Monday, December 15, 2008
Politics / Woods Gunsmoke in the Smokies
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM
"[S]ince Wyoming has limited gun restrictions, visitors could see persons with semi-automatic weapons attending campground programs, hiking down park trails or picnicking along park shorelines at Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks."They added: "Moreover, wildlife will not remain easily viewable when it is being shot at." But what do rangers know? They're a bunch of killjoys. Imagine all the fun with guns we'll have at campsites in the Smokies. Drunken yahoos will blaze away at shadows in the night. If it's just your buddy innocently taking a whiz, well, he should have known better than to leave his tent at 3 in the morning. You'll have to watch for flying bullets, but you'll feel safer in the knowledge that macho gunmen are there to protect you from danger.
Comments (40)
Showing 1-40 of 40
And who knows if any of the park-visiting “drunken Yahoos” you mention will even be capable of “bearing arms” in the sense intended by the framers of the Second Amendment. In early America, the term “capable of bearing arms” was a synonym for “capable of militia service.”
The Second Amendment was written to protect that body of the people capable of bearing arms (or able to bear arms, to use Thomas Jefferson’s words). In military context such as that of the Second Amendment, James Madison and others referred to that body of the people simply as “the people.”
Those persons capable of bearing arms made up the well regulated state militia. They had to satisfy government-set physical and age requirements (e.g., able-bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 45) and they had to be enrolled for service with a specific militia company.
The Second Amendment was written to protect this militia system from infringment by the federal government.
like
dislike
Allowing law-abiding citizens who posses a permit to carry-concealed is a matter of people being able to protect them-selves.
If your drinking while carrying you are breaking the law. Banning guns any where makes people less safe. How many mass shootings occur in "gun-free" areas.
Gun laws are restrictions only restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals will break the laws no matter what.
Allowing law-abiding citizens who posses a permit to carry-concealed is a matter of people being able to protect them-selves.
If your drinking while carrying you are breaking the law. Banning guns any where makes people less safe. How many mass shootings occur in "gun-free" areas.
Gun laws and restrictions only restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals will break the laws no matter what.
Rodney, there aren't a lot of criminals running around in the Smokies. Most of your basic thieves and killers are too lazy to hike into the woods. I've heard two arguments for allowing guns in parks, and both of them are ridiculous.
1. "It's inconvenient for permit holders to unload their guns and put them in the car trunk before they drive through the park." Yeah, must take a minute or two. Give me a break.
2. "You'd need a gun if a black bear attacks you." Bears in the Smokies are timid and will run away at the sight of a human. Only little girls are afraid of bears in the Smokies.
Much ado about nothing. There is concealed carry throughout Tennessee. I've yet to be shot at.
Course I buy crack only through reputable dealers at decent time of day.
Apologies, the Jeff Woods @ 5:51 if me, not Jeff Woods, I was looking at the byline whilst typing. My bad.
Oh, please! This is so absurd. Allowing swaggering assholes to bring guns into a national park is stupid, dangerous and ridiculous. Who knows what would set one of them off? Farting in a shelter and keeping them awake? A wild pig wallowing in a mud hole? Bang, took care a that, damn right. Bears, of course, would now be a reason gun-toters would be willing to hike in a few miles in hopes of baggin' a bruin. Of course, they'd probably also get lost and require expensive rescue. Self-defense is an imbecilic argument for carrying guns in schools, playgrounds, national parks, and other places where people like to go to avoid awful people.
Oh please. This is the same tired fear-mongering you heard time and time again when states were reforming their concealed carry laws. It didn't result in pointless gun fights then and it won't happen now.
I have carried a firearm EVERYWHERE where it is legal for me to do so. I carry in Wal-Mart and the gas station. I carry on the city streets. I carry in my car. Basically, I have at least one firearm on me most of the time. There are thousands of others that do the exact same thing. This is the same argument we herd before states passed concealed carry laws. There has not been any massive increase in violence in any state by those legally allowed to carry. In fact, the violent crime rate has decreased in the areas where we are allowed to protect ourselves. The same thing will happen in our national parks. I have never had a need for it (thank God) but, I am very glad that I have the means to protect myself and my family if I had to. I have been in a situation where a gun was pulled on me when I was a paramedic and it is not a pleasant experience. I never want to be in a position again where I am unable to protect me. It is not the policeman's' responsibility to protect me as an individual. The supreme court has already ruled on that. Besides, if I ever had to protect me or my family, the police would most likely be a few minutes away at best and not be able to protect me. They would most likely have at leas an assault or worse to investigate. The criminals show no regard for the law. Our national parks are increasing in dangerous crimes due to the criminals knowing that the law abiding citizen is unable to fight back. It is great to see this law passed. I just pray that the anti-gun liberal nuts to not take away our right to self protection.
