National Parks Are Safer with Right to Carry Law
During Senate deliberation, Senator Tom Coburn proposed Senate Amendment 1067: “To protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges.” On May 12, 2009, it passed 67-29.
Open Secrets provides complete campaign finance data for 96 senators in the current Congress. Those who voted “nay” on the Coburn amendment received greater portions of their campaign funding from lawyers and public employee unions than those voting “yea”: 76.7% and 61.9%, respectively.
On May 19, 2009, the Senate decided that credit card reform was the priority, and passed the amended bill back to the House by a vote of 90-5.
On May 20, 2009, the House held two related votes on the Credit Card Act, one without the Coburn amendment and one with. By doing so, the House reinforced the premise that lawyers and public employee unions support anti-rights politicians.
The initial vote (sans Coburn amendment) passed 361-64. Aye voters received greater portions of their campaign funding from lawyers and public employee unions: 78.5% and 69.2%, respectively. All 139 Brady-endorsed incumbents voted “aye,” while of all 58 incumbents voting “nay” were NRA-endorsed.
When the House voted on credit card reform with the Coburn amendment, it passed 279-147. There was a virtual stampede between votes, as 54 NRA endorsees switched from “nay” to “yea,” while 122 Brady endorsees switched from “yea” to “nay.”
The “yea” voters’ lawyer campaign funding percentages dropped to 35.0% more, and public employee union funding to 123.5% more than that of “nay” voters, much lower ratios than those of the two previous House votes.
Politics came into play during the final two votes: 138 incumbents, including 124 Brady endorsees, originally voted “aye” for H.R. 627 but voted “nay” on the final version including the Coburn amendment. In fairness, 62 incumbents, all NRA endorsees, originally voted “nay,” but once the Senate attached the Coburn amendment, they finally voted “aye.”
Curious inconsistencies in our public servants
After the final House vote, Scot McElveen, president of the Association of National Park Rangers, came out against the new law, justifying himself by turning green:
Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting.
It bears noting here that every time a state liberalized its concealed handgun laws to allow more people to carry in public, gloom-and-doom pontifications multiplied like mushrooms in the forest, claiming that blood would run in the streets as people shot each other over parking spaces and fender benders.
FBI crime data shows that in 2008, states with liberalized concealed carry laws (more handguns in public) average 34.2% lower violent crime rates — and 52.6% lower murder rates — than states which severely restricted law-abiding citizens’ right of self-defense. This correlation is consistent and dates back to at least 2001.
Meanwhile, the rangers’ association web site states:
The National Park Service is facing a critical shortage of field personnel — a shortage that is predicted to get worse over the next five years.
While acknowledging their inability to protect you from a growing crime problem, park rangers won’t support your right of self-defense. This attitude underscores the correlation between anti-rights voting in Congress and public employee union campaign contributions: their jobs take priority over your safety.
House gun control proponents were equally dismayed after the final vote:
We have a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and we’re passing more gun legislation than when there was a Republican in the White House,” said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a gun-control advocate. “It’s disappointing.
Anti-rights politicians accept special interest money and, along with government employees, derogate your right of self-defense. Perhaps the biggest insult is that your tax dollars pay their salaries.
* Crime and campaign finance data compiled into Excel workbooks; available to qualified professionals.
A woman I knew was raped and killed in Yellowstone Park. That was many years ago, so crime in national parks isn’t new. Too bad she wasn’t armed at the time.
Being armed in parks just makes sense. Most of the time, you’re miles away from any help, and often can’t get cell coverage. If you accidentely stumble on a marijuana patch (and I know for a fact that has been a danger for at least 20 years) you’re on your own. And hopefully when you stumble on it, you don’t trip a boobytrap and get killed outright. As they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Wait, I thought Obama was taking away our gun rights. Now I’m just confused. Kind of like taxes. They’ve gone down for 95% of Americans, and yet 95% of Tea Baggers don’t know that. What could possibly be the source for this disconnection?
Our public servants;
While enjoying your freedom in land previously owned by you, now co-opted forever by ‘smarter’ politicians, be sure to realize that your freedom is limited to being a victim to criminals and or a rogue animal attack.
I have to ask you, where is that free individualist American I once knew? How long before we’re finally done with these progressives and send them into the trashpit of history along with their communist ancestors?
Hey Skeezits, quit being a typical troll.
