Senate approve concealed weapons in national parks in Credit card bill

[Mass]

What does this have to do with the credit card bill and why did Dems vote for that here? Or is it an effort to kill a bill the credit card companies do not want?

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00188

http://washingtonindependent.com/42641/senate-approves-coburn-gun-amendment

The Senate on Tuesday night easily passed an amendment to credit card reform legislation that would allow concealed weapons in national parks. The vote was 67 to 29.

The question now is this: Will a controversial gun proposal attached to popular underlying legislation be the poison pill that sinks that larger bill? That’s been the case with legislation allowing the District of Columbia a voting representative in Congress, to which the Senate attached language scrapping many of Washington’s strict gun control laws. As a result of that gun amendment, the DC-vote bill remains stalled in the House months after it passed the upper chamber.

Now, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the chief sponsor of the credit card reform bill, is wondering whether the same might be the fate of his credit card proposal. “My concern is about what the underlying bill — what happens to it,” Dodd said on the chamber floor just before the vote. “I hate to see us lose this opportunity to make a difference with credit card reform.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who sponsored the concealed weapons bill, said he supports many of Dodd’s credit card provisions, and didn’t have in mind to offer his amendment just for the purpose of killing the larger bill. “I don’t want to see it fail on this,” Coburn said. “But nor do I want to see the Second Amendment trampled on.”

So much for an easy, clean, must-pass credit card reform bill.

[msongs]

1. because the NRA runs congress lol nt

[jgraz]

2. Awesome. Mass shootings really cry out for a majestic natural setting

:banghead:

[Irreverend IX]

22. How will this law lead to mass shootings?

If someone wants to commit a mass shooting in a national park, the law won't stop them. You don't go through metal detectors when entering a park. This law will simply allow people licensed to carry concealed firearms in a given state to carry within national parks inside that state. People are already carrying concealed in streets, stores, and all kinds of other public places, and CCW permit holders have been found to be one of the least violent and least criminal demographics anywhere.

Murders and other crimes have happened inside national parks, especially when innocent hikers run into covert meth cooks, so it's not unreasonable that park visitors would want some protection against these threats. No one in this thread has provided any rational argument for why this law would lead to violence.

[jgraz]

25. The same way it leads to mass shootings everywhere

Now when that domestic dispute breaks out, the suicidal rage kicks in, those new meds stop working or the when the guy one campsite over just makes a little too much noise, there'll be plenty of weaponry around to make sure the situation has a really cool "pew-pew" finish.

Not to mention the fact that burglars just got even more incentive to break into your car or cabin. Nice way to build up a weapons cache. No worries, though -- the gun manufacturers will happily sell you as many replacements as you want.



In other words, guns in parks will lead to the same misery that guns outside of parks do. If this law passes, the park system will see its first gun suicide/family murder/accidental child shooting long before any of your Rambo IX: Meth Hunter fantasies kick in.

[Irreverend IX]

26. This has been predicted before...

When concealed carry laws were liberalized across the country, there were loud proclamations by anti-gunners that it would lead to blood in the streets, shootings over parking spaces, etc. None of these fears have materialized so far, and statistics in many states show that CCW permit holders have even lower arrest and criminal conviction rates than police.

Mass shooters and murderous criminals carry out their actions with no regard to gun control laws; most of the recent mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free" zones like schools. If someone wants to commit a gun crime in a national park, there is absolutely nothing stopping them. All the new rule does is allow self-defense by the law-abiding. If you think otherwise, feel free to post some data that connects concealed carry with increased gun crime.

[jgraz]

29. A silly, uninformed argument. But you knew that.

Do I really need to show you statistics on how much more likely it is that a gun will be used on its owner? Are you really unaware of that? Or do you just think the rest of don't understand simple reality?

As far as your ridiculous, knee-jerk straw man about "blood in the streets" isn't even much of a straw man anymore. Have you been watching the news the past few months? How many of these mass shooters were "law-abiding" citizens who just had their weapons for "self defense" -- right up until they blew out their two-year-old's brains while he was sitting in his high-chair? How much more "blood in the streets" do you require?


