Interior Dept. overturns regulation, clearing the way for concealed, loaded firearms into national parks.
Interior Dept. overturns regulation, clearing the way for concealed, loaded firearms into national parks.
Today, the Department of Interior overturned a Reagan-era regulation, permitting loaded firearms at 388 of 391 national park sites. The decision allows guns in parks in “any states with concealed carry laws, not just those that allow guns in their state parks as originally proposed.” While the Department cited safety concerns as a factor, the National Park Conservation Association notes:
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006—making national parks some of the safest places in the United States. The new regulation could increase the risk for impulse shootings of wildlife, and risk the safety of visitors and rangers. Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the Administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law.
The text of the rule notes that earlier, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) wrote to the Interior Dept. supporting the rule change. Check out ThinkProgress’s updated report on Bush’s 11th hour regulations and rule changes.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Interior Dept. overturns regulation, clearing the way for concealed, loaded firearms into national parks.»
– - This should end well.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:39 pmI am a 31 year retired “veteran” of an agency of the Department of the Interior. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone needs to carry a loaded concealed firearm in a national park or on a national wildlife refuge. I guess chimpy is worried that black bears are going to jump out of the bushes and attack hikers on the Appalachian Trail? Or maybe ducks are going to rise up on J.Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge in North Dakota and secretly attack hunters? Other than that I can’t think of a good reason for weapons of any sort on Interior lands. Well, unless you want to mollify the National Rifle Association. It couldn’t be that could it?
How soon until this idiot leaves office?????
December 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pmPresident-elect Obama needs to create a new transition team that is focused on nothing other than keeping track of the lame duck phuck yous designing immediate remedies for implementation on January 21st.
And Badmoodman, you made me LOL at that comment!
PEACE
December 5th, 2008 at 8:40 pmSo now my hickory axhandle won’t be enough to defend my family (God forbid) against some drunken A-hole? Now I need an AR-15? Once again, thanks again, idiot-boy. This is gonna be awesome.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:46 pmI’ll be able to stop all the out of control Christian wingnuts that infest the National Parks.
December 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pmThere is only one good thing about Bush & Co. They’ll soon be gone.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pmI guess we can now add pillage and plunder to Shrub’s august resume of lies, incompetence, corruption, warmongering, and murder.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pmIt’s an attempt at baiting Barack. They want him to change the rule, so that they can jump all over him about “takin’ our guns away!”
December 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pmDoes anyone have the shrubs’ new address? Let’s sign him up for a bunch of progressive magazines, and get him on the ACLU’s mailing list!!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:18 pmYou just never know when a KILLER RABBIT may attack you and your family, isn’t that right Sarah?
December 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pmIs anyone making a “Bush Was The Worst President In History” library? There is ample material for a good sized library.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pmMaybe its just the hour. But I’ve reread this 3 times and I still don’t understand what happened.
I guess what is being said is that now (under the reg. change) there are national parks allowing loaded firearms in spite of the state laws governing park firearm laws. Maybe it just needs the sentences reworded. Or maybe I need to reread in the morning. :)
December 5th, 2008 at 9:24 pmTime for the return of Yogi Bear–with warnings for graphic violence and blood.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:32 pmHow much more damage can this administration do in the next 40 days? They’re worse than the barbarian hordes!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pmPhoto Caption: Even in his own milieu, he looks like a stupid ass.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pmtryggth…
I agree, it doesn’t actually make much sense as it is written.
But who cares? Just as long as gun-owners and non gun-owners may or may not carry concealed weapons in National Parks whether or not their state, or any other state, does or doesn’t have conceal-carry or non-conceal-carry laws in general; except for 3 National parks where the carrying of concealed weapons would clearly be a public hazard!
December 5th, 2008 at 9:47 pmWhy would the Dept. of Interior do this? It’s the “shooting-yourself-in-the-foot” syndrome. And I know this is macabre, but… seems to me several serial killers/murderers in recent years have done their horrific deeds in parks or similarly secluded areas. Do we really want to invite more firearms, more hunters, more shooters into our parks, where many families visit for holidays?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pmWhy?
strong>-AF
December 5th, 2008 at 10:15 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
There is some fear out there concerning Obama… I am sure this attitude is in others places too:
Buyers load up on guns
December 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pm“I don’t think anyone thinks they’re going to take their arms, but they think they’ll stop selling,” Lewis said. Lewis said the store has run out of pistols for sale for the past two months….”A lot of people were taking advantage of the sale, but certainly, there’s a lot of individuals concerned about their ability to buy guns after January,”
Bush never does anything without a reason.
Makes me wonder which special interest group benefits from this.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm… making national parks some of the safest places in the United States.
well, so much for that…
December 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pmAs someone who has volunteered in several national parks over the years this ruling really bothers me. I have also volunteered in several national forests. I am sure there are some quite responsible gun owners but I have seen several places in national forests that look as if a fire-fight has taken place. Signs, trash cans, latrines, you name it, riddled with bullet holes. Haven’t these Bush/Cheney bastards fu(ked up enough things in this country? How much more do they have to destroy to satisify their evil beings?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:41 pmSo, hypothetically speaking, if a national park abuts both a concealed-carry state, and a non-concealed-carry state, one state’s law trumps the other’s?
Smells unconstitutional. Equal protection clause.
December 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pmWhat on earth could be going on to change this rule.. now.. in Bush’s last 40 – 50 days… in the dead of winter? Why?
December 5th, 2008 at 10:56 pmOh good. Whenever I hike way back in the forests of our National Parks, I am always pissing my pants and crapping my drawers, because I am afraid that there aren’t enough idiots running around in the woods shooting everything that moves.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:01 pmFolks, do NOT bother getting into the reality of who would do what in a national park with a loaded weapon. This rule change has absolutely NOTHING to do with that.