Teabagger is a sexual slur. Or do you like being called a commie asshole? Name calling doesn’t demonstrate your intelligence any more than spewing DNC talking points.
How many of those 95% who you say had their taxes cut either smoked, or used to have tax reductions under Bush that Obama is about to ax? Cut taxes,right.
Obama tried. But he’s not a very bright guy, and by our side attaching a politically popular provision to a bill that the Democrats absolutely had to have–Obama had to take it.
3. Skeeziks
So what is your point? Do you think Obama supports “Right to carry” or do you think that there is no need to defend ourselves?
If you think there is no need to have right to carry, do you want to take that right away from me?
5. Falcons Word:
Slur? Well, it’s definitely a sexual act. It’s also a term of self description for many Tea Party patriots, unaware or indifferent to its “slur.” So, as long as you’ve used it to define yourselves and the movement, and because it so bothers your tender repressed sensibilities, and because it has such wonderful comic value, I will continue to use “tea bagger” as often and as creatively as possible. But thanks for sharing.
Now, to taxes. Smokers? Taxes are the least of it. I think cigarettes should be banned, so you’ll have to pick another issue. Bush tax cuts you say? Well, the Tax Policy Center calculated the median cut received for income earned under Bush was $470. Unless you made $1 million, in which case your cut was $113,000. When Obama lets Bush’s tax cuts expire, the median tax increase will be about $1.30 per day. And, of course, there will be many families who experience no increase at all.
So, if I were you, I’d stop worrying about what people call you and start worrying about being played for a patsy by Hollywood conservatives like Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and Palin.
6. Clayton E. Cramer:
I’m glad to know you approve of such ideological larding of legislation. You’re going to see a lot more of it real soon. Thanks for your support.
7. Vindico Libertas:
My point is obvious: gun rights have been getting continually more . . . liberal . . over the last 15 years. Today is no different. Having (and using) a concealed carry permit myself, I have no evidence anyone is taking it away from me. Do you? Or are you just echoing what Mark Levin barked at you on the radio?
Gentlemen, your passion is admirable, the rest . . .
2. Anne Marie: “As they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
Nasty thing to say about the police.
Skeezix:
Either you’re a fool or a liar. Taxes have NOT gone down for 95% of Americans: 40% got a “refundable tax credit”- i.e., a welfare check; and the rest got nothing but a withholding adjustment. Marginal rates were not reduced nor brackets moved upwards.
And of course your taxes have gone up if you run a business, or work for a business, or buy anything produced by a buasiness….
—————-
Obama didn’t dare veto the credit card deadbeat-protection bill, a prime liberal objective for years.
The second amendment states that people have the right to keep and bear arms and does not specify where or any circumstance, now does it state whether said arms must be carried openly for all to see or covertly (as in concealed or hidden)!
This is a federal law and should especially apply on any land owned or operated by the federal government, it would be akin to saying you can take a pencil or pen anywhere you wish in case you need to make notes of your day. A firearm is merely a tool to be used as circumstances require. Two individuals both with firearms should decide what action should be taken given any circumstance!
I choose to take my chances in any situation with a firearm in my possession than not having one to defend myself or others due to a criminal who could care less what the law may state.
Skeeziks:
“Having (and using) a concealed carry permit myself, I have no evidence anyone is taking it away from me. Do you?”
I’d say the anti-gun credentials of Obama and his appointees were quite a compelling argument for what is to come. Trouble is, if we just “wait and see” we lose our rights.
Instead of increasing protection, a handgun in a home almost triples the chances that someone will be killed there, a study of homicides in three metropolitan areas has found.
The conclusions of the study contradict the popular notion that keeping a gun at home increases personal safety, the researchers said today.
“This study is the first to clearly link the risk of homicide to the immediate availability of a gun,” said Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann of Emory University in Atlanta, the lead researcher.
New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
#13 Chad, Chad, Chad:
You’re mixing apples and oranges here. Of cours if you are defending your home against a criminal with a firearm, he has a higher chance of getting shot whilst commiting the crime.
In-depth analysis by Oxford found no correlavtion, and Harvard law school showed LOWER CRIME rates with increased legal ownerhip.
#13 Chad,
You forgot to include the marrow of the aforementioned article, whereby the good doctor concludes:
“The observed association between battering and homicide is also important…Our data strongly suggest that the risk of homicide is markedly increased in homes where a person has previously been hit or hurt in a family fight.” He also goes into the strong correlation of alcohol and drug use by both the criminals and victims.