To all of you fear mongers: Show me any statistics on people that CCW legally anywhere that has resulted in what you so fear. Law abiding citizens do not go around shooting whenever they feel like it or get pissed off. The same will hold true for parks. If parks were completely safe and a firearm wasn't needed, why do the park rangers carry sidearms? They do so for their safety. There is no such place that is 100 % safe. We also as law-abiding citizens should be allowed to CCW for our safety and our families safety. Crime can and does happen anywhere at anytime. If you want to be a victim, fine, that is your choice. Don't force your victimhood on me and my family because of your irrational fear of firearms.
You all make me very afraid. I hate to think about every drunk in the bar packing heat. That's not fear-mongering. It's rational apprehension. What are you guys so dang afraid of?
Stella, your "apprehensions" are not rational. We who CCW are not afraid. We are prepared and take our safety and our families safety very seriously. In TN, you cannot legally carry into a bar or anywhere that servers alcohol. If people are doing that, it is illegal and therefore they are not the law abiding CCWers you seem to fear. Most states that allow CCW, do not allow people to do that while drinking or intoxicated. Some states do allow it, but for the most part they do not. Like I asked earlier. Give me one example of what you fear happening. It will be no different in a park than anywhere else CCW is allowed.
I find it amusing that you are afraid of law abiding citizens who CCW, but are not afraid of the criminals or other people up to no good that do go to parks or anywhere else in public. That's who you should be afraid of and not the law abiding CCWers.
I'm afraid of people who carry guns who think the word "heard" is spelled "herd."
Don't force your victimhood on me and my family because of your irrational fear of firearms.
Please don't force my victimhood on me and my family because of your irrational love of firearms.
Mr. Pink, please give me an example, not a fear or feeling, where this victimhood has been forced on you and your family. It is not an irrational love of firearms for most people that CCW legally. It is a tool that is used for the safety of self and family. It isn't the only tool, but one of many.
You took the words right out of my mouth: Please give me an example, not a fear or a feeling, where this victimhood has been forced on you and your family.
Whoflungdo, you speak of fear-mongering, and that's the very thing you are doing now--bolstering your argument by blowing the day-to-day danger out there entirely out of proportion. We're all victims if we don't carry a sidearm 24/7? Come on.
"Crime can and does happen anywhere at anytime. If you want to be a victim, fine, that is your choice."
Mr. Pink: Why won't you answer a direct question? I've addressed your points directly. If you will not, we will just have to agree to disagree and not continue this debate. There are several examples of where "Gun-Free Zones" have been targets of those up to no good because they are gun free. The recent church shootings, the Amish School shootings, the Virginia Tech shootings. Show me one example of a drunk person carrying legally that has shot or harmed an innocent person with his legally Concealed Carry Weapon.
Mr. Hargrove: I disagree. It has been statistically proven that places that allow CCW, violent crime has gone down. How have I blown anything out of proportion. I've only stated that crime can and does happen any time, any where. I'm not advocating that you carry a firearm 24/7. I'm just advocating that I be allowed to carry whenever and wherever it is legal for me to do so for my safety and the safety of my family. I never stated or implied that we are all victims if we do not carry 24/7 or implied that. My statement does imply that we "could" be a victim at anytime and anywhere. You accuse me of fear-mongering, but your hyperbole is not my statement or sentiment. By your statement are you implying that is okay to fear-monger against Concealed Carry, but not okay to fear-monger for it? I do not believe what you call fear-mongering by me is fear-mongering. It is based on actual evidence. The Blood running in the streets and drunks shooting up the place is not. I've asked for examples and so far there are none.
