Summer Fun with Guns-a Satirical Take on Guns in National Parks

Dear Friends:
Below is a blog from Susan Swartz, www.juicytomatoes.com,
on the scary and also crazy prospect of having guns in national parks.
The law goes into effect in February, 2010, unless we do something
about it.

Summer Fun with Guns
May 29th, 2009 © by Susan Swartz

Now that our national obsession with guns is linked to our national love for
the great outdoors, with Congress voting to allow loaded and concealed weapons
in our national parks, I began thinking what the summer might hold in terms of
fun with guns.

Imagine how we could market this new recreational combo.

Looking
for a summer thrill? We have parks that really kill.
Do you need a place to
stay? Call your local N.R.A.
Pack a pistol in your pack, U.S. law has got
your back.

On the trail it’s really fun, scaring strangers with your gun.
If the
neighbors make a noise, silence them with big boy toys.
Go ahead, give all a
fright, it’s your constitutional right.

Bring the sutures, bandage rolls, iodine for bullet holes.
Bug spray,
sunscreen, snakebite kit won’t protect you from a hit.

Okay, campers, you get the idea? Now, let’s consider the possibilities if the
all-powerful gun lobby, the Great Horned Shooters of America, given their
triumph over common sense, decide to flex their muscle even more and push to
make firearms legal in all the other places Americans go to rest and
recreate.

Do you need one in your car? Would you take one to a
bar?
Would you reload at the mall? Or in a museum hall?
Going to an
outdoor theater? Don’t forget to take your heater.

Would you pack one at the pool? How about at summer school?
Draw your gun
at seventh inning if you hate the team a’winning.

When you’re sunning at the beach, keep an Uzi within reach.
Summer dances
on the green viewed through cross-hairs can be keen.

Love that holster on your bike. Do they make one for a trike?
Stash a
sidearm in your basket, bring home Grandpa in a casket.

I know this sounds as sing-song silly as a Dr. Seuss rhyme. But who would
have thought that the grown-ups who are leading our country, with our epidemic
of murder rampages, would agree to make it legal to take a loaded firearm to
Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or your favorite national seashore.

We go to our parks for fun, not so we can scream and run.
Outdoor’s
made for peace and quiet, not for those who cause a riot.

Mother Nature’s hit the floor since the sniper moved next door.
Smokey
Bear is worried too. He’d feel safer at the zoo.

FYI, see my essay on sensible gun policy at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ginnystognermcdavid/gGxnSr

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

fwiw, what is so special about a NATIONAL PARK vs. a STATE or COUNTY park. why should the latter be places where the law abiding are stripped of their rights, all to placate mediocre poets who think it's "scary"

This poem is a direct response the the amendment added to the Credit Card Bill that passed Congress the end of May. It can just as easily apply to local and state parks as well (minus the grizzly bear, of course.) Since this is a nation-wide blog I'm trying to stick a national issue, not the myriad of different local & state laws related to gun-toting in various parks.

I recommend studying up on the subject before attempting to lampoon it.

Ginny, I noticed you ran for office last year. And lost.

The other parts of your election platform were quite good.

Unfortunately, your stance on guns is regressive and ill-informed, which is probably what cost you the election.

Here's a protip for use in your next campaign:

Insulting the intelligence of a large chunk of the electorate, and claiming that an item that 99% of them
own and use without untoward effect is a public menace will only help your opponent(s) on Election Day.

The statistic is more like 40% of US households own guns. Ours happens to one of them. And no, my family doesn't feel threatened by more sensible gun policy that holds gun owners accountable for their possessions!

States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada Have Highest Gun Death Rates

Washington, DC—States with higher gun ownership rates and weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2006 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000 for 2006. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. (See chart below for top and bottom five states. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.

And that's when the overall violent crime statistics don't support your argument. The VPC excels at cherry-picking data that supports what they want you to believe while obfuscating data that indicates alternative explanations.

Let's take this "study"; the obvious implication is that laxer gun laws cause more gun deaths, right? So how come Vermont, Utah and Washington have lower gun death rates than Maryland and California, despite having less stringent gun laws?

One fundamental rule of solid scientific use of statistics is that correlation does not equal causation. In this case, there's not even solid correlation.

The VPC themselves, admit in their own documents, that they, for lack of a better term, are "preying" on YOUR, lack of knowledge, and understanding about guns...

But hey, don't take MY word for it, take THEIRS....



http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

They are willing to "take advantage of your confusion", to further their agenda...You should be angry as hell at them.

See, they are banking on "the public's confusion".... that tells you something about them now don't it? To bad the they don't want to help you with the "Confusion"...

But if you stick around, with us, your fellow Democrats, WE WILL...

Anything coming from the VPC is deeply suspect, and usually found to be incredibly misleading.

