Alexander Shows Backbone, Votes Against Guns in National Parks
All praise to Lamar Alexander for mustering the courage to cast the only Republican vote today against allowing guns in national parks. 
"I have consistently been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, but this legislation goes too far - further than President Reagan, further than President Bush, and further than Tennessee law," Alexander says.
Sen. Tom Coburn sponsored the amendment. "If an American citizen has a right to carry a firearm in their state, it makes no sense to treat them like a criminal if they pass through a national park while in possession of a firearm," he says.
But what if they're not merely passing through? What if they're stopping at a car campground, getting drunk and waving around their firearms at 2 in the morning? This is not an unlikely scenario. Rangers could arrest these asshats, of course, hopefully before they opened fire on some poor, unsuspecting camper. But why subject everyone to such risk and trouble just to please the goofballs who like to play with guns?
18 comment(s) / Post a Comment
Further than Tennessee law ... perhaps. But not for long.
At first I thought that Lamar just pushed the wrong button, because he's consistently come down on the right side of these issues.
The right of individual Americans to keep and carry guns for lawful purposes are slowly restored in our nation. And that makes me happy.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 12:20PMHey, Jeff,
So, law-abiding citizens will suddenly become irresponsible with their firearms once past the Nat'l. Park boundary? They couldn't get drunk at home an start "waving around' their gun???
To paraphrase the question above, why take away my right to protect myself (from the gun-toting, NON-law-abiding jerk)just to please the goofballs who happen not to like guns?
If there were no longer any guns, don't you think the bad guys would find another way to kill/harm others? Their drive to commit the act won't disappear just because they look around and can't find a gun...
Further restrictions on gun owners will only affect the law-abiding citizen. They'll have no deterrent effect on criminals who use a gun in a crime.
Stop reacting on feel-good emotion and think this thing through.
I'm glad you're in Chi-town Carl. We've got enough of your ilk slithering out from under rocks around here.
I'm glad Sen. Alexander voted the right way on this and was willing to prove he's not a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA.
But I can't help but wonder how he would have voted if he didn't have a home just outside the park's boundary, where stray bullets from gun nuts might fly.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 2:20PMCarl in Chicago?
Why do you read the Nashville Scene and post about the NRA?
You don't happen to be a piece of shit lobbiest for the NRA and live here in Middle TN do you?
Just curious
Sen. Alexander is as big a crook as anyone in Congress. He just hasn't been caught,yet! Look at the sweetheart deals made while Governor of Tennessee.
He's a politician who lines his pockets with taxpayer money.I'll never vote for that two-timing, money-grubbing bast*** again.
Harry Statel
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 3:09PMSmokiesLover and Anonymous;
It's not the NRA he's afraid of, it's the 69% of Americans who think gun control is stupid and doesn't work. It's also the 80 million plus Americans who own guns and KNOW that gun control doesn't work and are really, really pissed off about their rights being violated.
And if either of you had half a brain, you'd be pissed off about it too. Just read the Patriot Act. That's enough to scare anyone who's concerned about any one of their rights.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 3:14PM
Whoa, gun nut. Hold your horses. Nobody cares about owning guns. I own a couple myself. I keep 'em at home, one within reach at night and the other under lock and key.
This issue is about guns in national parks.
Don't work yourself up into a rage. We've already seen what some Tennessee carry-permit holders do when that happens. Three kids in Memphis left fatherless because some gun nut overreacted to the guy parking his SUV too close to his Hummer.
Jeff Woods are you for real? Do you honestly believe that the stupid ban stops ANY criminals? Jeff, clearly you have an irrational hatred of firearms, so reasoning with you may be impossible. Do you also want pointless regulations on the owners of OTHER powerful tools (a firearm is only a tool)? Jeff, your view of gun owners sounds like something you wrote for emotional effect for this ridiculous article. I don't believe that you honestly see America's 100 million or so gun owners as "drunk, waving around firearms, shooting unsuspecting campers, and playing with guns." The Coburn amendment merely allows states to decide. Suddenly you're against the 10th amendment now also (the main amendment affirming state's rights)?
Jeff, the very fact that you felt the need to resort to name calling and false characterizations just shows how shallow you are. Your article here was childish and not belonging in the realm of adult discussion.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 9:24PMI'm not sure why Jeff thinks Lamar showed courage? Violating the Constitution has become the normal way of doing business in Congress.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 12:53AMIf Carl were to get a close look at those drunks running around in the woods waving guns he would find a group of POlice/Rangers doing their after shift choir practise.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 5:47AMThe degree of emotion and vitriol surrounding the "gun" issue rarely ceases to amaze me. "Guns" surprisingly seem as charged as the issue of abortion rights (which I support, by the way, not because I favor abortion but because I favor individual rights to make choices).