I did answer your question directly. I asked for one example of how this victimhood affected you and your family, and instead you cite Virginia Tech and the Amish shootings. Which proves my point: How exactly do you remove "fear and feeling" from any discussion of gun regulation, when that's exactly what motivates people to purchase guns *and* to want them regulated?
Wonderful news from history released today (and every day); all criminals who don't give a flip about law and order are able to walk around freely any time any where with loaded guns looking for victims who are prohibited from carrying guns by law.
On another note, many people realized today that most criminals also use alcohol and drugs heavily and constantly while most law abiding citizens exhibit civilized behavior.
As counterpoint to the NRA-talking-point-cut-and paste blather, I offer this from the Brady Center. See, I can cut and paste too! It's such fun! I could also offer specific examples of children being accidentally killed by playing with legal handguns or women being killed by their husbands or lovers with legal handguns or the kids at Columbine or the shooter at Virginia Tech who had legally purchased firearms but the list gets too long. You see, you may believe, perhaps accurately, that you're sane and always sober. I don't believe that either are a requirement for obtaining a CCW permit.
This link also cites statistics that refute your assertion that liberalizing CCW laws leads to reduced crime rates.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw
It is easily noted that arguments posed by liberal one-siders like the Brady folks mis-state facts knowingly; attempting to mislead readers into thinking that cities with criminals who carry guns while law abiding citizens don't are somehow safer.
if only the NRA could come up with a firearm that only kills unborn babies, then pink and woods and the rest of you jackasses could find some common ground
Mr Pink: My eyes are getting older so I went back to look through your posts. You have not answered my question. You only reversed it and asked me a question. I have answered your question. Until you can directly answer mine, I am through with this discussion.
Stella: The Brady "facts" are just as disingenuous as you are attempting to be. The "facts" they are using are over 10 years old. The 30,000 deaths from the CDC has been debunked. The majority of those deaths are gang on gang violence. They are not numbers from legal gun owners using their firearms wrongfully. This discussion was started with the assumption that people that legally own firearms and can legally conceal them will use them in a drunken rage in a State or National park. You have yet to show any facts or similar situations that fit with your fears. You throw up statistics that have been debunked and proven to be inaccurate. The examples you site in your previous post are mostly illegal uses of firearms. For each example you stated, there have been many examples where similar crimes have been prevented or thwarted by a legally armed person. Luke Woodham in Pearl, MS was stopped by the assistant principal when he went and got his gun out of his car and confronted and stopped Woodham. Woodham was headed to the Jr. High to rack up additional body counts. The Texas school shooting back in the 60's was stopped by students retrieving their rifles from their vehicles and pinning down the gunman with gun fire until a LEO was able to climb up the bell tower and shoot him to stop the carnage. If you would like to get back on topic, I will be happy to continue to discuss this with you, until then I am through with you as well.
Why do the anti gunners feel that those of us who choose to be responsible for our own safety are somehow criminal?
Why in the world would a law abiding citizen, who has been granted a license to legally carry a sidearm, go around and recklessly shoot at anything that moves, human or wildlife? Or shoot at shadows? That makes no sense to me, a law abiding citizen. Why would I, or anybody else, risk loosing my freedom doing such irresponsible acts?
When a person gets their drivers license, who goes out and drives recklessly just because they can legally drive an automobile? Nobody, if they want to keep their license and freedom. And yet, automobiles kill tens of thousands of more people every year than firearms!
Why would anybody go into the Smokies unarmed? Crime happens everywhere, and in public places. How much more likely is a crime to happen in a virtually uninhabited place, where there is practically no policing? One park ranger for every 100,000 plus visitors?! And thousands upon thousands of acres?! And yet, us CCW'ers are insane because we take the necessary steps to provide for our own protection.
Only one person is responsible for our safety. It's not the police, as has been ruled via the Supreme Court. And it certainly isn't park rangers, who are even more scarce. Our safety is our own personal responsibility.
We don't wear our seat belts because we are paranoid or hope to get in a car accident. We don't own fire extinguishers because we are paranoid or hope our home catches fire. We don't wear a life jacket while out on the lake because we hope our boat sinks. We do these things because we care about our safety and have prepared for the unknown.
