More Guns in More Places Equals More Danger
By Paul Helmke, Brady Campaign President
The U.S. House vote to allow loaded firearms to be carried both concealed and openly in most of our national parks, in urban areas as well as rural areas, moves us one step closer to reversing the safety-oriented gun responsibility rule adopted early in the Reagan Administration.
This vote ignored the concerns of law enforcement officials responsible for safety in our national parks as well as the vast majority of park users who submitted comments in opposition to changing these rules.
By attaching this language to an unrelated bill designed to protect credit card users, those pushing more guns in more places have insulated themselves from any possible chance of a veto by President Obama.
When he signs this bill, however, we call on President Obama to re-affirm his long-standing concern about more guns being carried in more places, and promise the American people that he will be taking steps in the near future to help reduce the gun violence in this country that unnecessarily touches so many each year.
The Supreme Court has said that we have gun rights, but has also said those rights are ‘not unlimited.’ Let's now start talking about gun responsibilities as well as gun rights.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
More danger for criminal that is.
I am soo afraid to go into my kitchen, my mother in law got us a knife set for our wedding , now that thing sits on my counter just waiting to cut me! Please somebody save me!
You made me laugh. Thanks.
As more and more people carry in National Parks and there isn't an epidemic of gun-related violence , this argument continues to falter.
It is a "red herring" of what the issue really is about...not increased gun violence , but increased freedom of responsible firearm owners.
Perhaps we need to start requiring a course in logic and argument in elementary school ? Perhaps then we could have a reasoned discourse of opposing views instead of appeals of unwarranted emotional verbiage.
And just think of the bandwidth and online it would save!
jlkjlkj
I carry a concealed handgun and I was responsible enough to get a permit to carry (although I disagree that I should have to "ask to protect myself" by getting a permit). Putting that aside, I carry to protect myself and others with me should I come face-to-face with someone intent on harming others. All you folks who think we should lay our sidearms down at the alter of the government, read my lips!! One day, it may be me or someone just like me, that saves your " guns kill" ass from someone wanting to anniliate you with their gun that they do no carry legally. So, why don't all you whimpering folks start prodding your legislators into going after the ILLEGAL guns and leave us that follow the rules alone, PLEASE??
More Guns in More Places Equals More Danger?
I suppose that is why there are so many mass murders at Gun Shows, NRA Conventions and Police Stations? And nobody is ever murdered in "Gun Free" Zones are they?
Its about time congress starts allowing us citizens the right to defend our selves!
You only have to look:
Where are there more shootings?
A. Gun Stores
B. Gun free zones like schools
Only an idiot thinks that no guns equals safety
The Brady Campaign is anti-Constitution and anti-American.
It shouldn't be allowed to exist.
The same is true of the deceptively-named Freedom States Alliance.
But in America, even a traitorous organization has a right to exist.
Just like I have a right to firearms anywhere I want.
So deal with it.
While I agree that the Brady Campaign is anti- constitution , at least when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I think it's a stretch to call them anti-American.
I am a legal carry permit holder, so I staunchly defend my 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and defend myself anywhere and everywhere. However, one of this country's greatest traits is the right to disagree with the government openly with no consequence (as long as you keep it peaceful, of course). I will therefore counter their rhetoric with facts all day long, but I wouldn't call them unAmerican no matter how loony they get.
The Brady people are typical of many others. Ignorant, but passionate. They have a right under our constitution to campaign for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I am far more concerned with judges who allow them to influence their decisions (read empathy) so that the 2nd amendment is not upheld. Our empathetic judges can see words that don't appear on paper when it comes to privacy issues that don't exist in the words of the constitution, but can ignore the plain language of the 2nd amendment. Don't worry about the Bradyites, work to get politicians elected who will appoint judges who can read.
Why is it so hard to understand that criminals couldn't care less more gun laws ?
The ones we have now don't work effectively, so why add more ineffective laws to the list?
Case in point:
In my home town, we just had a murder this past Sunday, where a former
'boyfriend' took a 35 year old female hostage and ended up killing her with a handgun.
His record showed that he had not one, but two felony convictions, one in the early 90`s and another in 2006.
Do you honestly think the thought crossed his mind, 'Oh dear, I'm a convicted felon! I can't carry a gun or I might get into trouble!'
OF course not.
The only people who actually abide by the laws are the orderly people who want to protect themselves and their families.
I have held a concealed carry permit for 20 years. I have never once even considered perpetrating a crime with my concealed weapon.
Why do you think that is?
So they can keep piling up more unconstitutional laws.
Added to that deception is their cynical naming strategy.
They put words like "freedom," "safety" and "hunter" in their names, because they assume we're all idiots who will be fooled and vote for gungrabbers like Obama, hence their "need" to control us and strip our rights.
The argument that we have problems because we don't enforce the existing laws is a dangerous trap. The NRA position seems to be "some guns are dangerous, but others are not, we should ban the dangerous ones and strictly enforce those bans, but keep sporting firearms legal ." This is wrong for two reasons. The first is that all guns are dangerous. It is not difficult to ruin someone's day with a .22. This rhetoric leads to a flippant attitude around deadly weapons. The second reason is that some guns are REALLY dangerous, and that's exactly why we need them. (Surprised you, didn't I?) The Founding Fathers didn't consider sport shooting and hunting to be of such value that it required a Constitutional Amendment. They felt no need to similarly protect other passtimes. That Amendment was passed because they realized that without arms the people would have no means by which to overthrow the government, and no means to force them to follow the rest of the Constitution. It's not about safety, or hunting, or sport. It's about protecting the right of the people to armed insurrection against a tyrranical government. As such, the "...Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means that our RIGHT to keep AND bear (not just lock unloaded in a safe with trigger guard, but actually carry around with us) ARMS (not just certain guns that the government decides are safe for us to have, but all arms, from a Saturday Night Special to military -grade C4) shall not be infringed (limited in any way). Therefore, the NRA's argument that we "need to enforce the laws on the books," is rubbish. There should be no laws on the books.