Since you're the one playing fast-and-loose with reality, why don't you back up your original claim? How many crazed meth dealers have been fought off by "innocent hikers" with a glock into their jogging shorts? Let's see some stats on that.


It's always the same with the gun fetishists. As soon as you lose a clear, common sense argument, you start yelling STATS!! STATS!! like a schoolyard bully calling for his mommy when his victim fights back. But you're free to spin whatever 24/Rambo/Die Hard fantasy you want without the least little obligation to back up your claims.

So let's see a few stats from you: you claim that a reduction in the availability of and access to lethal weaponry will NOT lead to a reduction in gun violence. Can you point to any study that backs you up? Anything? Has this ever even been tried in the US?

Oh, and since I know how you gunners play the game, make sure to include suicides in your research. For most of people, blowing your own brains out actually counts as "gun violence".

[X_Digger]

30. See links

http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

Meth Lab Discovered In National Park
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900810&slug=1087159

http://www.usacsc.com/meth.php?q=95389

Battling marijuana farms in America’s national parks
http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=814

SOURCE: National Park Service | By Tobey - The Washington Post - February 28, 2008

[jgraz]

32. Nice sidestep. Now answer my question

So let's see a few stats from you: you claim that a reduction in the availability of and access to lethal weaponry will NOT lead to a reduction in gun violence. Can you point to any study that backs you up? Anything? Has this ever even been tried in the US?

Oh, and since I know how you gunners play the game, make sure to include suicides in your research. For most of people, blowing your own brains out actually counts as "gun violence".

[X_Digger]

34. You seem to be equating..

.. rise in legal concealed carry with an overall increase in guns.

You can't move the goal posts- this measure is about allowing those who already are licensed to carry concealed do so in national parks if their state allows it.

[jgraz]

39. Yes. Concealed carry makes no sense without concealable weapons

More concealed carry => more concealable weapons. What part of that is hard to understand?

[X_Digger]

40. You're assuming these folks

.. don't have handguns already. What part of that is so hard to understand?

[jgraz]

42. What does that have to do with anything?

You have concealable weapons because ... wait for it ... people want to conceal them. If the gun fetishists did not push this ridiculous fantasy of concealed-weapon carriers pulling off some comic-book rescue of a damsel in distress, there would be far less of a demand for guns you can stick in your waistband.

Less of a market means less production. It also means less resistance to sensible limitations on gun ownership. Fun all around.

[X_Digger]

46. Are you honestly asserting..

.. that concealed carry came about as a marketing scheme by the gun industry?

Are you a 9/11 troofer, too? Grassy knoll? Astronauts never stepped on the moon?

[jgraz]

47. I'm asserting that most of the gun legislation in this country is to make the gun lobby happy

And the gun lobby is simply the marketing arm of the gun industry. If you don't understand that, you really shouldn't be allowed to operate complicated machinery.

[X_Digger]

49. The gun industry's lobbying arm is the NSSF,

Not the NRA- the NRA represents 4 million gun owners out of the 80 million gun owners.

Your statement makes about as much sense as saying that the NHRA is an extension of detroit's auto manufacturers.

[jgraz]

51. Right.... and the Teabagger parties were spontaneous, grass-roots events

Wow, some people really *will* believe anything.

[X_Digger]

52. I couldn't care less about teabaggery

but I do know a conspiracy when I hear it. Was 9/11 planned by the pentagon, too? Did astronauts really land on the moon? Grassy knoll?

I know, I know it's much easier to believe in some overarching evil that's bent on world destruction- much easier than examining your own beliefs and comparing them to those who disagree with you. Much easier to think they've been brainwashed than admit you might be on the wrong side of an issue and ask yourself 'Why?'

[jgraz]

54. That's it. Don't educate yourself or think. Just piss on anyone who challenges your beliefs

Are you sure you're on the right board? Y'know, I bet the other guys won't make you justify your weapons fetish.

[X_Digger]

55. Lol! I'm the one advocating

self-reflection and you try to lecture me?

How about you actually research lobbying by both the NSSF and NRA-ILA, then you tell me which one is lobbying for an industry and which one is advocating for individuals.

