Wasn't April Fool's last month?
WASHINGTON — Advocates of gun rights are poised to win a Congressional victory that eluded them under a Republican president.
To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons.
I guess now we know: Progressives would be better off with a center-right president doing everything he could to tick off the right (as McCain would have done? Possibly) than with a center-left president doing everything possible to tick off the left.
Posted by Will Bunch @ 10:28 PM
Permalink |
67 comments
It's ridiculous that we have a legislative system that lets a provision like this be aded to a bill as an amendment when the Bill has nothing at all the do with this issue. Once again the Demos in Congress get outflanked by the minority, at some point they will understand why I keep returning their requests for donations to elect more Demos to Congress-- to do what?
Comment removed.
How dare the Constitution be upheld on federal property. Outrageous.
atp2007: couldnt have said it better myself. I don't know, maybe Obama is appeasing the right with little petty things, hoping for their support on the bigger things (healthcare reform, credit card reform, car standards, etc.)???
Again, Obama could have insisted on a credit card bill without this amendment, but in the spirit of his Chicago machine political upbringing, he won't make the tough decision himself, instead throwing his Democratic friends in Congress under the bus. He's still smarting from the "clinging to their guns and religion" comment, and he's already thinking about his re-election campaign, so he simply won't do anything about this. Perhaps his cult is finally waking up and actually watching his actions rather than listening to his teleprompted words.
Much ado about nothing.....
You make a reasonable comment, Vandy (about Obama doing what all politicians do, pander for political expediency), and then post pure toady drivel about cults and teleprompters. Batboy might be right, seeing as how you're posting more and more like a loon, I may have to Bwaaaaaaack you afterall.
"I don't know, maybe Obama is appeasing the right with little petty things, hoping for their support on the bigger things (healthcare reform, credit card reform, car standards, etc.)???" Oh yeah, this has done it for me. I'm all on board with the Hope-n-Change now. Yes. We. Can.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Don't worry, Smart cars won't be able to carry enough to take the extra weight of a gun on a drive to a national park.
What don't you understand about the right to "bear" arms?
Big O; Stay out of the National Parks, as soon as you sign that bill. You'd better hire more Secret Service personnel, if you're going to plan any camping trips, or nature trailing hikes.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
I want guns on the beach. It will help my business. I'm making speedo's with two holsters. One to hold your package. One to hold your gun.
Please write your congressman to pass the speedo bill.
Obama "center left" = hilarious
Some of our National Parks are EXACTLY the type of place you would want to carry a gun. Without one, you're a sitting duck with no help around for miles. I'm talking about Washington, D.C., of course.
I think you mean "arm bears"
typsyqueen - Go back and sleep that one off -- You woke up as nasty as when you konked out.
Comment removed.
Statistics already show that National Park employees are more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation than most other employees of the government. Now they will have to deal with this (which is why they opposed the bill). Now when they have to enforce laws in the park, they are more likely to have deal with some yoyo, all juiced up by what he heard on Beck or Savage about the government taking away their rights, and the chances of a violent confrontation increase. And the chances of gun related destruction in parks increases as well. And I'm sure we all want to go camping or hiking in the wilderness, secure in the thought that others we might encounter in the middle of nowhere might be packing. Great bill, and I'm hoping that stem cell research allows the Democrats to grow a pair and a spine soon. You would think this would quiet the "Democrats are coming for our guns" crowd, but I doubt it.
don't forget to thank boob casey and arlen specter for this as well: they made sure to get the langauge in.
Comment removed.
I guess it's asking too much for you to dig a bit deeper on this subject, Will. The crime rates in National Parks have continued to climb as funding for parks and rangers has not kept pace with the increase in visitors, which means visitors are often left defenseless for the time it takes overextended rangers (park ranger is the most dangerous law-enforcement job in the federal system now). Allowing people with permits to carry guns allows some level of self-defense under those circumstances. And people with CCW permits are among the most law-abiding in the country, by the simple fact that they have to pass a background check in almost all instances (Vermont doesn't require a permit to carry). In addition, in some parks such as Yellowstone, visitors can now carry weapons as protection against attacks by grizzlies, which is NOT a trivial matter.
