were not explicit about allowing (or encouraging) the carrying of ‘concealed’ weapons (guns), then I would have less a problem with it.

Most ‘concealable’ guns would be of little use against the (apparently) much-feared bears and lions. The sole ‘actual’ purpose of having such weaponry may, charitably, be considered “defensive”, meaning, specifically, ‘defense’ against presumed (or even, ‘real’) threats from other PEOPLE.

If the national parks are that ‘dangerous’, then willy-nilly arming all who wish to ‘tote’ concealed weapons (guns) won’t really improve matters, and the federal government should just simply say that the parks are beyond any meaningful control on their part and appraise the public of that fact.

Somehow, it seems unlikely that the feds cannot ‘police’ or are afraid to ‘police’ the parks, rather, it seems like deliberate pandering to a vocal (and clearly, powerful) minority who claim the right to be afraid (and ‘needing’ firepower) whenever the mood strikes.

This does not seem a rational and reasonable way to formulate public policy regarding lethal devices.

Its two arguments first I doubt that sober hunters are the problem its the drunk ones and yes there are drinkers hunting.

Oh certainly. That’s a sociological problem, and one that really needs to be addressed through training and education. Which I actually very much favor. I’m not very popular in most circles for this position, but as a matter of public safety and personal responsibility I do think that state (as in The State, not a State) provided firearms safety training should be a requirement for certain arms ownership. It makes not only the public more safe, but also the firearm operator. That is a completely reasonable compromise in my opinion, and one that seems to be born out in other countries as such.

Second What is wrong with letting hunters in the parks during hunting season on special days and not allowing families in so that they won’t be exposed to gunfire.
Also My 92 in response to Raven argues against guns protecting people in national parks camping in large groups works better.

Ah, I gotcha. I just reject the argument, that tries to measure utility, as a strawman in this case. It’s not really incumbent upon the individual to prove utility as much as it is incumbent on society to prove implicit/explicit of society’s rights being violated by that individual.

I didn’t know we were arguing. I was attempting to ask relatively benign and dispassionate questions of your statement that didn’t seem at all consistent with the reality that you otherwise live in without issue.

Your “life moto” is in peril of being violated almost all the time by all manner of random things, both intentional and accidental.

I’d apologize if I knew what to be apologizing for?

So it really comes down to whether we consider that there is (or will be)sufficient training within our cultural tradition of gun ownership, for us all to be somewhat sanguine that no one, legitimately carrying a concealed gun, in a national park, is going to go ‘off’ half-cocked?

Looks like we are all, ImperialFlow, more or less, on the same ‘page’ with this, and merely having (and expressing) differing degrees of concern about how it will ‘play out’?

Thanks for sharing your letter Paz. Did you mention it in your letter (as you did in your comment) that you are a gun owner? I think that would help give your points more weight, if you don’t mind me kibbutzing…(sorry if I missed it).

OK, let me rephrase: Safety First.

That’s my motto. I do not expect life to be free from risk. but when presented with a choice of a law to allow guns into parks and to express an opinion of whether I think that’s a cool idea, then I vote no.

Direct from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Service to you there, Killer:

Black bears are protected in Texas and are on the state threatened species list. It is against the Law to kill a Black Bear in Texas.

Both bears and Mountain lions will leave you alone if you leave them alone.

Here’s the actual text of the amendment in case anyone cares:
SEC. 512. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME
(and I do think that naming and framing things that way is completely moronic by the way. It not only erects an immediate strawman, but fundamentally frames the discussion in a non-productive way)

It wasn’t exactly easy to find either. That’s a pet peeve of mine. There’s mountains of media coverage of this thing (and plenty of it sensationalist), and almost nobody bothered to link to the actual bill, let alone the amendment in it. Worse still the conversation in most articles seems to be centered on the amendment’s position (the sensationalism at play) rather than the utter asininity of the presence of it in such a bill made possible by Congressional procedure. This should really be a lot more about reforming that legislative process than the firearms rights issue.

That said. The amendment creates a condition where state-law covers firearms possession in parks, by prohibiting the Department of the Interior from imposing or exercising additional restrictions. Making it more of a State vs. Fed issue than a gun issue.

We can do without the name-calling, please.

Making it more of a State vs. Fed issue than a gun issue.

