So, Senator--define 'family-oriented spaces'

It will come as no surprise, I hope, to all except those who buy into Ray Schoenke's and AHSA's rhetoric (a group that would . . . probably not be described as "teeming masses") that an Obama/Biden presidency would be bad news for gun rights. Therefore, yet another post on my part noting Obama's citizen disarmament agenda might be considered superfluous. Maybe so, but I haven't seen anyone else approach that issue from this particular angle before.

Anyway, this L.A. Times article discusses Obama's and McCain's candidacies from the perspective of hikers (and why not--voters with the wherewithal to make it to the polls, even if some kind of catastrophe shuts down vehicular traffic, are not to be dismissed lightly).

Little in the article is likely to surprise anyone, but one point did catch my eye. Both candidates were asked their positions on lifting the victim disarmament zone status of national parks. McCain expressed support for the idea:

I believe the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service should remove their prohibitions against law-abiding citizens transporting and carrying firearms to lands managed by those agencies.

Good for him (something I don't often say about McCain).

Obama, on the other hand . . .

Obama, who is against assault weapons and a gun show loophole that allows trading of weapons between private individuals, stated: "I believe in Second Amendment rights and the rights of hunters and sportsmen to bear arms and use them in a responsible way. But I am concerned about allowing loaded firearms into family-oriented spaces."

And that brings us to the title of my post.

One might wish to ask the Senator why state-mandated defenselessness is a good thing when the parties rendered defenseless are likely to be families. First, though, I have another question--what is a "family-oriented space"? It's easy enough to come up with a couple examples of places that most would agree would not qualify--strip clubs, massage parlors, etc., but what would be a good rule of thumb for what does qualify?

I don't know, but I would hope that most would agree that the home of a married couple and their five children, aged seven to fourteen, is a "family-oriented space." Take, for example, the home of John and Tephanie Carpenter.

On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce was high on drugs. He slipped inside a home when the parents were away and began attacking the children inside.

Armed only with a pitchfork, and without a stitch of clothing on his body, Bruce proceeded to chase the children through the house -- stabbing them repeatedly.

The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was babysitting at the time. Having been trained by her father, Jessica knew how to use a firearm. There was just one problem: the household gun was locked up in compliance with California state law.

Because of California's "lock up your safety" law, Jessica had few options. She could not call 911 because the intruder had cut the phone lines to the house. She could not protect herself, for state officials had effectively removed that possibility. Her only option was to flee the house and leave her siblings behind.

Thankfully, Mr. Bruce's murderous rampage was finally cut short when police officers arrived at the house. They shot and killed Bruce, but not before two children had already been murdered.

A more detailed account of the story can be found here. Anyone who agrees that a family's home is a "family-oriented space" must acknowledge that Senator Obama favors laws that would prohibit quickly and easily gaining access to the most effective means of defending that space.

By the way, since legislating such a rule change in national parks isn't happening in this Congressional session, it's only going to happen by Department of the Interior edict. Such an edict may still happen before the next president takes office, but it's hard to believe that it would last long under any Secretary of the Interior appointed by an Obama/Biden administration.