"Statistics already show that National Park employees are more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation than most other employees of the government. Now they will have to deal with this (which is why they opposed the bill). " Statistics also show that CCW holders are very rarely involved in wrongful shootings or brandishments of weapons - at a far, far lower rate than the rest of the population. I sincerely doubt the rangers have anything to fear from this change. Gun control opponents for years have claimed concealed carry would lead to wild west shootings, when the opposite has happened.
I'm okay with this if the Parks start prohibiting alcohol.
I've got to disagree, will. Those of us that want sane sensible gun laws, that respect both individual freedom and public health have just been remarkably ineffective in Congressional elections and the other side has been remarkably effective. This nutty add-on to credit card reform is the result. We can't expect Obama to save us from everything when we fail to save ourselves. He must pick his battles and I agree with him that this is one he's smarter to pass up.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
---}}} I sincerely doubt the rangers have anything to fear from this change. {{{--- Nice of you to decide for them what they should and should not be afraid of, db. I'm sure they appreciate it greatly. I've done a lot of backwoods camping in almost all the national parks in the country - the one time I was afraid for my life was when some drunk lunatic a few campsites over was shooting off a gun and yelling at his wife. I had to hike out in the middle of the night to summon rangers.
"But we all believe the far left when they say aren't coming for the guns of law-abiding citizens." . . . . . Right, like when they expanded the president's power in 2006 to declare martial law (with the implict right to confiscate weapons of law abiding citizens) simply by declaring that he thinks it's necessary?
Comment removed.
db: a handgun isn't going to do anything to protect you against grizzly bear...all it will do is make it angry. Although, as an avid backpacker, I support this. There are incidents of whackos jumping hikers and backpackers.
"There are incidents of whackos jumping hikers and backpackers." . . . . Now that they can legally carry concealed weapons, they won't need to jump you. So I guess that's an improvement.
What in the world is so hard to figure out??? The previous administration/Congress/gun lobby was waiting to see the outcome of the Supreme Court's recent decision as to whether private citizens have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own/carry a gun under the Second Amendment. Since they found that the amendment applies to INDIVIDUALS (you know, like the rest of the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, to CITIZENS and NOT the gov't.)If the court not not held this view I doubt this provision would have been added no matter who was President. Obama/congress is only recognizing the clear statement by the court AND the need to protect oneself/family when in the woods with WILD animals like bears. Comprende, Wilbur?
Who let that bear out of jail? I bet he was a previously convicted criminal who was released because of prison overcrowding.
So, Cap'n - are you going to pack a handgun in with you? And which do you think is statistically more likely - getting struck by lightening or getting attacked while backpacking?
Where is today's John Yoo post? Oh, I guess you are still busy writing your morally outraged resignation letter. OK, I'll wait.
Uh....lightning.
".....AND the need to protect oneself/family when in the woods with WILD animals like bears." . . . . I'm all for self-defense, but why would you put your family at risk of attack to begin with?
"---}}} I sincerely doubt the rangers have anything to fear from this change. {{{--- Nice of you to decide for them what they should and should not be afraid of, db. I'm sure they appreciate it greatly." Kinda like how you have decided, Sloth, that nationalized healthcare is the only way to go for all.....even for those who already have healthcare. I'm sure the American people greatly appreciate you deciding what healthcare the government will afford them, even though many in that group didn't/don't & won't ever pay for it. Nice.
MSL- so we should shut the parks down? No camping,etc?
This bill is ridiculous. Neither side can justify a good reason to be for or against it. We are a gun culture. Until that changes, I say assume anyone has a gun no matter where you are. Some people need "enhancements".
Comment removed.
Beeps, the government already decides what health care you get. It licenses and regulates doctors, hospitals, and clinics; decides the threshold of when practice becomes malpractice; approves drugs and regulates testing, and so on. In the end, what choice are you making on your own that doesn't somehow involve the government already making a decision for you?
"MSL- so we should shut the parks down? No camping,etc?" . . . . I have no problem if you're camping in designated sites, protected by armed rangers trained in wildlife behavior. However, I personally don't think it's my constitutionally protected right to indiscriminately invade the natural habitat of wildlife that my tax dollars protect.
"I tell my kids the same thing when they want to visit Philly." . . . . At the very least, don't camp out on the street.