This is going to come out wrong, so I apologize in advance

How many national parks are there in Florida?

and

How do you feel about the astoundingly liberal gun laws in Florida?

Two plus two equals-

Probably so. In fact I suspect you could co-opt a lot of right-leaning people into greater social movements promoting better social equality by reversing the focus on restricting what they can own, and instead compromised on how they could own it. Clearly there will always be fringe hold-outs who never believe that anyone is acting in good-faith, but I don’t think that should stand in the way of making better policy, if not at least more consistent policy.

I agree.

Which is one reason I encourage the formulation (and promulgation) of progressive ideas in such a fashion that few, of most political ’stripes, would ‘feel’ threatened by them, and that most would ‘feel’ that the scenarios being laid out could well be a future in which they would be pleased or willing to invest.

I suspect you are speaking to that same sensibility, IF.

DW

12 sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior as far as I can tell.

I’m honestly not bothered by it, but that’s because I live in Oregon, and we have pretty liberalized gun laws here, and it’s not much of a problem; if arguably one at all. We certainly have horrific statistical outliers like Kip Kinkel and the recent random shooting in downtown Portland (which apparently my mother and father have befriended the victimized Italian exchange student and her parents, haven’t had a chance to meet her myself yet).

I’d be a lot more concerned with the rampant poverty amongst minorities in Florida, the racial tension, and the conditions created by the drug and human trafficking. I’m almost certainly more likely to be shot taking a wrong turn in Miami than I am in Biscayne National Park.

Marcy is upstairs!
The CIA Won’t Give Abu Zubaydah His Own Diaries

Harry is a pro-life, gun-loving mormon. And as such he might as well be a republican.

Thanks for sharing your letter Paz. Did you mention it in your letter (as you did in your comment) that you are a gun owner? I think that would help give your points more weight, if you don’t mind me kibbutzing…(sorry if I missed it).

Actually I did mention being a gun owner in the letter to the Prez (I copied and pasted here from a draft that I saved.)

The poster who suggested hunting seasons with no families in Nat’l Parks is a little out of touch with the NP system. First, and foremost, the Parks are utilized as wildlife refuges and a tremendous amount of biological research of animals in their natural ecosystems is conducted in them. This research is pointless if hunting is allowed. Many folks stay for a week or more, and hike and camp. If there were ‘hunting only’ periods, the vendors who earn a living through tours, lodging, etcetera would lose lots of money. The attraction of the parks is the ability to observe wildlife that is not hunted, including, yes, even grizzly bears (albeit at a distance or casually backing away if you come across one while hiking). The Park Rangers are relaxed, the crime rate is very low, and it’s a very peaceful feeling in the Parks I’ve visited – about 12 in the Mountain West and the Pacific Coast area.

Some creeps want to take this away, and I think that they are misanthropes. (I reluctantly apply that epithet to Harry Reid, who really seems out of touch with everyday people based on his tone and body language.)

If you want to hunt on Federal lands, there are vast acreages (millions) of National Forest lands in which to do that.

Here in Maine…people from out-of-state come here with their AK-47s and kill their loved ones in our state parks. Nice. *rolling eyes*

I don’t know why everyone is assuming Harry Reid was conned, outmanoeuvred or fooled, or that he’s not an effective leader. Use Occam’s Razor and it becomes apparent that he either wants the amendment or just doesn’t care about it.

Sigh.

I guess you’re not embracing your “inner frightened bunny.”

Reasonable use of rapid fire at multiple targets in a national park. [does not compute for me, but then i’m slow at times]… at my personal rate of comprehension and maturation, i would gladly die myself before having to endure that responsibility.

From whence comes the hubris that encourages such excess?

Clue: even the Bible – dammit – does not encourage killing just because you can, does it?!

Any thought of the generations to come? conservation? preservation? respect for life extending beyond merely human embryos? Is your belief system so casually set aside so as to allow one or 2 generations of humans to drive major segments of the ecosystem, much less signature species beloved in film, saga, and real life experience to be wiped out simply because it is possible to do precisely that, or simply because they are “in the way of progress.” Good luck explaining that to your grandkids.

