Well Mr. Sugarmann, I guess Tom Coburn IS my man!
As early as next week, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is expected to offer an amendment to S. 2483, the "National Forests, Parks, Public Land, and Reclamation Projects Authorization Act of 2007," that would stop the enforcement of park service regulations requiring gun owners to keep their guns unloaded and stored while visiting most areas of America's National Park System.
So, you don't want a lawful gun owner to be able to carry his gun onto property that his taxes paid for? I fail to see your angle.
Under the Coburn Amendment, state law would supercede the current federal regulations. So, if you have a concealed carry license that's valid in the state(s) the national park you're visiting is located, go ahead, load up that handgun and carry it around your campsite, over to Old Faithful, back to the general store for a six-pack of beer, and then back to your tent. If state law allows you to hang an AK-47 off your truck's gun rack, and then march with the loaded assault rifle along a backwoods trail to say "hi" to the bird watchers and flower gazers, all the better.
Oh NOW I get it! You're the type of person that likes to stereotype. Well, I'm pretty good at that stereotype type of thing, so let me make a few stereotypes of my own won't you?
So, if someone's attacked by a criminal or a wild animal, are we to be protected by Democrats and the anti-gun folks? Oh wait, they can't, because they are spineless and weak. They love nothing more then to sit by idly and do nothing while something is going on. Then they like to turn around and critique what went on and how they would have done things differently.
"Well I would have simply run away from the cougar!" Yes, I'm sure you would have.
But wait! Mr. Sugarmann wants to bring up his idea of "valid points". Well let's let him have the floor!
The effect the amendment would have on heavily-trafficked national parks, national shrines, and other national "icons" (oh, say, like the Statue of Liberty) that are located in urban areas that allow the carrying of concealed weapons.
Where's the problem? These are guns being carried by law abiding citizens. Who care's if it's an "urban" area or not? I fail to see your point here.
The increased opportunity for vandalism and other dangerous activities by "slob shooters" who would now have their loaded weapons ready.
It's called "vandalism" and "unlawful discharge of a firearm", both of them are crimes and should be punished accordingly. We already have laws on the books for things like this. If someone does it with people nearby, they get the added charge of reckless endangerment or even up to attempted assault in the first degree.
If it is no longer illegal to have loaded weapons in parks, the number of charges that can be brought against those involved in illegal drug operations will be reduced.
That is far and away the dumbest thing I've read in a long time, and I've read Hillary Clinton's speeches. So if someone is dealing drugs, and they can't be charged with the gun charge anymore, then that offsets the effects this law has on law abiding citizens?
We aren't speaking about the illegal drug trade here Mr. Sugarmann, we're talking about people being able to bring their guns to a national park, which they paid for, to defend themselves against criminals and wild animals.
Even your readers disagree with you:
1) Criminals do what they want regardless of laws. They don't obey them.
2) Criminals and psychos prey on those weaker than themselves. This usually includes the unarmed. That's why Gun Free Zones are shot up more often than police stations, gun shows, NRA offices, shooting ranges and gun stores.
3) Most of what the police do is reactive. They respond after a crime has been committed. Their response could take minutes, hours or they might never show up (New Orleans/Katrina). Regardless of when they show up you are already a victim. Hopefully you are not a fatality.
4) There are between 70-80 million gun owners in the US. The VAST majority are good, law abiding citizens. Mixing guns, trees and a hiking trail is not going to change that.
5) Calling 911 is more of an option for those in cities rather than someone hiking 6 hours back in the mountains.
The simple fact is that I, as a law abiding citizen, should be able to take my legally owned weapon anywhere I want. I am not harming anyone, and I am another line of defense in case something awry happens.
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment