pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

It is always good to see the staff of the Commercial Appeal continue with their rampantly anti-firearm agenda – it makes it so much easier to call them out as being the discriminating bigots they are. Consider this “news” article, entitled “Memphians debate guns in parks”, and what, exactly, the Commercial Appeal considers to be “debate”:
One person adamantly against handgun carry permit holders being able to carry their firearms into parks.
Another person adamantly against it, with extra hyperbole thrown in for the fun of it.
One person (a black, male nurse) for it, and all five of his sisters have handgun carry permits. And here I thought firearm owners were only bitter, white males?
Another person totally aganst the idea, with additional hyperbole.
Yet another person against it, and in denial to boot.
Two sisters advocating criminalizing and incarcerating handgun carry permit holders… just because.
One person barely in favor, but only so long as people conceal their handguns. Tennessee state law allows for both concealed and open carry.
And still another person against it, with another steaming load of emotional exaggeration thrown into the mix.
Surprise, surprise – yet another individual against it, this time making up stories and presenting them as reality.
And, finally, two more people against it, only this time hiding behind the Bible as an excuse. I guess they hold similar views of police officers and military members as they do of handgun carry permit holders, given their words.
So what does the final count come to? Ten individuals rabidly against law-abiding handgun carry permit holders being able to legally take their firearms into parks, one person for it, and one person barely in favor as long as those evil guns are kept out of his sight. That is the Commercial Appeal’s idea of a “debate” – a situation where one side is outnumbered ten to one. A high school newsletter writer could do a better job presenting both sides of a story than the halfwits behind the big desks at the Commercial Appeal.
As I have always maintained, the anti-rights, anti-self-defense, anti-Second-Amendment, anti-firearms, anti-firearm-owners, anti-handgun-carry-permits, anti-HCP-holders, hoplophobic, bigoted, and biased nature of the staff of the Commercial Appeal has never been in question – articles like this simply provide more evidence to throw on the sky-high pile.
Regarding the stupid, emotional, and irrational hyperbole put forward by so many of those who were speaking out against allowing people to defend themselves in Tennessee’s parks, I have these few things to say: a handgun carry permit is not a permit to shoot whomever we like; all the states that currently allow firearms into parks (and there are quite a few) have not had any of the problems you are so frantically scared of; handgun carry permit holders are, on average, more law-abiding than other citizens; and you already live, work, eat, shop, etc. next to over 220,000 Tennesseeans who go about their lives peacefully and lawfully armed… how should parks be any different than anywhere else?
In other news, the Commercial Appeal’s blatant bigotry seems to have attracted the attention of the NRA, given Chris Cox’s letter to the editor over the weekend:

Your May 20 editorial missed the mark entirely. Allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry guns in parks is not about an “appetite to mix firearms with family fun.” It’s about defending the most precious thing we have as human beings — our lives and the lives of our loved ones.

You claim that “no one has put forth any credible argument that violent behavior is so rampant inside these parks that permit holders” should need to carry a firearm. Well, here are some hard facts. The National Park Service’s most recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. Tennesseans shouldn’t have to wait to be the victim of a violent crime in a park before they are given the option to arm themselves.

Ask yourself: If a criminal or an animal emerges from the woods intent on harming you or your family, which would you rather have inside your picnic basket, a handgun or a hot dog? I’ll take both.

Chris W. Cox
Chief lobbyist, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislation Action

368 violent crimes in National Parks three years ago, and hoplophobes still say that no one has any cause to need a firearm in a park. Yeah… you all go on shoving your heads in the sand – me, I will defend me and mine, thank you very kindly.