I'm confused.

You claim to be a firearm owner, which, presumably, indicates that you support firearm ownership.

But then you cite a VPC article that claims that more guns = more gun deaths, which would indicate that you are for less firearm ownership.

Which is it?

I ask this question because the VPC is not exactly seen as a credible unbiased resource by those who hold the pro gun view. I am not flaming you just educating you on this fact as you may not be aware of it. Think of it as the equivalent of me using data provided from the NRA or Gun Owners of America. I think you would take me to task on the validity and nature of bias of said information, as you should.

Since the mid-1990s the number of firearms in civilian hands has increased by about 100,000,000. During that same time, violent crime (including murder) has gone down significantly; ergo, "more guns = more gun deaths" does not hold prima facie.

We on Democratic Underground would be well advised to quit letting a GOP-founded, GOP-led pressure group take the lead on gun control issues -- it gives the GOP a "win-win" situation.

...it's like saying "States with more cars have more car related deaths." But that's NOT the argument that needs to be looked at. What needs to be looked at is if states with more guns have a higher VIOLENT CRIME rate. That group won't do that study, because they KNOW they'll find out something they do NOT want to hear.

EDIT: I just noticed several other people made the same argument I just did, and did a better job of it :) . So here's too you, folks!

:toast:

"a large chunk of the electorate, and claiming that an item that 99% of them"

bold mine

If my English is good, I read the 99% referring to a 'large chunk of the electorate', not 'the electorate'.

I trust you and your household are in the stated majority of the +/- 40% of Americans who own guns and do so safely.

Your problem is that, while your platform was otherwise excellent, your public pronouncements on guns
come across to those informed about guns and gun laws as largely ill-informed, fear mongering, or flat out
wrong.

In other words:

When you say what you do about guns and gun laws, you make people who are knowledgeable about them (a
very large chunk of the electorate in Texas, I would venture), question your judgement- "If she's wrong
about this, what else is she wrong about?". I think that this might have cost you your election.

Ginny, I urge you to ask people you know who are active sport shooters to take you to a well run shooting
range. Or just go there on your own hook, they are pretty democratic (no pun intended)

Take your gun, your eye and ear protection, and hang out with Jose and Jane Gunowner while putting
holes in paper. Find out what *gunowners* really do and do not support, and what does (and does not) work.

Texas being like my former residence in Florida, a large percentage of gun owners are Democrats.
You may make some friends, you may get some volunteers (and donations) for your next run for office,
and you may get a few people who will say: "You know, I met Ginny at the range, and she's alright."

From little acorns, mighty oaks bloom. Give it a try.

Thanks for the advice.

You're absolutely right this is a touchy issue in southern states like my homestate of Texas. This position wasn't even part of my platform, so it was really a non-issue in 2008. Moderate Democrats rarely speak out on this issue for the fear of losing critical "swing" votes.

I know I have alot to learn, but I want to foster open dialogue with open-minded people that want common sense policies that keep us safe AND free. I won't be running for office any time soon, but I'll take up your advice sooner rather than later. That's what being a "representative" is all about: listening to people and finding common ground.

I never spoke up on this issue at all until I found out Obama was holding off on a campaign promise to renew the assault weapons ban (which 53% of the public supports), the guns in national parks issue came up, and Texas almost passed carrying guns on college campuses. It just seems like the NRA and gun lobby yield a tremendous amount of influence not commensurate with their support in the community. Maybe I'm wrong.

.. from the star telegram article (not available anymore, but google has the cache)-



re AWB: 75% in 2001, 53% in 2009, what'll it be next year, now that a whole generation of folks have purchased these kinds of arms? My guess is less than 40%.

39% want stricter access to guns (the conservative approach to ensure that convicted felons, minors, and the mentally impaired aren't getting their hands on guns) versus
19% that want more liberal gun laws and access.

If guns make people feel safer, then let them have them if they're qualified. But attach some financial responsibility to their ownership in the event they're used in the commission of a crime. If people carried gun "title" like they do to their cars, then you & I as law-abiding taxpayers could recoup police, court, and possibly incarceration costs after a lien is attached to their property.

If you or I have to put our mom or dad in a nursing home and use Medicaid to do so (Medicare won't cover nursing home stays), then the government attaches a lien on the patient's property to eventually recoup the costs. As it should be, so that it's a benefit available to someone else who needs the extra care at some point.

Taxpayers couldn't always recoup the costs of prosecuting gun crimes because such a large percentage of these gun "owners" are from poverty-stricken areas. But for those times it can, it would save taxpayers millions of dollars. A good example is John Hinckley, whose family net worth could have more than reimbursed taxpayers for his criminal acts.

.. ie, makes guns unaffordable so that those "owners from poverty-stricken areas" can't afford them.