And then what? When will folks wake up and take responsibility for tackling the hard problems of this generation and the legacy we pass on for those to come? The world does not revolve around each, or any one of us, but ALL of us have the capacity to impact its future. Please care, and take care.

Thank you paz3. well said.

Protecting yourself against predators? Pure, schoolboy fantasy!

The whole trick to surviving encounters with ”large predatory” wildlife is not to go looking for it and not to look like the things it would like to eat.

Don’t walk up unannounced to a grizzly bear. Since they can run 40 miles an hour and are built like a van with teeth and attitude, your chance of having a powerful enough gun and finding the time to use it in a real confrontation are slim. That concealed .38 is just going to make it mad. If you can unsling it fast enough, the AR-15 might kill it–but only because it might bleed out after it has twisted your head off.

Mountain lions–the only other large predator in the US–are another matter. Look big, don’t let your kids run around alone, and don’t go jogging alone in the evening. You will be fine. Guns won’t help, because mountain lions grab you from behind. In the unlikely event that one wants to eat you, you’ll never see it or hear it.

I’ve lived in the mountain west for 27 years. I have climbed, back-country skiied, backpacked, hiked, and car-camped in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, and Montana at all hours of the day, from 1:00 AM to 11:00 at night. I have NEVER even SEEN a mountain lion or black bear, much less a grizzly. Tracks, yes. Scat yes. Scratched up trees, yes. Scavenged carcasses, once or twice. But no actual animals. Why? Predatory animals DO NOT WANT to meet us humans.

For most advocates of guns in public places, protection is just an excuse, in any case. People want guns in the parks because they want to find an opportunity to use them. Even though it is illegal to do so. These people know how hard it would be for the rangers to catch them in the act of shooting at a wapiti, big horn, snake, ”large predator”, road sign, outhouse, chipmunk, prairie dog, funny-looking rock, marmot, or lily pad (if you don’t believe that this behavior is common, drive down a rural county road some time). If rangers can’t arrest these yahoos for carrying firearms in area where it is illegal to use them for anything, then the rangers can’t stop them shooting the place up.

In many places in this country, the drunk hunters outnumber the sober. I don’t hunt, but my acquaintances that do complain about it, and I’ve seen it myself when hikingin the woods. Some of the sober ones can be worse–shooting at anything that moves, hunting with illegal weapons, etc. People here blame the Texans. The Texans presumably blame us.

The differences between drugs and guns are simple, obvious, and absolutely reasonable.

[1] The other bozo’s drugs won’t kill me if he trips, gets blind drunk, or thinks that somethng scarey is sneeking up in the bushes.

[2] If said bozo snorts his drugs, they might kill him. If he snorts his gun, it will kill him.

I’m not as concerned with [2], except to the extent that his bullet might kill me if I’m in the room next door. Dopers probably aren’t very good at aiming.

I don’t hate guns. I am fascinated by guns. They are pure engineering. But a gun is a tool, not a toy. I have no more use for such a tool than I do for a Terex Titan coal-mining dump truck. So I don’t own one or carry one around.

A hunter who is on land where it is legal to hunt, during hunting season, and has a license has a reason for carrying a gun that is legal for hunting purposes. But no one has a legitimate reason for carrying an AR-15 or AK-47. And no one has a legitimate reason for carrying a weapon of any kind in a National Park, where it is illegal to kill anything.

Deep thanks to you, robspierre.

Pretty much says it all.

Somebody on drugs can kill you accidentally through their own malfeasance and negligence. It happens everyday. They’re called drunk drivers.

The similarity between guns and drugs is specifically as follows:

Irrational preemptive material prohibitions with a long history of failure to produce harm-reductive outcomes at expense to civil-liberties for otherwise safe and responsible citizens as it relates to fundamentally demand-side (not supply-side) issues is a commonality between both the War on Drugs and the seemingly irrational response to firearms by subsets of liberals in the United States.

Material prohibitions don’t work, they have a historically terrible track record of success. From a purely objective standpoint they’re a ridiculous policy, because their goals are almost never achieved. They’re just expensive, time-consuming, politically charged, and treat everyone like a criminal by-default. Why people would advocate strengthening one while simultaneously holding the position that another is completely absurd, for the reasons often cited above, is beyond me. It’s simply intellectually dishonest. An inability to consistently apply consistent standards across positions.