These persons would hardly qualify for a gun permit. The doctor also fails to mention whether or not the firearms were registered or bought legally.
Peace.
to Anna Marie:
Being armed in ALL places just makes sense. No matter where you are, you are a long way from the police. The police motto, to protect and serve, means once they get there and that can take some time. Any bad guy with at least 2 brain cells would think twice if he knew that he could end up with one in his head and two in his chest for his efforts.
By the way, arming the citizen brings down crime every time it is tried.
Lifting the ban on ccw in National Parks was signed into law by Bush before he left office. Then the anti gun crowd got a pet judge to suspend implementation on a trumped up environmental impact issue. So Mr. Coburn added it to the credit card bill, a tactic commonly used by Democrats to ram through their pet legislation. I suppose turnabout is fair play, right?
Skeezix and Chad, troll much? Actually I guess Skeezix is right. When you don’t have a job your taxes do go down a bit don’t they. But Chad, that so called study was a putup job from the getgo. It was targeted to a small high crime area and dealt primarily with a criminal population that naturally had a high incident of both shootings and illegal gun possession. But then that’s typical of the anti gun crowd. Tell a lie and keep repeating it until you can claim it as common knowledge.
But back to the topic in question:
The National Park Service itself says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks in 2006, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults. Admittedly over a huge area, but still not what I would call a crime free zone.
17. Uncle Liar:
“Actually I guess Skeezix is right. When you don’t have a job your taxes do go down a bit don’t they.”
Here’s something for you to think about. I pay more taxes than you and I don’t have a job. Don’t be bitter. It’s just my ability to succeed in this great nation of ours.
“Now I’m just confused.”
Yes, you are.
“It’s also a term of self description for many Tea Party patriots, unaware or indifferent to its “slur.”
And a liar.
“and because it so bothers your tender repressed sensibilities, and because it has such wonderful comic value, I will continue to use “tea bagger” as often and as creatively as possible.”
And an ignorant a$$hole.
I think that just about covers all we need to know about you and addresses all the response your comments call for. Into the Bozo bin you go.
19. Just Passing Through:
“It’s also a term of self description for many Tea Party patriots, unaware or indifferent to its “slur.”
And a liar.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=
That oughta cover it. Keep on passing through.
I ordinarily don’t recognize of respond to someone from the Bozo bin. They aren’t worth engaging by definition. It is a wonder just how stupid you can be to link that article as a defense for being both a liar and an ignorant a$$hole and deserves recognition if for nothing else being such a self-parody.
Let’s try your logic out, shall we? Keeping in mind that I don’t believe that sexual innuendo has a place in polite discussion, nonetheless we’ll play it by your rules and take an analogy right from the cesspool.
Barney Frank’s politics are quite obviously from the progressive left. So are yours based on the comments from you I’ve read in the last few weeks. Barney is also an admitted c@@kS@@ker. By your logic, you are also a self-identified c@@kS@@ker. Because it has, in your words, such wonderful comic value, if I ever address you again I will refer to you as a c@@kS@@ker. And by the rules you set out, I will do so as creatively as possible.
How’s that work for you, c@@kS@@ker?
21. Just Passing Through:
That’s fine, just keep following my lead. Now that you’ve admitted to conservatives self-identifying as tea baggers, I’ll offer to further your education once more . . . try cork soaker, it’s probably more in line with your principled and consistent eschewing of sexual innuendo.
(Hint: You can use that “chewing” thing in your reply, maybe in relation to Barney Frank or maybe to some gay conservative if there is such a thing. Is there? Can you think of any dedicated family values servant of righteousness and good Christian morals who is actually gay? I can’t think of a single one. Because if there were such an animal you would, you know, by association, be one too. Are you? Hmm, we know by your own admission that you’re a tea bagger, but that’s not necessarily gay. Perhaps you could clear up your conflicted identity for us. We’re all waiting. Thanks. That works fine for me.)
What’s the matter, c@@kS@@ker? Rules aren’t working out so well for you?
When Barney Frank talks about being a c@@kS@@ker, he means exactly that. He embraces it, and by your logic, so must you. Come to terms with it. They’re your rules. The wonderfully comic and creative sexual innuendo belongs to you, c@@kS@@ker.