I understand why those who value and support rights guaranteed by the 2A would be passionate, but am unsure why those who wish to diminish our right to arms are equally passionate. I've come to suspect the reason is that "guns" have, for those people, become a symbol of something else they hate ... usually an envisioned demographic. I honestly don't think very many people "hate" guns themselves, simply because guns are inanimate machines made of steel, plastic, or wood. Those people don't hate automobiles just because they kill more than 40,000 people per year. It seems the hate surrounding the "gun" issue stems from a hatred and intolerance of the symbolism guns represent ... be that white people, republicans, rednecks, rural people, police, or what have you. It's all very interesting, but sad, too, because what we don't need is any more hatred.
Anyway, regarding Tennessee, I am happy to report that freedom is on the move. TN is, for gun rights, a pretty free state. You have shall-issue concealed carry, open carry is not prohibited, carry in non-secured portions of airports is not prohibited, machine guns and suppressors are lawful as long as federal law is followed. This session has seen a flood of more pro-freedom bills, most of which are likely to pass.
- repeal of the ban on bearing arms in restaurants and bars
- closing of public records concerning carry licensees
- repeal of the ban on bearing arms in state parks
- repeal of the ban on bearing arms in municipal parks
- a move to exempt guns made and kept in TN from federal infringements
And all the while, there are very serious penalties for criminal misuse of firearms. This is all welcome news for those who value freedom and responsibility, but it's unfortunately seen as threatening to those who project hatred and intolerance of various people onto guns and gun rights. Including Jeff Woods and several commentators here.
So be it. Second amendment supporters for the most part are responsible and lawful, and we encourage and support responsible behavior. We vehemently oppose criminal misuse of arms, and work hard to reduce bad behavior in society. We find suggestions that "typical" gun owners "get drunk and wave our guns around the camp-fire" and "open fire on poor unsuspecting campers" to be utterly ludicrous, and uttered only by the hateful and the foolish. People who would say those things aren't constructive or responsible, but rather, foment hatred and intolerance.
We wish you would not do so, but so be it if you must. Those of us who value our rights will remain vigilant and fight much, much harder to keep our rights than those few who are determined to take those rights away. Mind your own business, live and speak responsibly, and we will all live free, and happy, and will work together to deal with those people responsible for the offensive violence in society.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 6:53AMWow! I'm 54 and I've been waiting all my life to enter a Nat'l Park, get drunk and shoot the place up. But, the laws up until now have prevented me from doing it. Now, I will be able to do it legally!
Do you anti-gun nuts have any idea how stupid you appear to anyone with a brain?
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 8:23AMJeff,
Thanks for making everything so clear. Here all along I thought this was about my right to carry a firearm concealed for personal protection even if I happened to be on National Park territory. But now I understand that it's a permission slip for me to get drunk and brandish a gun in the parks.
Seriously man, that statement has to be about the most disingenuous thing I've read in years. Do you seriously expect us to believe that the carry rules for parks would have any effect on that drunken fool in your scenario?
Here's a thought. If guns in parks are bad let's disarm the rangers. But no they'll cry, the bad guys ignore the law and bring guns in anyway. We need to let the rangers stay armed. And my point is that what's good for the rangers ought to be good for any honest citizen as well.
Check out this New York Times editorial.
Panties in a bunch, much?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/opinion/14thu3.html
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 9:27AMPeople that go through the hassle to obtain a concealed weapons permit are 5 times less likely to be arrested for a crime. In shooting involving police officers, an innocent bystander is wounded 15% of the time. In a citizen involved shootings, an innocent bystander is wounded 2% of the time. Do people think that a National Park has some kind of strange magical power that is going to change the behavior of some of the most law-abiding people in the country? Do people really think that a no-loaded firearms sign is going to stop a criminal from going into a National Park with a loaded firearm. Then there is the whole Unconstitutional aspect to Public Lands. Montana has started a push to recover states rights, it's nice to see that several other states are following suit.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 9:43AMI have the deepest respect for Senator Alexander, but I completely disagree with his thinking on this. The amendment does not go farther than Tennessee law. In fact, all it does is recognize Tennessee law. If Tennessee law disallows guns in parks, that will still be the law of Tennessee. If Tennessee law allows guns in parks, it will force the federal government to begin respecting that (within Tennessee). All it does is apply state laws to federal lands within the states.
If Alexander really supports states rights and the 2nd Amendment, he should have supported this amendment. His vote makes no sense to me.
Posted On: Thursday, May. 14 2009 @ 10:33AMFreedom means that as long as you have NOT committed a crime, YOU have all of the Rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Gun Control is NOT a Freedom, it is a VIOLATION of that Freedom and should be eliminated.
This Bill is just a first step towards returning Freedom to The People, where it belongs.
