NARP Goes Anti-Gun

[Ryan]

I'm not a criminal and I neither own nor hate guns. I just simply don't know why anyone would justify taking one on a passenger train other than to make a statement that they can, so they do.

Other than the half dozen reasons that I've given that you don't think are common enough, none.

The real question is why you continue to drive discussion on this issue on this when you (correctly and thanks!) recognized the fact that there doesn't have to be any good reason.

Like Upstate said, people that use trains are the in the gross minority, so should we abolish Amtrak?

Edit to add: The amendment passed.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4708

Edit2:

Here's a slightly longer article. This wasn't in the house version of the bill, so it's something that's going to get discussed in conference and then have to be re-voted on by both houses, so it isn't a done deal yet.

http://gunowners.org/wicker-amendment-passes-senate.htm

 

[Dakguy201]

Folks, this is so much security theatre on Amtrak's part. For example, if I want to murder a bunch of people on the Empire Builder for some twisted reason, what is to stop me from boarding at, say, Detroit Lakes MN at 2am with my Uzi and hundreds of rounds of ammo in my carryon baggage?

My guess is that some petty functionary in the Amtrak bureaucracy decided the current atmosphere in Washington is sufficiently pro-regulation and anti-gun and decided to assert his authority, thus enhancing his status.

I belonged to the NARP for several years but gave it up on the basis they were too close to Amtrak's management and sort of funtioned as a cheerleader for whoever happened to be the current CEO. While I don't support Congress trying to micromanage Amtrak, I don't think the NARP's opinion on the matter counts for very much either.

 

[Guest]

Sorry about the rambling, but folks I don't want to be on Amtrak with guns unless they're carried by law enforcement.

Tough. I suggest emigrating to a country that's more in line with your desires. Japan and England have great rail systems and no guns. (well, legal ones anyways)

We would not enjoy traveling on a train with the amount of security required to transport weapons.

Bunk. If you've traveled by plane more than a handful of times, I'd be willing to bet that you traveled on the plane with privately owned weapons and weren't ever aware of them (unless you saw the cases in the baggage pickup at your destination). There is no reason that security on the train would be significantly different than it is now.

Chill hokie. I live with a 357. Amtrak serves alcohol. Alcohol and guns don't mix. That's common sense. Amtrak doesn't have the ability or the budget to make value judgements on every individual that gets on the train and yet some would have to be required. The agents would have to be trained on gun handling, etc. These are expensive to a company dealing with budget issues and whose mission is to transport passengers. Let's see. I wouldn't want to see guns as a sightseer to the White House, in my local courtroom, in the airport, in schools, in hospitals. As a matter of fact, there aren't too many government places where I do want to see people toting guns. That includes Amtrak (yeah, yeah, it's a corporation)...yet, I'm thrilled that Kennesaw, GA requires that its residents own guns..

In your absurdity about "my emigrating". If I and my husband emigrate, who is going to be in the service of our country defending it as my husband has done since the early 1980's. Both my and my husband have been sworn to uphold the Constitution in our professions. We have buried friends who took that oath as well. Those professions actually cost us and therefore mean something to us.

 

[Ryan]

Chill yourself. Since we're talking about firearms in checked baggage, the service of alcohol on the train, and Amtrak making value judgments is completely outside the scope of this conversation. Chasing that off topic tangent for a moment, the creation of "gun free zones" like you would create just give crazed whackjobs a venue to go forth and commit maximum damage without fear of anyone being able to stop them. As a Virginia Tech alum, obviously this issue is near and dear to my heart, as a lawful CCW carrier could have lessened the tragedy that befell my school.

As far as measuring our "I love America" cred, I've taken the same oath, and buried friends as well, so you'd do well to have a little bit of a clue of who you're talking to before you start talking down to people. I guess the oath that you took to defend the Constitution must have had some clause in it excepting rights that you don't agree with that mine didn't, since you seem to be more than willing to throw the Second Amendment under the bus for the sake of your "not wanting" guns around.

 

[VentureForth]

This whole thread is entertaining. You can carry a firearm on MARTA in Atlanta (so long as you are permitted to do so).

Quite frankly, baggage (checked or carried) is not ever checked on Amtrak and whosoever would have ill intentions in mind is likely not to follow paper rules anyway.

 

[Upstate]

In your absurdity about "my emigrating". If I and my husband emigrate, who is going to be in the service of our country defending it as my husband has done since the early 1980's. Both my and my husband have been sworn to uphold the Constitution in our professions. We have buried friends who took that oath as well. Those professions actually cost us and therefore mean something to us.

Good Riddance? I have seen the military f*** too many good people. Maybe some new blood would make things work better. When I was in the army I had a buddy that had to have open heart surgery because everyone blew him off when he had a cold that progressed to pneumonia and eventual heart failure. I saw plenty of other folks with less extreme examples, but I worked with this guy and at the age of 24 the army screwed him for life for nothing.

 

[Guest]

Good Riddance? I have seen the military f*** too many good people. Maybe some new blood would make things work better. When I was in the army I had a buddy that had to have open heart surgery because everyone blew him off when he had a cold that progressed to pneumonia and eventual heart failure. I saw plenty of other folks with less extreme examples, but I worked with this guy and at the age of 24 the army screwed him for life for nothing.

Upstate: So have I and I carry as much anger as you do over injustices I have seen within its works. It is a necessary evil run amuk with egos and people seeking dollars in control of those who are willing to give it all. There are several of us on here who are dealing with the problems our family members have as a result of their service. We will be dealing with them for life. I still don't deserve to be told to emigrate for my beliefs concerning guns on Amtrak. That's absurd.

PM (or whatever it's call on here) me privately to talk civilly about your buddy.

MRFSS, please be lenient for the moment so that this guy can contact me separately.

Your favorite deletee,

Jody

 

[Guest]

Chill yourself. Since we're talking about firearms in checked baggage, the service of alcohol on the train, and Amtrak making value judgments is completely outside the scope of this conversation. Chasing that off topic tangent for a moment, the creation of "gun free zones" like you would create just give crazed whackjobs a venue to go forth and commit maximum damage without fear of anyone being able to stop them. As a Virginia Tech alum, obviously this issue is near and dear to my heart, as a lawful CCW carrier could have lessened the tragedy that befell my school.
As far as measuring our "I love America" cred, I've taken the same oath, and buried friends as well, so you'd do well to have a little bit of a clue of who you're talking to before you start talking down to people. I guess the oath that you took to defend the Constitution must have had some clause in it excepting rights that you don't agree with that mine didn't, since you seem to be more than willing to throw the Second Amendment under the bus for the sake of your "not wanting" guns around.

Hokie,

You make many poor arguments and assumptions that are without merit for a Tech grad. Check your emotions at the door. Is your stock portfolio down?

 

[Guest]

This whole thread is entertaining. You can carry a firearm on MARTA in Atlanta (so long as you are permitted to do so).
Quite frankly, baggage (checked or carried) is not ever checked on Amtrak and whosoever would have ill intentions in mind is likely not to follow paper rules anyway.

Reading these threads reminds me of old movies with outlaws overtaking trains for payrolls. Is there some possibility that guns are more restricted on planes because of the inability to jump from an airplane (and possibiliy of hijacking) and the difficulty of handling a passenger with a problem? At least on a train you could open the door and shove him out. The last hijacking of a train that I know about occurred during the Civil War near Atlanta.

 

[Ryan]

Ah, Jody. How did I know that it was you?

Upstate's going to have a hell of a time PMing you, since that isn't possible since you post as a guest.

You claim that my arguments are poor, yet do nothing to debate them. Perhaps you can explain how alcohol service and Amtrak making value judgments have anything to do with checked baggage, for starters?

As far as checking my emotions at the door, you could attempt to not be insulting with your posts. I merely suggested that if our Constitution isn't to your liking that there are other places in the world with world-class rail systems and gun control views that are more in line with yours. It boggles the mind that you brag about your love and dedication for the Constitution while simultaneously arguing to throw the distasteful (to you) parts of it out.

And, no - I don't even own any stocks to be down, but by all means continue on with the baseless assumptions. They've served you so well in the past.

 

[Guest]

Ah, Jody. How did I know that it was you?
Upstate's going to have a hell of a time PMing you, since that isn't possible since you post as a guest.

You claim that my arguments are poor, yet do nothing to debate them. Perhaps you can explain how alcohol service and Amtrak making value judgments have anything to do with checked baggage, for starters?

As far as checking my emotions at the door, you could attempt to not be insulting with your posts. I merely suggested that if our Constitution isn't to your liking that there are other places in the world with world-class rail systems and gun control views that are more in line with yours. It boggles the mind that you brag about your love and dedication for the Constitution while simultaneously arguing to throw the distasteful (to you) parts of it out.

And, no - I don't even own any stocks to be down, but by all means continue on with the baseless assumptions. They've served you so well in the past.

I am registered and I'm working on my taxes so don't have time to deal with your wacky arguments.

 

[AlanB]

Please, everyone let's avoid name calling.

Thanks

 

[AlanB]

My guess is that some petty functionary in the Amtrak bureaucracy decided the current atmosphere in Washington is sufficiently pro-regulation and anti-gun and decided to assert his authority, thus enhancing his status.

I'm sorry, but your guess would be wrong. Amtrak banned carrying guns in checked baggage shortly after 9/11 under a Republican administration and a Republican Congress. The Capital Beltway may be a bit more anti-gun right now, but it definately wasn't back in 2001.

 

[VentureForth]

There were quite a few knee jerk reactions after 9/11. In the absence of Air Marshalls or Amtrak Police on most long distance planes, I would prefer to have a legal, responsible, gun carrying, fellow passenger on board. Better yet, hope he (or she) is on board and no one knows about it.

We will all never agree on this.

 

[MattW]

Some food for thought: if passengers could have had guns on planes. Would 9/11 have happened?

 

[Guest]

"demon-haunted inert pieces of metal "

I have never heard a bullet described as demon-haunted. Please, I'm getting off of any mode of transportation that serves as demon transport....

There are probably more than these 2 groups. A third would be those concerned about the erosion of liberties.

 

[Neil_M]

Oh - and #3?
Criminals who don't fear guns as long as they are the only ones who have them.

These folks generally aren't involved in any discussions, since they could care less about silly laws.

I suspect they mostly support gun bans, since they

A: don't intend to observe them anyway, and

B: such bans would make their daily work - home invasions, rape and murder - so much less risky.

Given that the death penalty still exists in the US, the deterrent to criminals seems quite severe, plus the risk their target is carrying a gun. That must make America fairly crime free then?

The news is full of 'good guys' shooting the 'bad guy' in the middle of some horrible crime, and you never hear about shopping malls, colleges and other work places getting shot up by some looser with a gun......

The more guns you have in society, the more chance you will have of them being used in some silly dispute. But you have a 'right' to carry a gun, so that's ok.Is there a 'right' to be shot?

Hanging on to things that were the norm hundreds of years ago is a bit of a risky game, after all, at one point it was ok to keep a private imprisoned workforce of black people.

 

[ruudkeulers]

Given that the death penalty still exists in the US, the deterrent to criminals seems quite severe, plus the risk their target is carrying a gun. That must make America fairly crime free then?The news is full of 'good guys' shooting the 'bad guy' in the middle of some horrible crime, and you never hear about shopping malls, colleges and other work places getting shot up by some looser with a gun......

The more guns you have in society, the more chance you will have of them being used in some silly dispute. But you have a 'right' to carry a gun, so that's ok.Is there a 'right' to be shot?

Hanging on to things that were the norm hundreds of years ago is a bit of a risky game, after all, at one point it was ok to keep a private imprisoned workforce of black people.

Pearls before swines, Neil, I'm afraid to say. I used the same and other aguments for decades to my USA-friends without any effect. In the end we just agreed to disagree.

Btw, to my knowledge the death penalty has still not officially been abolished in the UK and therefor still exists, or did I miss something?

 

[VentureForth]

The news is full of 'good guys' shooting the 'bad guy' in the middle of some horrible crime, and you never hear about shopping malls, colleges and other work places getting shot up by some looser with a gun......Hanging on to things that were the norm hundreds of years ago is a bit of a risky game, after all, at one point it was ok to keep a private imprisoned workforce of black people.

Wow, Neil. I've heard some pretty compelling arguments against our 2nd amendment, but these arguments are not very valid at all.

We DO hear about the shootings at malls, churches, and school campuses. Often times, we hear that there were people that were permitted to carry a firearm that were not at the time because a law told them they weren't allowed to at such-and-such place.

I'm SO thankful that bank robberies are down because criminals know that it's illegal to take a firearm into a bank. Wow.

Packing heat isn't for vigilante justice. It's to prevent further carnage being carried out by an insane person.

What the heck does the 2nd amendment have to do with slavery? I mean, if you want to make everything that is as old as slavery obsolete, then we'd get rid of that pesky freedom of religion, right to non-self-incrimination, states' rights, and the rest of that silly "constitution"?

 

[ruudkeulers]

The news is full of 'good guys' shooting the 'bad guy' in the middle of some horrible crime, and you never hear about shopping malls, colleges and other work places getting shot up by some looser with a gun......Hanging on to things that were the norm hundreds of years ago is a bit of a risky game, after all, at one point it was ok to keep a private imprisoned workforce of black people.

Wow, Neil. I've heard some pretty compelling arguments against our 2nd amendment, but these arguments are not very valid at all.

We DO hear about the shootings at malls, churches, and school campuses. Often times, we hear that there were people that were permitted to carry a firearm that were not at the time because a law told them they weren't allowed to at such-and-such place.

I'm SO thankful that bank robberies are down because criminals know that it's illegal to take a firearm into a bank. Wow.

Packing heat isn't for vigilante justice. It's to prevent further carnage being carried out by an insane person.

What the heck does the 2nd amendment have to do with slavery? I mean, if you want to make everything that is as old as slavery obsolete, then we'd get rid of that pesky freedom of religion, right to non-self-incrimination, states' rights, and the rest of that silly "constitution"?

Though this is going way off topic, let me try some other arguments.

The problem here is that, if YOU are allowed to carry a firearm, I am allowed to carry a firearm, even you think I'm dangerous.

To take this matter to a higher level: if YOU as a state are allowed to deploy nuclear arms, I as a state am allowed to deploy nuclear arms, even if I, in your eyes, belong to the axis of evil.

I'd like to turn things around: the fact that I don't carry a firearm gives me the moral right to deny you to carry a firearm.

And the fact that we as a nation condemn the development and use of nuclear arms, gives us the moral right to condemn other counties that do.

Wasn't that the way slavery ended, because a few people started to discuss the moral issue whether slavery was inhuman?

 

[VentureForth]

Perhaps I'll never understand why the carrying of a firearm would be considered immoral. A gun doesn't have a soul, doesn't speak, doesn't do anything without the influence of one who handles it. It is no different than a samurai sword, poison, or even a nice Mercedes Benz. Though I respect your thoughts and right to express those thoughts, those suggestions that you make, ruudkeulers, are definitions of oppression, not freedom.

According to our founding fathers, it is inherently a God-given right to pursue happiness. It is one of the primary reasons why we left Europe to begin with. Rules (ie: laws) should be in place to contstrain the irresponsible from chaos, not to contrain the responsible from freedom.

 

[sunchaser]

Perhaps I'll never understand why the carrying of a firearm would be considered immoral. A gun doesn't have a soul, doesn't speak, doesn't do anything without the influence of one who handles it. It is no different than a samurai sword, poison, or even a nice Mercedes Benz. Though I respect your thoughts and right to express those thoughts, those suggestions that you make, ruudkeulers, are definitions of oppression, not freedom.
According to our founding fathers, it is inherently a God-given right to pursue happiness. It is one of the primary reasons why we left Europe to begin with. Rules (ie: laws) should be in place to contstrain the irresponsible from chaos, not to contrain the responsible from freedom.

I've stayed out of this, observing for a bit. I think there can be points made for both sides of this argument, except for one thing. The Constitution. We have the right to keep & bear arms. The Constitution does not limit where we keep or where we bear arms. Historically it was because the king (George) had his soldiers remove guns by force from the homes

of the citizens in the 13 colonies. Back then, of course, you needed them for defense & hunting.

My understanding & opinion is that you have the right still to keep & bear arms. I do not see anything in the Constitution that says, except for public places. Of course the expectation is to be responsible & handle said arms with proper care & secured in a manner to protect others from accidental injury. I do not see an issue in transporting arms secured properly in Baggage, no matter what the legal purpose is. However, many would disagree to having firearms in carry on, etc. We do have laws about having a concealed weapon & you must have a permit in most states for that. Most responsible gun owners are just that-responsible. We always hear about the few that break the law, feeding the fire for gun control. We usually ignore all the others that are being responsible. To me, it doesn't make alot of sense to place excessive limits on the use of something just because of others that do not follow the rules. (ie, no guns in baggage) Remember I'm speaking of people who have permits, not illegal use of guns. We can discuss this rationally!! Really, the issue is how to preserve the rights of those following the law while protecting against those who will break it.

 

[Guest]

"Though this is going way off topic, let me try some other arguments.The problem here is that, if YOU are allowed to carry a firearm, I am allowed to carry a firearm, even you think I'm dangerous."

I think most states, after deeming you dangerous [around weapons such as a felon or the mentally incapacitated], would not allow you to carry, legally, via a permit. International relations sound like an extension of that and are probably OT for here.

Curiously, how would Neil and the folks from the other countries feel boarding the train knowing that people with guns were on there (assuming responsibile handling).

As an owner I would not want to travel with a weapon because of the associated responsibility. When children visit I have to keep its location in mind and that's in a home.

Jody

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

I'm not a criminal and I neither own nor hate guns. I just simply don't know why anyone would justify taking one on a passenger train other than to make a statement that they can, so they do.

This was answered, but then the question keeps getting asked.

In the 90s, I was active in shooting comps. You can not ship firearms to yourself like with airguns, so you are stuck transporting via planes/trains/auto/etc. So I followed procedure, and took them with me.

Same with hunting trips, as said above. Or people that are moving/relocating, or going to gun shows, or promotions/sales events. Plus working related usage, ie military, police, and private (investigators, security, contractors, etc). There are thousands of reasons.

The TSA worked out the system for transporting firearms because you can not ship them. There are exceptions for sending guns for repair, but not for transporting from "A" to "B".

Amtrak has a stigma of being a tourist train for railfans. I know thats how I perceived it until I started riding it. Now I won't fly unless I must for logistical reasons. It makes sense for Amtrak to follow the same standards as the airlines.

That said, how would they handle trains without checked baggage? (ie most of the Northeast). I think they should transport them, but it might be prudent to update the baggage handling procedures. More to prevent theft though

 

[caravanman]

Was the orignal post that Sen. Wicker was proposing to alter Amtrak's funding unless they permitted firearms to be carried in checked baggage?

or was it about whether guns were a good thing?

My own view is that it is a bit like wanting to be a male boy scout leader.. The very wish to be one (or own a gun) should be grounds for doubt !

Ed B)