[jgraz]

56. Yes, that's the NRA/GOP party line. It's a lie.

But you already knew that.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm
http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-4966-what-the-gun-industry-and-the-nra-donrst-want-you-to-know.html
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3360

I like this last one. Why would the NRA-ILA be celebrating the dismissal of a lawsuit against the gun industry? Aren't they all about "advocating for individuals"?


And this one, while not specifically about the NRA tongue-kissing gun makers, provides a few particularly revealing quotes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/06/AR2007010601300.html

For six years, the NRA joined the Bush administration in opposing the Clinton-era roadless rule, a broad land-protection measure that put nearly a third of the national forests off limits to most development -- while keeping them open for hunters and anglers willing to walk or ride horseback into the backcountry.

My, my. Does that sound like "advocating for individuals" to you? Why do you think the NRA would go against those poor individual gun owners that they supposedly represent?

The NRA is increasingly being criticized as out of touch by some members of the Outdoor Writers Association of America. A new gun ownership group is trying to win the support of disaffected hunters. Also, there is some complaining within the gun industry that NRA policies might be bad for business

Now... why would the gun industry have any reason to complain about anything the NRA does? After all, isn't the NRA just an advocacy group for individual gun owners? Sheesh, it's almost like the gun makers think the NRA is one of their employees? I wonder why that is.

[X_Digger]

57. You made my post for me..

Re the third link- can't have gun owners without guns. Fucking duh.

Re the wapo link- NRA supported hunters and fisherman rather than idiots on 4 wheelers until the members said they wanted roads, too.

And the gun industry mad at the NRA because NRA policies might be bad for business? That sounds like the NRA is looking after its members first, rather than the industry.

[jgraz]

58. More NRA/GOP talking points

Care to break out "from my cold, dead hands" next?

[X_Digger]

59. Care to make a coherent response? n/t

[jgraz]

60. Right after you start showing a little intellectual honesty

Until then, you're wasting my time.

[X_Digger]

61. So actually refuting your assertions..

..is intellectually dishonest. Gotcha.

[jgraz]

62. You might want to look up the definitions of "refuting" and "actually"

Deliberately mis-parsing clear, unambiguous statements does not fit within the meaning of either.

[slackmaster]

36. Great question - How many of the recent mass shooters were licensed to carry their weapons concealed

My best guess is approximately zero of them.

[jgraz]

38. A completely irrelevant question. Many of these shootings happened in the home.

But, if you're saying that the only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who have been trained and approved for concealed carry, I'd love to have that conversation.

[X_Digger]

41. Not irrelevant- it's the point of the article.

This is about letting states decide whether or not they will allow those who are licensed to carry concealed outside of national parks do so inside national parks.

[jgraz]

43. The point of the bill is to increase demand for concealable handguns

The fewer restrictions there are, the more likely people are to accept concealed weapons and want one of their own. This is all about driving sales of a deadly, unnecessary product. I'm sure the gun industry appreciates your assistance.

[slackmaster]

45. Wrong - It's most likely a poison pill by members who want to kill the Credit Card bill

It's not relevant to the Credit Card bill's topic at all.

[slackmaster]

44. It's totally relevant - the OP is about allowing people with permits to carry in National Parks

But, if you're saying that the only people who should be allowed to own guns are those who have been trained and approved for concealed carry, I'd love to have that conversation.

No, I'm not saying that at all. That is not the point of this thread topic.

[katandmoon]

3. Goddamn cowardly fuckers scared shitless of the NRA

Gloat, gun worshippers, gloat, you fuckers all.

[vaberella]

5. They have guns, which means bullets, which means hurt or kill when it meets flesh.

Or I think that's their rationalization.

[Mojorabbit]

31. I am happy with it

I was in a situation once camping with my sister. It was a very desolate place. I am glad we were armed. Two women alone when an atv with four very inebriated men showed up. They came back late that night and tried to enter our tent but just the sight of the weapon sent them on their way. It was a long rest of the night regardless. :shrug:

[vaberella]

4. Are you kidding me?! Republicans hate humans and want us dead...by other humans.

Oh my God. :wow:

Can this shit be repealed...or someone can write an amendment to get rid of this?!

