# Concealed guns in national parks? Loaded weapons in wildlife refuges? Whaaa? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301 "2009-05-22T15:50:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/381 "2009-05-26T22:20:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, you can always “interpret” the Constitution so it doesn’t mean what it says. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, but that’s the truth. They can apply any twist to the plain language they like. So, could the Supremes spend the morning passing the bong around, and then rule that any search is reasonable if it’s carried out by an FBI agent who’s wearing a zoot suit? Well, yeah, they could. Would it provoke a Constitutional crisis? You betcha, and a beaut - it would be immensely entertaining to watch that one play out! The point is that the legislature and the courts have the power to decide what the often vague, ill-defined terms in the Constitution actually mean. Our legal history is a long parade of those efforts. The Second Amendment says, “arms.” What does that actually mean? The First Amendment says, “freedom of the press.” What does that actually mean? The Fourth Amendment says, “unreasonable searches and seizures.” What does that actually mean? The FF aren’t here to tell us what they were thinking, or how they would react to current conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/382 "2009-05-26T22:26:17Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Here’s the thing. “Guns are made for killing people!” is a simplistic argument made to register on emotion. In most cases, it’s true - but it doesn’t carry an inherent value judgement in it. Police shooting a criminal who’s about to shoot at them is good. An old lady taking out a burglar who wouldn’t hesistate to harm her is good. “IT’S ONLY GOOD FOR KILLING PEOPLE!” is meant to provoke an emotional reaction but it’s not an argument in itself. A fair point, and I’ll try not to use it that way. But when balancing costs and benefits, the purpose of the device in question is important. As has been said elsewhere, cars kill people, too, but they weren’t created to do that. And of course, I’m not proposing that we disarm the military, the police, security guards (though that might not be a bad idea, given how underqualified most of them are!), etc. The old lady taking out the burglar is a tougher case. If she’s equally likely to get confused, and take out the meter-reader, then perhaps letting the burglar take her silverware isn’t such a bad outcome. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/383 "2009-05-26T23:56:33Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > You continually avoid my questions, **EarlyOut**. > > Do you really believe that Susan Hupp shouldn’t have had a chance to save her parents from death? You speak of rare occassions not being enough to establish policy. How are you going to know who might need a gun for self defense? > > Go ahead, ignore this question too. FWIW, I find your question to be worthless. It’s an appeal to emotion and it’s something we should be above. It’s no better than saying “THIS CUTE LITTLE KID WOULDN’T HAVE DIED IF PEOPLE DIDN’T HAVE GUNS!” ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/384 "2009-05-27T00:00:24Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > The old lady taking out the burglar is a tougher case. If she’s equally likely to get confused, and take out the meter-reader, then perhaps letting the burglar take her silverware isn’t such a bad outcome. This is just grabbing the best case scenario - “half blind woman vs a guy who means her no harm” obviously doesn’t sound like a recipe for armed self defense. But the reality is that without guns, the strong dominate the weak and an active criminal with a choice of targets is very likely to be stronger than their victim. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/385 "2009-05-27T00:44:20Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > When we craft our “no handguns” law, we’ll find a way to accommodate that use. Sounds like a good idea. We’ll legislate based on their use. We’ll make things like murder, robbery, and assault illegal with guns, and things like hunting, protection, and target practice legal. Oh wait… ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/386 "2009-05-27T00:59:22Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Insufficient. Let’s go with original intent - you can have a musket. Ummmm, OK, (dubious look) Hmmm. Muskets are long guns with smooth bores (pretty similar to a shotgun in that regard). So, with some powder, I could use anything I please as the projectile - nails, coins, anything that I can cram down the barrel. Hmmmm. That would be a nasty nasty weapon. It would be useless for hunting, useless for target shooting, but would make a horrific mess of a person at close range. In short, at close range, it could be a BETTER man killer than some plinker’s little “popgun”. What’s a good caliber? 50 cal? That’s a decent size. Then there was (I think it was Bricker’s or Shodan’s) comment about freedom of the press. Guess radio, TV, glossy magazines are out. Going with “original intent”, there were no cars back then. Sure there were words about freedom of travel, but that was on foot or by horse, and people rarely left their home town, let alone the state. So, we won’t need roads or interstates, or even cars. How about defense? They didn’t have fighter jets or carriers or tanks. Guess the Army better get rid of them. For that matter, the Founders seemed to be downright paranoid about standing Armies overall. I guess we better demolish the Pentagon and fire all those military people. Can’t have them standing or quartering or any of that military type stuff. Talking about original intent as it relates to new technology is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/387 "2009-05-27T01:20:22Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Talking about original intent as it relates to new technology is pointless. Which is why I reject it completely when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. It’s obviously an utterly useless approach, but is the darling of the right wing (which is why I toss it out there once in a while - I’m just sandbagging, not advocating). My argument is with those who insist that we abide by the “plain language” of the Constitution, when the Constitution is full of things that are anything but “plain.” Clearly, we have to interpret the language of the Constitution as it applies to the world we actually live in. Saying that we can’t ban or regulate weapon X because the Second Amendment says that we have a right “to keep and bear arms” is just not helpful. The “plain language” doesn’t contain enough specificity - we have _no choice_ but to interpret it, in light of current conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/388 "2009-05-27T02:31:23Z")
If one of the intentions of the Second Amendment was to have the means to raise a militia in time of need, then it is reasonable to conclude that ‘arms’ meant the same types of arms possessed by the military. And in fact, that’s the way it was. So if the intention was for the people to be armed such that a citizen militia can supplement the military, then people today must have the right to own assault rifles, and not just semi-automatic derivatives of them. Further, people should be allowed to own ordnance as well. (Ordnance would include hand grenades, shoulder-fired missiles and rockets, etc. I’m not in favour of that, myself.) ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/389 "2009-05-27T03:33:41Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > FWIW, I find your question to be worthless. It’s an appeal to emotion and it’s something we should be above. It’s no better than saying “THIS CUTE LITTLE KID WOULDN’T HAVE DIED IF PEOPLE DIDN’T HAVE GUNS!” Nope. Just simple logic. A gun in the hand of Susan Hupp would have increased the chances of her parents surviving. They were all sitting there on the floor watching the massacre unfold. She might have been watching through her sights. Good try. **EarlyOut** couldn’t even come close. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/390 "2009-05-27T04:13:57Z")