TPS, we always brought a gun with us when we went backwoods backpacking because, god forbid, a situation arose where we needed to protect ourselves from someoneone or something (although, like I said earlier, I do realize now that a handgun isn't going to stop a bear). It's not like we can call the police to come help us. You're correct that it's statistically a very slight chance that we would wind up in a situation where would need a firearm (we've never needed one). There's also a very little chance that I would run out of water while backpacking but I still put emergency idodine tablets in my gear just in case.
Indiscriminately invade the natural habitat, msl?...or coexist peaceably and in harmony with the natural environment??
"Beeps, the government already decides what health care you get. It licenses and regulates doctors, hospitals, and clinics; decides the threshold of when practice becomes malpractice; approves drugs and regulates testing, and so on. In the end, what choice are you making on your own that doesn't somehow involve the government already making a decision for you?" How about mandated coverage? How about my money being used to fund healthcare for people who aren't willing to pay for it themselves (I'm not talking about disabled/physically unable to work/etc)? How about government officials deciding what care I can and cannot get, based on THEIR assessments? Government doesn't decide what healthcare I get, I do. The government is there to determine if a carrier is viable and able to offer quality coverage within the laws/regulations/etc, much like safety ratings for cars, but they do not decided for me whether I use Blue Cross, Horizon. Amerihealth, etc., much like they don't decide if I buy a Honda, Ford od Mini Cooper. As for government regulating testing, licensing, etc......what else would they do? Let anyone hang a shingle saying they're a doctor? Your examples are juvenile at best. You're basically claiming that absolutely nothing would change with government managed healthcare, which is patently false, and well documented. Explain this to me: Why would any intelliegent, sane person want government to control healthcare when they cannot and will not control themselves? (see recent budget, SS, etc).
Hahahaha, Langx!!!
Lions and tigers and Glocks, oh my...
Comment removed.
"does this change the age old question; 'does a bear poop in the wood'." It will after it sees my Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Magnum!
Cap'n - been camping in the back country for close to 40 years - never had a reason to need a gun yet. If you might need one, it would be seem much more likely that it would be if you're car-camping in RV, KOA-type campgrounds. Seems to me, the fewer people you have around, the less likely you'd need a gun, no? I always feel far safer when I'm in the back country than I do either before or after I got there.
Hey, this law might come in handy. Future annoncenment: The Democratic Gun Club of Montgomery Co. is advising all Democrats to wear international orange vests in Valley Forge National Park...
Announcement, that is.
TPS, I agree with you there. We've always brought one just to be safe, but we've never needed it. And if we're just camping (which usually involved alcohol consumption) instead of backpacking, we leave it at home since rangers are usually closer by. BTW, if you haven't been there, hiking to the top of Mt. Snow in northern Vermont in the summertime is one of the coolest things I've ever seen.
"As for government regulating testing, licensing, etc......what else would they do? Let anyone hang a shingle saying they're a doctor?" . . . . . . LOL! Beeps, but aren't you smarter than gubmint? Can't you exercise your "choice" between quacks and real doctors without the gubmint telling you who's qualified and limiting your choices?
Comment removed.
"db: a handgun isn't going to do anything to protect you against grizzly bear..." A .357 mag or .44 mag will.
"Nice of you to decide for them what they should and should not be afraid of, db. I'm sure they appreciate it greatly." Law enforcement officers often have been against concealed-carry laws, and have continually been proven wrong after the laws were enacted. It is not the perogative of a law enforcement officer to constrain properly-excercised constitutional rights, and the 2nd Amendment is now clearly defined as an individual right after Heller.
" I've done a lot of backwoods camping in almost all the national parks in the country - the one time I was afraid for my life was when some drunk lunatic a few campsites over was shooting off a gun and yelling at his wife. I had to hike out in the middle of the night to summon rangers."
Thanks again for proving the ultimate maxim about gun control laws - the lawless do not follow them. The gun ban in national parks clearly was not an impediment for that idiot, and idiots like that would be packing a gun regardless of this law. A legit CCW holder would not get in that situation for fear of losing his permit - and this law mandates that the respective state CCW laws be followed. This is not carte blanche for anyone to pack a gun in National Parks.