The Tea Party People used the Tea Bag as a Tea Bag. Innocuous and common and as a political symbol. Didn’t you read your own link? What was in that link again? Ah, right, it was the wonderfully comic and creative progressive useful idiots like yourself who find the the wonderfully comic and creative sexual innuendo such a useful political tool. To us, a Tea Bag is a Tea Bag. To you, a Tea Bag is a c@@kS@@ker’s dream come true. Again, your rules, c@@kS@@ker. Not mine, and not the Tea Partiers. Your rules.
And with that, back into the Bozo bin for good. But do have a nice life, c@@kS@@ker.
Anyway I am not so happy about this.
Guns, yes I am just like the whatever percent who have ‘em and all that. I like guns just fine.
But something is lost when ordinary folks need to carry one around just because we want to go to the park. I spent a lot of time in our national parks and forests backpacking a couple decades ago. Humans were always the most dangerous animals out there. That never changes. Maybe now just doesnt seem too much fun to me to need to carry a pistol just to walk out on the trail for a few days.
Spin
23. Just Passing Through:
Claim victory, retreat in defeat. It’s a conservative’s weakness. That and having a “wide stance.” So obviously overmatched, you’re better off to cut and run.
#13 Chad
The New England Journal of Medicine article is the most widely quoted rubbish in the health care anti-gun mis-information arsenal (pun intended). You need to read John Lott’s “The Bias Against Guns” or “More Guns, Less Crime”, perhaps Gary Kleck’s “Armed” if you want to see how guns relate to crime and violence.
Criminals do not obey gun laws. What is the difficulty in understanding this?
It really is a sort of national nightmare the way things are going. We actually have people trying to diffuse and destroy the Constitution. I truly believe that Liberals are controlled by evil forces. Is this so hard to believe and accept? Have we been swallowing our Evolutionary porridge for so long that we aren’t sure if evil exists? Or Good? I don’t think they want to take America over, but that they want to take America down. Think about it. Nothing the Left does makes any sense. How long are we going to watch these fools tear down their own house before we realize that it IS their intention and doing? I say that time for reasoning is long past. All Liberal warriors are pod-people.
TO skeeziks:
As Reagan once said about ur kind:
Liberals know a LOT! ITs just not about the right things.
U “spew” facts {sic} faster than Al Gore!! HAH… all B.S. Couldnt prove a one w/o quoting directly from mediamatters.org or Huffington Post.
Sorry skee-nose… no ones buying ya. we just skip over ya…
finally I can press my personal war on the bears
those big smelly Bastards have had their way far too long- now it’s time to dish out some payback
You don’t get it, c@@kS@@ker. There is no victory or defeat. I am not engaging you in debate. These have all been what are called rhetorical questions.I thought I made it clear that I don’t consider you or your comments worth engaging. Why would I? It’s not about me, it’s about you being a c@@kS@@ker by the rules you set. All I did was spend a few moments making some obvious observations about the self-parody that is you. Easy enough to do, c@@kS@@ker. Low hanging fruit and all. Then it was a bit of whack-a-mole as you kept sticking your c@@kS@@king mug out of the Bozo Bin.
What a horrible thread.
Dissapointment because this is an article that came through about something worthy of serious discussion.
There is a difference between gun rights (which I support) and a society where ordinary people need to carry one around everywhere, and we know the type of weapon we are talking about, good only for one thing…human non-military conflict at short range.
We pay lots of our income to have a reasonable limit of security around here. I dont want to need to ‘load one in the chamber’ to take my kids to the swingsets…if those are even legal anymore…like hotdogs, too dangerous…
PJM should have been more on top of what has come through. I thought this site was better than this ridiculous flame @@@###!!! childish nonsense.
Spin
30. Just Passing Through:
“I thought I made it clear that I don’t consider you or your comments worth engaging. Why would I?”
I don’t know, JPT, why do you?
Hey Spindoc. Do you realize that your lifetime risk of being a victim of violent crime is virtually 100%? Shocking, eh? I choose to be armed (if possible) if that happens to me or my family. Paranoia has nothing to do with it.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yb4Nkeks15AC&oi=fnd&pg=PT18&dq=lifetime+risk+of+crime+victim&ots=73CoKoj6_N&sig=yDj0McP6utTNfJb3Q1Af20Pk9wg#v=onepage&q=lifetime&f=false
Also, you do know that no matter how much you pay for security, the police have no legal obligation to protect you? You have probably also noticed that the probability of the police being around to actually stop a crime against a citizen is virtually zero. You’re on your own, pal. How you choose to prepare for that is your own.