[Mass]

7. Not surprised by the GOPers. The amendment was sponsored by Coburn. But 26 Democrats + Sanders voted

for this, including Reid.

[vaberella]

9. Ugh..you know...I understand the importance of this bill.

But doing this to get Repubs on board is BS. I mean fucking hell. Not even Sanders put up a fight or a provision to keep this shit out.

[X_Digger]

17. Maybe the party is starting to..

..reflect public opinion? The wish for gun control is at an all time low (per Gallup / CNN / ABC Polling).

[Cha]

37. Since Sanders is so on the right side

and side of logic all the time..one wonders what his reasoning for voting for it, is?

[firedupdem]

6. Ridiculous! I am so sick of these clowns! What the hell are they

doing?

[slackmaster]

8. Why should a person who met his or her state's qualifications and paid for a permit NOT be allowed

...to exercise that privilege because he or she happens to be in a National Park?

[vaberella]

11. What is s/he going to do with it in a park?! n/t

[slackmaster]

16. Same thing s/he does with it anywhere else, like shopping malls, etc.

Carry it around and feel a little safer.

[vaberella]

21. They're afraid of a shoot out in a mall or a park?! This isn't the old West or Death Wish...

:wtf:

[slackmaster]

23. Not necessarily a shoot-out

Maybe just a rape attempt by someone armed with a knife, or with just a penis.

[Cass]

27. IIRC this idea came about after a young woman was abducted last year from a national park

in Georgia and murdered (or maybe the year before). That's when I first heard of the idea to allow guns in the national parks. I guess the thinking is that you might have a chance to protect yourself from attacks like this if you are armed. I don't know that I agree with their line of thinking but I believe that is the rationale behind it.

[damntexdem]

13. Because only an idiot wants people to be able to tote guns into national parks.

The NRA and its lapdogs have done more to destroy this country than Al Qaida ever could.

[slackmaster]

18. That's called poisoning the well, and it's a logical fallacy

Once you have declared everyone who disagrees with you to be an idiot, no meaningful dialogue is possible.

I don't worry about licensed people carrying firearms for their own protection. They're not a threat to my safety or to yours.

[Abq_Sarah]

53. Sometimes I read comments like that

And I have to wonder why someone who wants to strip rights away from others would be posting on a Democratic website.

Those of us who respect the constitution and stand up for our rights aren't the problem.

[Cass]

10. I wish this kind of poison pill thing was stopped.

It is very shady to slip in totally unrelated legislation like this.

[damntexdem]

12. The House can leave it out and then gut it in conference.

That is, if enough Dems are willing to stand up to the NRA.

If not, I guess National Parks will go off of my to-visit list.

[X_Digger]

15. Are grocery stores, shopping malls, and city streets..

off your to-visit list?

If you're from Texas, you're bumping into folks who carry concealed every time you hit a big store.

[Thrill]

14. Doesn't it still have to go to the House?

[TankLV]

19. This is NOT good...!

Gun Nuts: 1
Common Sense: 0

[slackmaster]

24. Appeal to "common sense" is a logical fallacy in this context

You need to back that up with some actual evidence that allowing someone who has a permit to carry a weapon just outside of an NP boundary creates some kind of public safety hazard just inside of an NP boundary.

It's not about letting anyone who feels like it carry a concealed weapon. There are permitting processes in every state except Vermont and Alaska.

[hollowdweller]

20. The Gun Issue is the only one the GOP still has

Most people agree with the dems on abortion, immigration, gay marriage and the rest now.

Expect them to bring it up a lot in order to try to get dems to vote against it so they can hopefully use that to get them to vote as a block

[a kennedy]

28. I wondered that too, Reid seemed really ticked off about it also.

[Mass]

50. Reid was one of the Dems who voted AYE on this. If he was ticked, he could have voted NO.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[cwcwmack]

35. it's called a "poison pill" n/t

[regnaD kciN]

48. This credit-card reform bill merely locks the barn door after the horse has fled...

It will put limits on future rate increases, but, by the time it takes effect (if it does), the banks will have carried out the hikes already.

The only real credit-card reform bill was the interest rate cap proposal that was killed today.

:-(