It's no different for those of us who choose to carry a sidearm. We take our safety and our families safety very seriously. Whether you agree with me or not, nobody can tell me, you, or anybody that they don't have the right to protect themselves. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment, and God Bless America!
I am a TN carry permit holder and carry from the time that I get out of the shower till the time that I go to bed at night. It's not because of fear but being prepared. One never knows when you will become a victim. I have been carrying for over 2 years and no one has ever even seen my gun at least that I am aware of.
Gun control should not be about where or when licensed permit holders can carry their gun. There are very few crimes committed by permit holders. We are not the ones to fear. It's the criminals. They could not care less about laws that say they can't carry here or there. They actually want stricter gun control laws. It means that they can practice their trade without the fear of being shot and losing their life.
Gun control laws should come in the form of strict penalties for anyone committing crimes while carrying/using a gun. The current penalties are not keeping these repeat offenders off of our streets. We need mandatory sentencing that puts these thugs away for many, many years even for 1st offenders. Lock away the punk that robs the c-store with a gun for 25+ years with NO early release. Some will still take the chance but more will stop and think about it before they do the crime.
Penalize the ones who deserve it. Not those of us who want to exercise out 2A rights. There is no need to fear a carry permit holder.
Sorry Jack,
The Second Amendment protects the pre-existing right of the individual citizen to “keep and bear arms”; just as the other nine (2) Amendments protect individual citizens (pre-existing) rights.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The American War of Independence was a bloody eight (8) year war. Afterwhich the founders of the new nation, independent of Great Brittian, understood that the greatest threat to the new nation was from within. They understood that formation of tyranical government, much like the government from which that fought for independence, was (is) the greatest threat to a nation of free people.
The purpose of the government is primarily protection from foreign and domenstic enemies. Hence the need for a militia. However, this militia is not be used against the citizens; and in order to assure that the citizens are not oppressed by the “government”, it is the preservation of the right of the citizens to be armed which is protected by the Second Amendment.
There are several reasons why the argument that the Second Amendment protects the right of the National Guard or other State, Local or Federal militia is just silly.
1. All of the other Amendments apply to the individual. Does only the US Government Printing Office have the right of free speech?
2. Do you really think that the Founders thought it would be necessary to pass an Amendment which stated that the military has the “right” to be armed?
3. If the Second Amendment protects the National Guard, why was the NG founded over 100 years after the ratification of the Bill Of Rights.
4. Check your history, there were proposals to write an amendmant which did not protect the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms”, but only informal milita groups, however, these proposals were rejected.
Woods said:
I'm afraid of people who carry guns who think the word "heard" is spelled "herd."
Hmm…, seems like you have an irrational fear of misspelling to go along with your irrational fear of firearms.
Woods said:
Rodney, there aren't a lot of criminals running around in the Smokies. Most of your basic thieves and killers are too lazy to hike into the woods. I've heard two arguments for allowing guns in parks, and both of them are ridiculous.
1. "It's inconvenient for permit holders to unload their guns and put them in the car trunk before they drive through the park." Yeah, must take a minute or two. Give me a break.
2. "You'd need a gun if a black bear attacks you." Bears in the Smokies are timid and will run away at the sight of a human. Only little girls are afraid of bears in the Smokies.
======
1. Maybe MOST of your basic theives and murders (and rapists) are too lazy to go hiking in the woods, but not ALL of them; as there have been several incidents of this nature in National Parks in the last few years. From 2002-2006:63 Murders, 240 rapes, 240 kidnappings, 309 robberies, 1277 assaults……
2.Yes, bear attacks are rare, and yes, children are at greater risk (thank you for making fun of this fact). But other amimals attack as well, I was threatened by two large feral dogs, and defended myself by throwing rocks.
3. It’s not the inconvience of unloading a weapon when going into the park. It is being seen doing so. You remove your weapon, unload it, put it in the trunk and go hiking. Now you may get to be a victim of one of the 4,000, or so, thefts in National Parks per years, and there is a firearm in the hands of a thief, rather than a law-abiding citizen.