Sure. Who cares? You don’t make policy off the emotional appeal of one anecdote. That’s the tactic of the gun control lobby. If someone asks for examples of a situation in which concealed carry can be useful, I guess you can bring that up - but the way you’re just bringing it up and hammering it isn’t helping anything. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/391 "2009-05-27T11:50:19Z")
Yup, for every Susan Hupp, I can give you a “little Jimmy,” who pulled out his father’s handgun and accidentally shot and killed his sweet, little, blue-eyed, curly-haired, smiling sister, perhaps even with a graphic description of how the bullet tore through her precious skull. Dueling anecdotes: pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/392 "2009-05-27T12:00:43Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > If one of the intentions of the Second Amendment was to have the means to raise a militia in time of need, then it is reasonable to conclude that ‘arms’ meant the same types of arms possessed by the military. And in fact, that’s the way it was. So if the intention was for the people to be armed such that a citizen militia can supplement the military, then people today must have the right to own assault rifles, and not just semi-automatic derivatives of them. Further, people should be allowed to own ordnance as well. (Ordnance would include hand grenades, shoulder-fired missiles and rockets, etc. I’m not in favour of that, myself.) The Second Amendment really is an anachronism, part of another age. Taken at face value, it would mean that I should be able to have a few tactical nuclear weapons in my garage. Therein may lie the heart of the problem. We’re struggling to apply an 18th Century ideal to the technology of the 21st Century, and it’s a poor fit. The Constitution has a few gems like that floating around, like Article I, Section 10, which states that, “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Gotta go - I need to take this sack of silver coins down to Connecticut Light & Power to pay the electric bill. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/393 "2009-05-27T12:45:55Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > Let’s go with original intent - you can have a musket. I guess I will have to repeat my question - what evidence do you have that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Constitution would only apply to eighteenth century technologies? You seem to be asserting this as inescapable. On what is it based? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/394 "2009-05-27T13:32:36Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Taken at face value, it would mean that I should be able to have a few tactical nuclear weapons in my garage. No, it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/395 "2009-05-27T13:33:37Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I guess I will have to repeat my question - what evidence do you have that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was that the Constitution would only apply to eighteenth century technologies? > > You seem to be asserting this as inescapable. On what is it based? > > Regards, > Shodan Please just forget I ever said it. It was misunderstood and, frankly, I just don’t have the energy to get into a long discussion about the misuses of “original intent.” ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/396 "2009-05-27T13:39:20Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > No, it doesn’t. If, as you suggest, the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean that the militia needs to be equipped with everything the regular military has, then battlefield nukes should be part of the basic equipment list, shouldn’t they? Perhaps not, given that the U.S. has only a relatively small number of such beasts. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/397 "2009-05-27T13:49:44Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > If, as you suggest, the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean that the militia needs to be equipped with everything the regular military has, then battlefield nukes should be part of the basic equipment list, shouldn’t they? Perhaps not, given that the U.S. has only a relatively small number of such beasts. This is a fallacy Anti-Choice people always trot out. They don’t understand the difference between arms and ordnance. An ‘arm’ (firearm, specifically) must be pointed at a target. Ordnance has an effect over an area. A nuclear weapon, a howitzer, or a hand grenade is designed to take out multiple targets with one projectile. Even a machine gun must be pointed at single targets. Equating nuclear weapons to a handgun is at the best, ignorant; and at the worst, deliberately deceptive. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/398 "2009-05-27T13:55:06Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Further, people should be allowed to own ordnance as well. Make up your mind. ---
**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/399 "2009-05-27T14:02:25Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Insufficient. Let’s go with original intent - you can have a musket. Good Lord in Heaven… for the umpteenth time, (for some reason, it just won’t sink in) the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to grant any rights to the people, or to allow the people to do or possess something. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place restrictions on the FedGov by binding it to the few powers enumerated within the Constitution. I cringe everytime I hear someone say, “The First Amendment gives me the right to say…” or “The Second Amendment gives me the right to have a…” NO THEY DON’T!!! You already have the rights, the Amendments prohibit the government from denying you those rights. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/400 "2009-05-27T14:13:59Z")
**SenorBeef** > [@](#): > > Sure. Who cares? You don’t make policy off the emotional appeal of one anecdote. That’s the tactic of the gun control lobby. Sure do. Susan Hupp’s testimony led to concealed carry in Texas. And I wasn’t “hammering” the point. **EarlyOut** wouldn’t address it so I kept reminding him that I’d asked the question. That’s all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=21)