The NRA does not advocate any firearms bans. They advocate safe and responsible ownership of all types of arms and education and training to utilize them safely and effectively.
And I disagree that there should be no laws on the books. There should be laws about the ILLEGAL use of firearms and consequences for those uses. And those laws should be strictly enforced.
You said:
"And I disagree that there should be no laws on the books. There should be laws about the ILLEGAL use of firearms and consequences for those uses. And those laws should be strictly enforced."
But when you look at the actual crimes: assault, murder , etc. you see that there are already laws punishing such acts. Is killing someone with a gun somehow worse than killing them with a rock? If you ask me, the thought of killing someone by bludgeoning them to a wet and messy death seems far more nefarious and evil than bending a finger at 17 yds. Yet the finger-bending has attached to it a far stiffer sentence. Yet the opposition calls these laws "common-sense". And we buy into it? Really?
"But, what about acquisition laws for felons or the mentally unstable?" you might ask.
I am on the fence here. I suppose that a person who has been convicted of killing someone else, if they failed rehabilitation, should be barred from gun ownership. But what about the rehabilitated felon? Do they deserve to lose constitutionally protected rights?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
...but there still needs to be laws for illegal activities connected with guns . This allows you to bring more charges against an offender and keep them in jail longer. This kind of tactic is used all over the place. For example, if you use your computer to commit fraud, and purchase something illegally using someone else's credit card information, the fact that you use a computer is going to add additional charges under the Cyber Crimes Act of 2001. It simply gives the DA more tools with which to prosecute felonious acts.
One thing that really peeved me this last election is the hunters out there.
1. There is no constitutional right to hunt. It's about the right to bear arms in sufficient quantity and firepower that a mass of the people who need to resist tyranny can do so.
2. The hunters overwhelmingly voted for Obama because they bought his line about being pro-Second Amendment. They were either ignorant or weren't paying attention, because his hostility to the Constitution is plain to see.
The idiocy of this is apparent. "Well, Obama's not going to come after my long gun, and I've got mine and I'm all I care about."
There is no country on this earth that banned and confiscated handguns that didn't also ban and confiscate rifles. Hunting came right after, as we're seeing in the UK now.
I'm sick and tired of seeing the Republican party painted as radical right-wingers on the mainstream media , and as protectors of liberty on Fox News. What a joke! The Republicans are just as socialist as the Dems, but paint themselves as defenders of the Constitution and promoters of "limited government" (as if such a thing were possible). The Democrats make the whole thing worse by painting them as radicals, when they are anything but. Hopefully President Obama screws up quick enough that the people haven't forgotten the miserable failures of Bush, and just decide to get rid of them all. They keep painting this picture of Red vs. Blue, when really they're just two sides of the same statist coin. The real conflict in this country is between Statist and Libertarian, but the major political parties obfuscate this point to get away with blatant Statism that would never get by the people honestly. Hopefully Ol' Barry goes too far and shocks some sense into people. Historically, high food prices has been enough to do the trick, and that's coming quick.
One reason for the lack of enforcement is that there are too many laws now to enforce. For instance, how many people are aware that a misdemeanor committed thirty or more years ago makes it a felony for the rest of your life, punishable by a mandatory five years in prison, to own so much as a single cartridge of ammunition? That's only one example of how the 20,000+ gun laws in this nation can make unknowing criminals of a large segment of our population. If every current gun law was enforced, if every violator was charged, our courts would be backlogged for years, and there would not be enough jails and prisons in the entire country to hold those convicted.
And why let our government be run by the same trial lawyers who put the same dangerous criminals back onto the streets?
The same ones who put Obama into office, by the way.
It's a familiar argument and a convenient excuse, "we have so many laws we can't enforce them, so let's just pass a federal ban on them all."
Tyranny is always simple.
This statement has no basis in fact. As a matter of fact, the opposite has been shown to be true in study after study.
According to the FBI's crime statistics, counties that do away with bans on citizens' right to carry see an average 8.5% drop in violent crime rates.
Neither the Brady Campaign or any other pro or anti gun group has been able to show a direct correlation in gun control and reduced crime rates. In fact, the opposite is almost always the case.
In addition, legal carry permit holders have a crime rate that is far below that of the general population.
Base your decisions on fact rather than fear and prejudice. In the words of Al Gore, "The debate is over." Only this debate isn't based on covering up the facts. It's based on exposing them.
Where does it say" Sorry, you can't protect yourself within the boundaries of any national park"? If you look at the way Obama and his henchmen are throwing away money , and the way the people are responding by buying up all the weapons and ammunition they can afford, Guns in parks is just the beginning movement that the american people are starting with. We got a guy in the white house with a gift for gab, but he won't keep fooling people for long.
For one Obama is staying Way far away from the gun debate with good reason. He knows better. It would draw the focus away from the things he actually wants to get done, which is exactly what the GOP wants so they can paint him as a failure and get a right wing back in the white house.
He's carefully avoiding intractable issues like gun law , until more pressing and solvable issues are taken care of.
For two, capitalizing on knee jerk reactions to further polarize voters it was Republicans who sponsored a bill attempting to reinstate the assault weapons ban.
Specifically...
H.R. 6257: 110th Congress Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL18]
Rep. Michael Ferguson [R-NJ7]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT4]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257