4. You walk around with handgun carry permit holders everyday - malls, movies, stores, on the street. There is no "blood in the streets" by HCP holders. Statistically, permit holders are five (5) times as "law abiding" as the average citizen, and twice as "law abiding" as average law enforcement, and hundreds of times as law abiding as Memphis politicians. We are not drunks shooting at shadows - we are engineers, lawyers, pilots, accountants, stock brokers, carpenters, etc. - who pay taxes, obey laws and contribute to society.
Woods said:
"Bears in the Smokies are timid and will run away at the sight of a human. Only little girls are afraid of bears in the Smokies."
It wasn't long ago in 2006 that a black bear, in Tennessee's Cherokee National Forest, killed a six year old girl and mauled her mother and 2 y/o brother. There are many other instances where black bears have attacked humans. As I said before, going into any national forest, or anywhere, unarmed is insanity.
You guys watch way too many action movies. Do you really think an attack will come when you are ready and waiting? If someone decides to mug you, or whatever, odds are they won't wait for a fair draw, Eastwood style. There'll be a gun to your head before you know it. And your gun, unfortunately, will remain securely in its holster. Should you go for that gun, the assailant will certainly shoot you in the face. My argument is: There are very few instances when that pistol will be drawn in time to do you any good.
For cryin' out loud!! CCW is legal in some form or another in 48 out of 50 states. IF it was a problem of any consequence in any one of those states, don't you think the data and headlines would be easy to come by?
So those who are opposed to legal CCW, stop with the pessimism and conjecture already, show me the data that supports your contentions!!
Where's the beef?
Hargrove said:
"If someone decides to mug you, or whatever, odds are they won't wait for a fair draw, Eastwood style. There'll be a gun to your head before you know it. And your gun, unfortunately, will remain securely in its holster. Should you go for that gun, the assailant will certainly shoot you in the face. My argument is: There are very few instances when that pistol will be drawn in time to do you any good."
It's called situational awareness, Hargrove, and you should maintain it at all times, and even more so when you're out and about. Doing so will help you avoid a situation like that to begin with 99% of the time.
So it goes without saying that your comment on not being able to draw your pistol in time to do any good is completely baseless. If someone is coming at you and you cannot escape, you don't wait till they're right up on you to draw, you ready yourself before they have a chance to get that close.
Any of you clowns pull out a gun anywhere near me or my friends in the Smokies, and you'll get a real lesson in situational awareness because we'll kick your ass.
Right.... Referring to anyone who carries concealed as clowns says a lot about your morbid view of reality. And lets see, hippies running around in the Smokies looking to kick some ass...what better reason to carry!
"Woods said:
Any of you clowns pull out a gun anywhere near me or my friends in the Smokies, and you'll get a real lesson in situational awareness because we'll kick your ass."
Mr. Woods. I'm sure you have been around several people carrying a gun if you live anywhere in TN. You just didn't know it. If a CCWer were to have to pull out his/her firearm, it would be because the situation warranted it. I doubt very seriously you and your "ass kicking" friends will be doing much of anything other than cowering and hiding while the CCWer protected him/her self or their loved ones.
So I guess rangers, and other law enforcement personnel, are 'paranoid gun carrying people' that you worry about...
I don't understand why having a piece of equipment makes me paranoid or dangerous. Does my down vest mean that I'm paranoid of hypothermia, or does it mean that I'm properly prepared? "Ya'll better watch that boy. He's afraid 'o freezin' ta death. Us? Why we're wearin' cotton. When's the last time anybody froze to death? Why, it almost never happens!"
Think about two simple, unrelated statistics:
The vast majority of people who die in house fires die in houses where there are no smoke or fire detectors.
The vast majority of people who get mauled by big critters are carrying no equipment to defend against big critters.
Those that would argue that such occurrences are so rare that it isn't worth preparing against, must also argue that house fires are so rare, that only paranoid fire freaks would have smoke alarms.
if one asked me whther I want that one parade around with a gun in a parknear my home I would say NO for sure... this is organised I think because of people became to aggressive, this is a work for psychologists..
Oh my god, it has been mass chaos in the smokies! There is a steady stream of gunfire at all hours of the day and night. I can't tell if I am in Somalia or a Mad Max movie. I can't believe anyone has survived.
Surprise surprise, individuals exercising CCW rights are doing what they do everywhere else in the state. Being quiet, respectful, and minding their own business, while also protecting themselves.