How progressive of you! Which ticket did you run on again?

39% want stricter access to guns (the conservative approach to ensure that convicted felons, minors, and the mentally impaired aren't getting their hands on guns) versus
19% that want more liberal gun laws and access.

We already have a NICS background check system that does this for all FFL purchases. I have no problem with making this system available to the public, nor even requiring it for private sales, so long as anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

If guns make people feel safer, then let them have them if they're qualified.

I am skeptical about requiring government qualification approval for a Constitutional right. We don't have tests to see if you're qualified to vote or speak.

But attach some financial responsibility to their ownership in the event they're used in the commission of a crime.

I believe there are already provisions in our criminal code for negligence that results in injury or homicide.

The problem here is going to be setting a standard for what qualifies as negligence. For many people, the fact that they store their firearm inside a locked house is sufficient due-diligence. Others would disagree and say that they should be stored in a safe. The problem here is that even $1500 safes can be ripped open in as little as 15 minutes. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhOjWHbD6M ).

If a $1500 safe can't provide any better level of protection that the video shows, what affordable mechanism would you suggest people use so as to comply with your liability law?

In any case, all this will do is drive people to purchase umbrella insurance policies which will be insanely inexpensive. I have one for 2 million dollars and they didn't even ask if I owned firearms. If insurance adjusters don't even bother to ask, it's likely they don't see firearm ownership as terribly risky in terms of insurance liability payouts.


If people carried gun "title" like they do to their cars, then you & I as law-abiding taxpayers could recoup police, court, and possibly incarceration costs after a lien is attached to their property.

Why not hold the criminal liable for such costs? Because we live in a civilized country. We don't force inmates (and thus by extension their families) to pay for their own incarceration costs.

If you or I have to put our mom or dad in a nursing home and use Medicaid to do so (Medicare won't cover nursing home stays), then the government attaches a lien on the patient's property to eventually recoup the costs. As it should be, so that it's a benefit available to someone else who needs the extra care at some point.

Which is why, of course, anyone with half a brain foresees this possibility and years before the nursing home they transfer all the property out of the patient's name.

Taxpayers couldn't always recoup the costs of prosecuting gun crimes because such a large percentage of these gun "owners" are from poverty-stricken areas. But for those times it can, it would save taxpayers millions of dollars. A good example is John Hinckley, whose family net worth could have more than reimbursed taxpayers for his criminal acts.

As you note, a large number of firearm criminals are from poverty-stricken areas. In fact, crime in general is mostly an economic and social problem, not a tool problem. So my guess is you aren't going to find many firearm criminals nor firearm sources with deep pockets. In any case, I'm not sure it's a great idea to get into the mode where criminals are required to pay for their own incarceration. This is not some third-world country where an incarcerated criminal's family has to pay for their food, shelter, and clothing while they are in prison or they rot away.

There is also a reason why most of the gun crime comes from poverty-stricken areas. This is because the vast majority of firearm crime revolves around drug and gang activity. If we solved the drug and gang problem, the gun crime problem would all but vanish. Don't solve the gun and gang problem, and it doesn't matter if every firearm on the planet vanished tomorrow - you'll still have a massive violence problem. Why? Because these people are operating a multi-billion dollar business that operates outside the law. Consequently business disputes have no recourse to courts of law, and are likewise settled outside the law. This results in an ever-increasing business policy of violence and murder to settle business disputes. No matter what gun laws you pass, this will not change until something is done about American drug and gang policy.

Others would disagree and say that they should be stored in a safe. The problem here is that even $1500 safes can be ripped open in as little as 15 minutes. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBhOjWHbD6M ).

The bulk of gun safes, as the video correctly states, are UL-rated as "Residential Security Containers." The criterium for this rating is that the safe must be able to resist one guy with common hand tools for five minutes. There are higher ratings, TL-15 and TL-30, which will stand up to power tools for 15 and 30 minutes respectively, but those start at $3,000 and up.

Still, there's a little bullshit going on in that video. First, the safe is free-standing and not bolted to the floor. The fact that the two guys can tip it over allows them to use their body weight to gain more leverage, making their job immensely easier. In practice, however, everybody has the safe up against a wall, and bolted to the floor, so it's never going to be that easy in real life.

Second, the company that posted that video, Northwest Safe Co. of Enumclaw (which happens to be quite close to where I live; the name means "place of evil winds" in Salish) doesn't actually list any products on its website (http://www.nwsafe.com/products.htm) that are rated higher than Residential Security Container. In other words, nothing they can sell you is guaranteed to last any longer than that safe they busted open in the video. The price differential in RSCs is mainly a factor of size, and cosmetic features (like lights, dehumidifiers and fancier carpeting). Take the Liberty Presidential (http://www.nwsafe.com/products/liberty/presidential.htm); what you're shelling out extra for isn't added security, it's "distinctive beveled edges, 24K gold accents and a hand applied high gloss finish," "fully upholstered 4-in-1 Flex™ interior in rich pin-dot velour" and "elegant recessed light system and 4 plug interior outlet."

Personally, I got an Cannon EV21 from Costco.com; same RSC rating, just without the fancy paint job and upholstery.

I cannot seem to find this safe on Costco.com. Do you have a link?

You know what Costco's like: bringing the Soviet shopping experience to America, in that you find yourself buying stuff you don't need because they might not have it when you do. The EV21 pops up on the site periodically.

The Cannon C21E looks to be basically the same safe, but with a nicer lock and a built-in power outlet. It costs $150 more than the EV21 did this time last year ($950 instead of $800).
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11312440&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&eCat=BC

RSC listings are a joke through out the entire Gun Safe industry. The most secure gun safes on the market don't even carry an RSC UL Listing.

The Centurion safe they pry open in the video is of the same construction as a Cheap Costco safe. A liberty Presidential would literally kick the pants off of the safe in the pry video. The centurion was a 12 gauge body, locking bolts on one side of the door, 12 gauge material inside the door holding the locking bolts in place, and a sheet metal construction door frame. The presidential has locking bolts on all 4 sides of the door, there are more bolts per side, and they are bigger diameter than the centurion. They also extend further, the body is 3/16" steel, and all the internal door hardware is 10 gauge thickness. They also have anti pry tabs inside the door. You cannot pry open a presidential like you can pry open a liberty centurion. The only thing the RSC ratings is saying, is that this guy used these tools for this time and did not gain access to the container. They don't come up with more innovative methods and retest the container actually testing its security features and construction. Thats why you will see a bunch of different model safes from low to hi all have the same RSC rating. You want to stand your safe up and bolt it down? That helps, but, what keeps someone from taking a sawzall and just cutting a hole in the side because the body is so thin? The key here is steel! The thicker the steel, and the more of it you have, the better off you will be when someone tries to break into your safe. Ultimately insulation directly effects fire, but even more steel can help boost a safes fire rating as well. The thicker the steel, the longer it takes to heat up.

I personally tried to pry open a new Liberty Lincoln on its back at the factory 3 weeks ago. We had a total of 49 minutes of time prying on it, and we never gained access to it. You do get what you pay for in a safe. All the cheaper construction safes are usually built the same way. Thin bodies, low bolt count, and minimal bolt coverage. Ultimately it comes down to this. UL Security Ratings don't mean much on gun safes. You get what you pay for, and thats the bottom line. A $3,200.00 liberty presidential 25 is going to have way more security and fire coverage than a $688.00 liberty centurion 23. Even the middle of the road $1500.00 safes are going to take more time to gain access to than the cheapo units. If you buy the cheap costco safe, or the sentry safe at Home Depot and think your buying something secure. Guess again, your playing into the mass merchants plan to just make a buck on someone who is being a sucker. I would openly invite anyone who wanted to learn about safe security to come into our showroom, and I will show them what makes a real safe secure.

If you went to those 53% and explained to them that an assault weapon is not a machine gun, but instead is a regular semi-automatic rifle like any other, how many do you think would still support it?

If you went to those 53% and explained to them that this gun:



Is functionally and lethally identical to this gun:



How many do you think would still support it?

If you went to those 53% and told them that according to FBI homicide data, all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for less than 3% of all homicides annually, which is less than half as many as are caused by hands and feet, how many do you think would still support it?

Moderate Democrats rarely speak out on this issue for the fear of losing critical "swing" votes.

Hooray! This is precisely why I keep paying dues to the NRA, to keep my elected officials in check on this issue.

What a load of crap, that never came to pass!!

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=76



Thats ok, the more BS they spread, the stronger we become! it's almost as if their wails and chest pounding sustain us, and give us strength!!!

EDIT: We do need to do somthing about, Febuary, is too long to wait....

Dear God, that site is full of comedy gold!

I remember when they claimed handguns didn't exist in the 18th Century, so the Second Amendment didn't
apply to them... WTF?

Have concealed guns in state parks caused an increase in shootings? No? So what magic is going to cause the same behavior in national parks -if the state's allow it- (after all, that's what this rule change does) to increase violence? Hrmm?

system in our country.

I've talked to people form Canada and the U.K. Their systems may not be perfect, but they told me that their system was far better than ours.

If so those incidents would be front page news everywhere courtesy of the Rethug Brady Bunch.

My God, are you even reading the stuff you post? You're posting all the usual dire predictions of mass bloodshed and then you argue that we can't know it won't happen because the law hasn't taken effect yet?

Moreover, Hoopla Phil nailed it by pointing out that all these predictions have been made many times before, every time a state introduced "shall issue" legislation, or a "stand your ground" law, or a "make my day" law, and every single time, it didn't happen.

I'm not concerned about CHL holders that have actually caved in to their fears of the government knowing who they are and subjected themselves to a comprehensive background check and taken a gun safety class. Personally, I think all purchasers (of new OR used guns) should go through that rigor.

It begs the broader question of what it takes to feel safe: carrying a gun everywhere because of the fear of wanton criminals lurking behind every rock, desk or tree or addressing the fact that too many of those committing the "offenses" should have never gotten their guns in the first place had a background check been performed. When a football game score gets to 95 to 95, it means that something's wrong with 2 offensive teams that can run up the score that high. Matching a team point for point only works until both sides collapse due to exhaustion.

.. then why the OP to gin up outrage? (You obviously know this only has impact for CHL holders who, by their very nature, are rather law-abiding.)

Now we're talking.

What do you have in your platform to address gang violence, drug use / abuse / persecution, poverty, mental health, and overall safety net?

This is a statistic I've had to throw out several times over the past few days, which is that since 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crime (assault, robbery and sexual assault/rape) has been committed using firearms, and about 1/3 of homicides are committed by means other than firearms. Rape in particular is very rarely committed with a firearm. That means that restricting access to firearms isn't going to make violent crime go away.

And in case you aren't aware of it, every single sale of a firearm by a Federal Firearms Licensee has been accompanied by a background check for over 15 years, ever since the Brady Bill of 1993 went into effect.

But even if this weren't the case, your argument ignores the fact that people inclined to break the aw with a firearm aren't very likely to obey some regulation prohibiting firearms in National Parks. According to the Christian Science Monitor, increased border controls have caused increased cultivation of marijuana on federal lands, particularly National Parks; and the gangs that grow the stuff are heavily armed (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0610/p01s03-usgn.html). National Geographic reports that Park Rangers in National Parks along the Mexican border have found themselves confronting drug smugglers and coyotes (people-smugglers) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0110_030113_organpipeclynes.html). The Park Service is under-manned, under-trained, under-equipped and over-stretched, and the upshot of this is that USPS Park Rangers are assaulted most frequently (in relation to their numbers) than any other federal law enforcement agency.

So maintaining the prohibition on accessible and operable firearms in National Parks isn't stopping anyone so inclined from breaking the law, up to and including bringing guns into the parks, and even discharging them. It also doesn't stop gangs of smash-and-grab artists from systematically working over the parking lots at the trailheads in, say, the Olympic National Park, and beating up any hiker who shows up while they're doing it.
Anecdotal evidence alert: an acquaintance of my wife's took to hiking alone after she went through an ugly divorce. At one point, she was out hiking in the Olympic National Park and encountered some guy on the trail. They exchanged some pleasantries, and then my wife's acquaintance said "well I do come out here to be alone, so I'll be moving on" and the guy replies "I'm not going to let you do that." My wife's acquaintance felt a surge of horror as she realized in her gut that the guy intended to rape her. Fortunately, just at that moment, another couple of hikers, a married couple, came into view on the trail and my wife's acquaintance called out to the woman "Patricia! Fancy meeting you here!" feigning that she knew the couple, even though she'd never seen them before in her life. "Patricia" immediately cottoned onto the situation and went along with the pretense, and the three of them got away from the creep. Whenever someone starts going on about how we shouldn't allow defensive firearms in National Parks because they're peaceful sanctuaries where nothing bad ever happens, I think of that story, and how my wife's acquaintance wasn't able to safely hike by herself in such a "sanctuary." Apparently, it's really hard for some people to comprehend that there are certain people who didn't get the memo; or more accurately, got it but tore it up.

First of all, if you agree that CHL carriers are not a problem then the entire National Park debate is mute, because all we are talking about is allowing each states CHL laws to simply apply within National Park borders.

It begs the broader question of what it takes to feel safe: carrying a gun everywhere because of the fear of wanton criminals lurking behind every rock, desk or tree or addressing the fact that too many of those committing the "offenses" should have never gotten their guns in the first place had a background check been performed. When a football game score gets to 95 to 95, it means that something's wrong with 2 offensive teams that can run up the score that high. Matching a team point for point only works until both sides collapse due to exhaustion.

Second of all, I do not like your characterization that people who carry firearms for self-defense are somehow paranoid people who fear "wanton criminals lurking behind every rock". I have insurance on my house, I have smoke detectors in every room of my house, and fire extinguishers in my house. I've never had a house fire, nor have I ever even seen on. I don't have these things because I'm afraid of wanton house fires on every block, but rather because it is prudent to do so when the prevention is so inexpensive and the stakes are so high in the rare eventuality it should actually happen. Carrying a firearm for self-defense is no different.

I am all for increased background checks, including private sales, so long as they preserver anonymous firearm ownership. I do not trust the government to maintain a list of firearm owners, as the intent of the second amendment was to give the citizenry the teeth to resist tyranny and oppression by the government if necessary. Giving the government a shopping list of all firearm owners greatly reduces the sharpness of those teeth.

My proposed idea is to simply administer the NICS background check to EVERYONE when they apply for a driver's license or state-issued ID. You also allow people to opt-out if they choose. All who pass will have a Firearm Owners ID number printed on the back of their ID or driver's license. Then, at the point of any firearm sale, commercial or private, the seller is required to make a note of the buyer's FOID number and keep that data for 10 years. Should any firearm be recovered in a crime, it can be traced from original manufacturer through each point of sale it passed through. Should it be traced to a point of sale that cannot provide the FOID number of the person it was sold to, then there would be steep criminal penalties.

Any time a person has a disqualifying event, such as being convicted of a felony, or having a restraining order issued against them, or being adjudicated mentally incompetent, they will have to surrender to the court their FOID and any firearms in their possession.

This does four important things:

1) It preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

2) It provides for a background check for ALL firearm sales.

3) It eliminates straw-purchases because no one would buy a firearm for someone without an FOID number because such a shifty purchase means odds are good it will be used in a crime and then traced to them and then they get in big trouble since the buyer had no FOID number to record.

4) It provides end-to-end traceability of any firearm, under due process of law and with a warrant.

I think you may be overestimating the deterrent effect on straw purchasers, though. Let's face it, when a firearm is recovered from a crime scene now, it can already be traced to the FFL who sold it, and the FFL should have the 4473 on file listing to whom he sold it. The problem is that the firearm needs to be recovered first, which is far from a given.

But I like the idea of having the FOID number and using it for private sales. Most gun owners I know already take their own measures, mind you, mostly be refusing to sell to anyone without a valid resident Concealed Pistol License (which requires a background check to get). But this is an option for "closing the gun show loophole" (which isn't a loophole, but I digress) in a manner that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think you may be overestimating the deterrent effect on straw purchasers, though. Let's face it, when a firearm is recovered from a crime scene now, it can already be traced to the FFL who sold it, and the FFL should have the 4473 on file listing to whom he sold it. The problem is that the firearm needs to be recovered first, which is far from a given.

But the firearm can only be traced to the FFL who sold it. If it was subsequently sold privately, the ability to trace today currently ends, for there is no need or requirement for a private seller to note who he sold it to.

But I like the idea of having the FOID number and using it for private sales. Most gun owners I know already take their own measures, mind you, mostly be refusing to sell to anyone without a valid resident Concealed Pistol License (which requires a background check to get). But this is an option for "closing the gun show loophole" (which isn't a loophole, but I digress) in a manner that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Absolutely. Since NICS is so quick, just pre-screen everyone, except those who opt-out.

You have to allow the opt-out because some people won't want firearms. But also, otherwise you could say that not having an FOID number on your ID was a scarlet letter of sorts because it would indicate you were federally disqualified from owning firearms, which would mean you were either a convicted felon, had been adjudicated mentally defective, or had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. But since anyone could opt out for any reason, not having an FOID number would not necessarily mean those things.

But most importantly, because everyone has an FOID number, but not everyone is an actual firearm owner, the government has no database of firearm owners. And because firearm sales would be privately recorded, and not stored in a centralized database, they could only be traced by manual police investigative work, going manually from previous owner to previous owner, with a warrant, to conduct the trace. This also stymies any attempt to create a government database of firearm owners.

Typical irrational language backed by advertisement for "sensible" new restrictions. There is no epidemic of anything except media coverage of shootings. Also,CHL holders make up the group least likely to commit violent crime, less so than police who gun control people seem perfectly willing to arm while disarming everyone else.

On edit, I don't know if Ginny is an idiot but Susan surely is.

David

She had a good platform, but she made the mistake of buying what the VPC sells.

Taking their advice was a guaranteed fail in Texas.

Now the seat she wanted is held by a *Republican*.


Ginny is reading this thread, so I'll repeat my earlier advice to her:

If you want to be Rep. Ginny From The Block, go hang out with Democratic gun owners from your area and
pop a few caps at the range with them. Listen to *their* concerns, and stop listening to the VPC and their
ilk. Their "great advice" didn't work last time, did it?

I see your 'poem' and the screed on your blog as simply being VPC/Brady talking points. Anyone who knows this issue, recognize them for what they are.

1) Myth # 1: Guns have played a large part in American history outside of war, as settlers of the frontier had to rely on them for a rudimentary form of vigilante justice.Reality: That role has been exaggerated.

Exactly, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has never been a huge problem it is made out to be by those who wish conservative restraint on this right. OTOH, to deny that guns played a huge role in settling the areas west of the colonial 13 is to deny history.

Myth # 2: We need the 2nd Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms to protect our freedoms and the rest of the Constitution. Reality: Why isn’t it working?

By all means (literally), we have already grossly infringed on other rights in the last 8 years, why not trash them all?..Is this the point of this 'myth'?

Myth # 3: We already have enough gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones on the books. Reality: Illegal “possession” is meaningless without illegal “acquisition.”

Have you ever actually studied the gun laws on the books? One of the biggest problems with elected officials is their ignorance of bills they vote on and even endorse. Maybe practice your law interpretation skills with the 20,000 existing gun laws. If after doing that you can find any chinks in the laws, come on back and explain your plan to fix them. A great example of the truth of failure to enforce is in the NICS system itself. Look into the stats of how often a person is charged (or even investigated) who has committed perjury by lying on their NICS form. Every day FFL dealers call NICS to clear gun purchasers. Every day NICS denies transfers to people because they are prohibited because of some item on the NICS form which the applicant answered dishonestly. These are prohibited persons who are actively trying to buy guns yet fewer than 1% are ever even investigated, let alone charged for lying on the federal form. This is but one existing law which isn't enforced against the safety of the public. Your reality in this #3 is disturbing in that we live in a free society. Have you looked lately at crime stats in your state or federal prison system? These are places with vigorously controlled access yet drugs, alcohol, and weapons are always present. Until we can get a handle on these things in these extremely controlled environments how do you expect to control them in a free society?

Myth # 4: The Government will confiscate your guns if you register them. Reality: Watch out for the politicians undermining your 4th Amendment, NOT your 2nd Amendment!

Again, by all means, let's trash the entire BoR because some of the provisions in the BoR are already compromised? How about, let's restore the compromised rights of the last 8 years? Have you looked at the history of gun registration in California or New York or DC? Check it out then come back and tell us how gun registration has not led to outright bans right here in the US.

Myth # 5: Only criminals will possess guns of you require registration and law abiding citizens won’t have access!Reality: Criminals legally acquire guns now, and why is that? Criminals SHOULD only get guns through criminal means if they’re going to get them at all!

Most criminals do usually acquire their guns through illegal means or from family members/friends. Homer Cummings? 1937? "Show me the man who does not want his gun registered, and I will show you a man who should not have a gun."? Hmmm...sounds much like the 'If you have nothing to hide, why can't I search your home/car' argument, or 'if you have nothing to hide, why can't we monitor your phone calls/email', not very progressive these days... BTW, how'd that work out for ol' Homer anyway?

Further, as to the cost of 'gun crime', how is this cost any different than the cost of crime in general? Most people have no problem with the government levying on the assets of convicted criminals. Too often the government levies on the assets of the accused, which denies that person the means to pay for a decent defense, this is simply wrong IMHO.

Myth No. 6: The threat of a lifetime in jail or the electric chair will deter enraged individuals from committing mass murder.Reality: These deranged individuals usually commit suicide when they’re done with their rampage anyway, so there’s no deterrent incentive.

We can likely agree on this point, yet I have never heard anyone much claim that threat of penalty is much a deterrent as opposed to a mechanism for public safety as it relates to any crime. The issue is too often, in the case of murderers, that they had been previously convicted of other violent crimes and received lax sentences or early release.

The appearance is that you have spent all of your time buying into the half truths and outright lies of the Brady/VPC/Joyce Foundation and no time watching and studying this forum, 2ADems, other Liberal/Progressive gun owners sites and the links/claims made there. I hope you will take the time to objectively understand both sides of this issue.

Looking
for a summer thrill? We have parks that really kill.
Do you need a place to
stay? Call your local N.R.A.
Pack a pistol in your pack, U.S. law has got
your back.

Why would allowing CCW permit holders, who don't generally go on killing rampages outside of parks, go on killing rampages inside of parks to make them "parks that really kill"?

The fact is, CCW permit holders are more law-abiding than your average citizen, and are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than your average citizen.

On the trail it’s really fun, scaring strangers with your gun.
If the
neighbors make a noise, silence them with big boy toys.
Go ahead, give all a
fright, it’s your constitutional right.

CCW permit holders do not generally go around flashing their firearms or otherwise intimidating others with them. This is why it is a CONCEALED carry weapon permit. In many places it is illegal to carry openly or to brandish a weapon.

CCW permit holders would not be "scaring strangers" with their firearms, nor would they be silencing noise makers with their firearms.

Bring the sutures, bandage rolls, iodine for bullet holes.
Bug spray,
sunscreen, snakebite kit won’t protect you from a hit.