"TPS, I agree with you there. We've always brought one just to be safe, but we've never needed it." I needed my shotgun once out car camping in a very remote 4WD accessible area in Colorado. A black bear came walking over and wasn't even phased by a warning shot in the air. Had to give him a round of rubber buckshot in the backside to get him to change his mind - rubber buckshot given to me by the sheriff of the county where I lived, specifically as non-lethal bear repellant. And a starving black bear can be a very dangerous animal.
Never been to Mt. Snow, Cap'n - I'll be in Vermont in a few weeks, maybe I'll check it out. Have been to Mt. Marcy, however, although not in the winter. BOHICA - No you've proven it,you're certifiable: Mt. Marcy in the dead of winter? Oh - and I spent a couple of weeks canoeing in the Boundary Waters. Funny story about that - before we went in all the locals told us about how many bears there are, and how one had just torn the arm off of a man trying to save his kid or something like that. Freaked us out pretty good. We packed in air horns with us, were constantly on the lookout for signs of bears. In two weeks we didn't even see any scat. I think the locals were having a good time at our expense. Can't say I recommend the Boundary Waters that much, though - because of the unstable weather. We'd be canoeing along - then have to put on the rain gear because it would start raining, and then have to take all the gear off because the sun would come out and we'd start broiling, then it would start raining again. All day long every day. I don't know if the weather is always that unstable, but it was a pain in the *ss. Plus a lot of portages.
Cap'n. I can't believe that you packed a gun into the back country. Think of all the essential back country items you could carry for the same amount of weight - like beer, for example.
""As for government regulating testing, licensing, etc......what else would they do? Let anyone hang a shingle saying they're a doctor?" . . . . . . LOL! Beeps, but aren't you smarter than gubmint? Can't you exercise your "choice" between quacks and real doctors without the gubmint telling you who's qualified and limiting your choices?" Way to dodge the issue, MSL. Explain why we NEED the govt to mandate, regulate, operate and manage the healthcare of our citizens when they cannot: manage social security, manage their budget, etc. Your sarcasm doesn't hide the fact that you are clueless on the subject, but please, indulge me. The issue isn't whether or not one can tell a real doc from a fake, the issue is why do we NEED government involvement in healthcare? And why do you believe that the government can deliver on something like this, even though they seldom deliver on anything else? I'd love to hear you rationale on why government mandated healthcare is better than what we already have.......which is the best, just ask anyone in the system you so ignorantly endorse.
67 comments | View All By Latest | Paginate Comments
About Will Bunch
Will's book: Learn about it here and purchase it here.
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.
E-mail Will by clicking here.
PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...
...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.
Thanks.
- Atrios
- Kiko's House
- Suburban Guerilla
- Booman Tribune
- All-Spin Zone
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Afro-Netizen
- Rowhouse Logic
- MyDD
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- iFlipFlop
- CorrenteWire
- upyernoz
- Tattered Coat
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- Slacktivist
- Citizen Mom
- The Next Mayor
- Philly Future
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Young Philly Politics
- Phillyblog
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Phawker
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Keystone Blog
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- BlankBaby
- Above Average Jane
- Phillyist
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- The Clog
- Josh Marshall
- Daily Kos
- Juan Cole
- Oliver Willis
- Andy Borowitz
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- BuzzFlash
- Raw Story
- Cursor
- Crooks and Liars
- Swing State Project
- Kevin Drum
- Talk Left
- AmericaBlog
- Hullabaloo
- Mad Kane
- Think Progress
- Jesus' General
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Majikthise
- Echidne of the Snakes
- David Sirota
- Glenn Greenwald
- TBogg
- Fire Dog Lake
- Taylor Marsh
- Matthew Yglesias
- Jon Swift
- Drudge Report
- Beer Leaguer
- The 700 Level
- Dick Polman
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Shallow Center
- Philling Station
- Phillies Nation
- A Citizen's Blog
- The Good Phight
- Romenesko
- Editor and Publisher
- Pressthink
- Buzzmachine
- The Inksniffer
- Media Bloodhound
- Eat the Press
- Mickey Kaus
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Blinq
- The Corner
- Instapundit
- Andrew Sullivan
- Free Republic
- James Taranto
- Blonde Sagacity
- ScrappleFace
- Blogorrhea
Blog Roll
Get it now
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
- Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Rentals | Marketplace | Celebrations
Partners:
