Paul Helmke added, "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks." [More]I guess he means you and me. Because he knows damn well the change does nothing to enable those who have been adjudicated dangerous, which I guess makes him a...uh...liar.
Head on over there and consider educating that crowd in "comments"--so far, it's running three-to-one against "our" side.
I note Anne Reich Lane continues in her capacity as Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst spokeswretch.
Talk about dangerous people...
If I were the hair-trigger sociopath he believes me to be, I'd say that I hope Paul Helmke gets eaten by a (properly disarmed, of course) bear, and that his scattered remains are worried by wolves.
ReplyDeleteBut that would be wrong. As a peaceable man, I would never wish such a thing upon him.
Of course, if he were on fire I would never approach close enough to piss on him. My gun might go berserk, and I know how that possibility terrifies him.
I like how the author, by his own admission, carries a weapon.
ReplyDelete"The National Park Service says there were 116,588 offenses in national parks in 2006, including 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults."
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is not a very large number. Maybe you don't think that this small number justifies my right to carry a concealed weapon. But, though the odds are pretty small, how would you feel about YOU or your WIFE or your DAUGHTER being one of those small numbers of victims listed here?
I'll keep on carrying my pistol, thanks for your concern.
Guns belong in National parks?
ReplyDeletePosted by Carbon neutral at 12/20/08 3:00 p.m.
Twice in my life of long-distance backpacking I have been within a day or two of other women being slaughtered in the woods by knife-wielding nutcases. In one of those cases, both a strapping 5-foot-9 woman and her six-foot boyfriend were hacked to death in one of the most remote lean-tos on the Appalachian Trail (Virginia, 1981). I knew them, and they were of the opinion that a) there was nothing to worry about, and b) if there was, the fact that they were together would protect them, and c) in any case he could protect her through reasoning their way out of any situation.
Five times in my life I have been approached not by animals but by men out to hunt women. I am 5 feet tall, 115, nonwhite...and I pack. Always. I am nobody's prey species. And certainly not in a backcountry situation.
I have never had to pull the trigger on my sidearms or rifles in a self defense situation. But four out of those five times, hours or even days away from help in remote backcountry, I have been pushed so hard by men looking for trouble that I have let them know that my "no" has lethal force backing it up if they lack the ability to respect the "no." in all four cases, it was the only thing they understood. In the fifth case, there was a cluster of men, and they backed down only because a party of hikers happened to come along, and two of them escorted me 11 miles back to the trailhead.
So don't go telling *me* that there's nothing to fear in this world, or that it's unreasonable for a woman to be vigilant and prepared for her own self defense. Unless you believe that I'm some sort of Victorian flower who should depend on men for my protection.
As far as I can tell, gun control advocates think women and any or all minorities, as well as people of small stature, should settle for being prey species and take our chances.
This hateful philosophy is the flip side of the well-heeled urban liberalism that is so used to being at the top of the pecking order, and has been so insulated from difficulty because of its social privilege, that it concludes that a woman strangled with her own backpack strap, or hacked to death with a Buck knife after being raped vaginally and anally with branches (as the other of the two backcountry fatalities I mentioned), is morally superior to a woman who stands before her attacker and says NO, and makes it stick.
If you don't want to pack, don't. Those of us who are legal CCs are the least of your fears. And if you are so scared of scary scary big scary guns, and want to live someplace where people aren't allowed to protect themselves, and only criminals have guns, why don't you move to SE or NE DC?
I am so sick of the white liberal racism and sexism that wants to disarm those of us who are particularly targeted for violence. You don't want to know about our experience. You've been so privileged all your lives, and now you're scared of things. What's really happening is, you're addicted to telling people what they can think, say, and do based on your categories--the mental illness of political correctness.
Remember the Deacons for Defense and Justice. We will be safe. By any means necessary.
auntie corvid
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/comment.asp?articleID=392841&page=2
Readers of this column know that hoplophobia is not race, gender, or income bracket specific.
ReplyDeleteJust like other police officers, you can not count on a ranger being near enough to prevent bad things from happening to you or your family. You are not living in a Disney movie. Bad things happen, and not just to other people. The usually saying is that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. In the backcountry, the ranger is hours or days away. Adjust to it.
What can you do?
1. Buy a gun of sufficient caliber and sufficient ammo. Get trained and proficient. Get a CCW (depending on the state you live in). Carry whenever possible, concealed or openly.
2. Be viral. Encourage your friends to do the same. Take them to the range with you.
3. Advocate change to guarantee freedom from opression with your state representatives and state senators, congressman and senators.
4. Run for office. Get involved and influence your community.
5. When asked to serve on a jury, do it willingly. Do not find guilty those who interpret justice as you do despite the instructions from the judge. You and your fellow jurors will be the final decider of the law. When the prosecution finally realizes after repeated attempts that they cannot get a conviction for an unjust law, they give up.
To sum it up, be a citizen, not a subject.
the definition of sufficient being "starts with .4" with respect to caliber.
ReplyDelete"Sufficient" is also CCI/Speer Gold Dot 9mm+P GDHP which will deliver 410 foot-pounds of energy, expand adequately, and penetrate 12 inches of gel, better performance than many .40 S&W rounds.
ReplyDelete