We find no need for these sorts of implements on main street, where CCW permit holders walk surrounded by hundreds of their fellow citizens, so they would like not be needed in parks.

Okay, campers, you get the idea? Now, let’s consider the possibilities if the
all-powerful gun lobby, the Great Horned Shooters of America, given their
triumph over common sense, decide to flex their muscle even more and push to
make firearms legal in all the other places Americans go to rest and
recreate.

To me, what makes common sense is that if a CCW permit holder can walk down main street while armed surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens there is no reason why he can't also do so in a park.

Do you need one in your car? Would you take one to a
bar?
Would you reload at the mall? Or in a museum hall?
Going to an
outdoor theater? Don’t forget to take your heater.

Yes, you may very well need one in your car. And since the automobile is the most common mode of personal transportation, logically if you go anywhere and you are carrying a concealed weapon you will have it in your car.

Most states do not allow CCW permit holders to carry firearms in bars, though some places now allow a CCW permit holder to carry into a food establishment that happens to serve alcohol, like, say, a restaurant like Applebee's.

A CCW permit holder would have no reason be be loading (or reloading) his weapon in public mall or museum hall, of course, he was engaged in self-defense.

Would you pack one at the pool? How about at summer school?
Draw your gun
at seventh inning if you hate the team a’winning.

Since CCW permit holders are allowed to carry in most public places, there would be no legal reason why not to carry as you went to a pool. I also don't have a problem carrying on school campuses. There is nothing about a school campus that will turn people into raving lunatics such that they cannot responsibly carry a firearm there.

CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in firearm crime, so it is highly unlikely that one would draw their gun at a baseball game just because their team was losing.

When you’re sunning at the beach, keep an Uzi within reach.
Summer dances
on the green viewed through cross-hairs can be keen.

While there is nothing to prevent CCW permit holders from carrying on many beaches, an UZI would require extensive federal paperwork and a $200 annual tax to carry, and it is highly unlikely that any CCW permit holder carries one.

No CCW permit holder would be viewing a dance through cross-hairs or any other kind of sight.

Love that holster on your bike. Do they make one for a trike?
Stash a
sidearm in your basket, bring home Grandpa in a casket.

A concealed firearm must be carried concealed on your person, so you would not find them mounted to bicycles in holsters. Since you must be at least 21 to hold a CCW permit in most, if not all states, you would not find one on a "trike" either.

Carrying a firearm in a basket (or purse, or whatever) has nothing to do with bringing Grandpa home in a casket.

I know this sounds as sing-song silly as a Dr. Seuss rhyme. But who would
have thought that the grown-ups who are leading our country, with our epidemic
of murder rampages, would agree to make it legal to take a loaded firearm to
Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or your favorite national seashore.

Again, why not? If a CCW permit holder, who has undergone fingerprinting, an extensive background check, and vetting by the local sherrif's department, and who is able to walk, while armed, down main street surrounded by hundreds of his fellow men, women, and child citizens, why can't he walk through the woods or on a sandy beach?

We go to our parks for fun, not so we can scream and run.
Outdoor’s
made for peace and quiet, not for those who cause a riot.

CCW permit holders will not make you "scream and run", nor do they "cause riots". There is a very good chance as you walk around in public that you are in the presence of someone carrying a firearm and you don't even know it. This would be no different in a park.

Mother Nature’s hit the floor since the sniper moved next door.
Smokey
Bear is worried too. He’d feel safer at the zoo.

I'm not sure why Mother Nature or Smokey the Bear would be any more worried about a CCW permit holder carrying a firearm in a park than the Park Rangers who can already carry firearms in parks.

No sutures, but definitely bandages, disinfectant and even clotting agents. Accidents can happen, even without firearms present.

It does deserve notice that the Coburn amendment goes beyond merely authorizing concealed carry (where allowed by state law); it allows gun owners to do anything that is legal in the rest of the state, so in open carry states, that'll be permitted in Nat'l Parks as well. The irony is that if the Bradies had left well enough alone instead of getting an injunction against the DoI rule change, only concealed carry of handguns would have been permitted.

The only victory the Bradies have scored in years, and it bites them in the ass. Gotta love it.

This lame attempt is neither.

At least the jibes from The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert are funny.

You just gotta love SWEETNESS!!!! Even if it hurts, ouch. Now that's effective satire.
http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/Sweetness

Xela

Even though Colbert is poking fun at firearms owners, it is comedic gold. The drivel in the OP is amateur propaganda posing as satire.

I've been where you are, albeit on this side of that long border -- fighting the good fight in an electoral district that just refuses to see where its own interests lie.

Oh, and I also write a mean bit of doggerel when pressed. ;)

Nice to meet you!

Just sounds kind of stupid doesn't it.


Same as this poem.