This is what is known as an 11th hour gift to the NRA who needs some love from Bush and the GOP for all the gifts of large, large contributions and campaign help over the past 8 years.
This is also very savvy politically because if Obama tries to have it overturned, they will claim that the Dems are anti-2nd ammendment and want to now take AWAY gun rights.
If only Gore had been a better candidate in 2000 … Argh.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:08 pmGee thanks, former-Governor Plastic Man! You’re living down to my expectations, as usual.
Maybe when you get your ass booted out of Washington you can just stay there and be a plastic lobbyist?
Glad you’re gone from Idaho!
December 5th, 2008 at 11:08 pmok, the gun people are nuts to begine with, but once me and some friends were going on a hike in Spokane and there was this wimp gun guy doing fast draw crap for his girl (pig) friend at a state park with family picnic behind the area he was shooting his damn gun off into, we had to call the rangers about him, but the problem is that (most) gun people have very low IQ’s and don’t think about the results of their actions.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pmBadmoodman Says: – - This should end well.
What we don’t need is a bunch of beered and liquered up yahoos driving around in their pickup trucks doing drivebys plunking away at the moose, elk, deer and any other wildlife that happens into the yahoos headlights.
Here in Colorado we have enough yahoos shooting horses in corrals as they drive by. But heck, theys just good ol’ boys having some fun with their 44 Magnums after the bars close.
44 Magnum fun = dead horse
44 Magnum fun in National Parks = dead Moose or elk.
Why in the world do this?
December 6th, 2008 at 12:00 amCaption Contest:
“Look, sir, a liberal!”
December 6th, 2008 at 12:24 amAnd the reason one might need a concealed loaded firearm at a national park is what again?
December 6th, 2008 at 1:07 amSo people who believe in the wonders of creation need guns to blow those same beautiful wonders…they pontificate on…straight to hell?
I guess those moose and bunny rabbits must praise Allah or be secularists for any hunter or drunk to need a concealed weapon in addition to the cache of firearms in-hand.
“Watch out! They’re coming right for us!!!
December 6th, 2008 at 1:32 amImagine all the armed tax whiners when they find out you actually have to pay a small fee to enter….
December 6th, 2008 at 2:06 am“Duck season!” “Rabbit season!” “Duck season!” “Hiker season!”
December 6th, 2008 at 2:25 amAsolutely baffling! I started to try and figure out what reasoning or rationale would prompt such a bewildering move, but then I remembered who came up with this brilliant idea. No logic, justification, or consideration of consequence has been necessary for anything this administration has done thus far. Before Dumbya leaves office there will probably be an executive order stating that you MUST have a loaded weapon to enter a national park. If you don’t have one, you will be provided one for a small donation to the NRA. Also you will have to be white, recite the Lord’s Prayer from memory, and prove, however you choose, that you are a heterosexual.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:25 amEverything that the Bush administration has done over the past eight years has been intentional. No bungling. No incompetence. All intentional. All on purpose. Ever since Bush and Cheney, and the neo-con Republicans, seized control of the White House and our nation’s executive branch in January 2001, everything has been done for a right-wing reason. Come hell or high water, or any number of disasters, right-wing ideology trumps everything, including sanity.
The evil of Bush, Cheney and the Republicans runs much deeper than most people imagine.
Some examples.
Katrina time-line (rough):
About 48 hours before Katrina hits, all three state governors in Katrina’s projected path formally request federal disaster assistance. The Bush administration formally assigns FEMA disaster coordinators to each state. Louisiana’s establishes a FEMA command center in Baton Rouge, to coordinate federal/state efforts between FEMA and Democratic Gov. Blanco’s office. (Republicans later lied in claiming Gov. Blanco didn’t request federal assistance, but official documents prove otherwise).
A White House/FEMA/U.S. Weather Service teleconference is held before Katrina roars ashore. Bush and FEMA director Michael Brown actually sound coherent, pre-planning efforts seem successful, FEMA resources are in place, ready to go. A U.S. Weather Service person asks what if New Orleans’ levees are breached. What then?
Katrina makes landfall. Ho-hum. Just another hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast. Ho-hum. Some damage, some deaths, some clean-up afterward.
Then, New Orleans floods. This is the critical moment when the Bush administration decided to politicize Katrina in an attempt to bash Democrats and score points for the Republicans.
Karl Rove enters the picture, but only after the flooding of New Orleans. The Louisiana governor is a Democrat. The New Orleans mayor is a Democrat. A coordinated smear campaign by the Bush administration and right-wing pundits (radio and television) is begun. The Bush administration (Karl Rove) wanted to embarrass (drive out of office) these two Democratic leaders in Louisiana.
Former Democratic governor of Louisiana Blanco said earlier this year that in the days following NO’s flooding, the FEMA command center in Baton Rouge was inundated with phone calls from the news media due to the right-wing smear campaign that only began when NO flooded. Desperately-needed open phone lines were tied up. Command center personnel had a hard time calling out.
Then, an interesting article appeared on-line (NO Picayune?) in which the FEMA disaster coordinator was caught complaining after NO flooded that his NO rescue and relief orders were either being blocked or countermanded…which can only mean that some Republican higher up the command chain, at DHS or in the Bush White House, was responsible. This FEMA disaster coordinator in Baton Rouge, a twenty-year FEMA veteran, was highly frustrated. However, nothing else was heard from him, He clammed up.
FEMA’s disaster relief efforts in the first critical days following the flooding of NO, therefore, were blocked intentionally by someone in the Bush administration…while the right-wing smear campaign against Louisiana Democrats raged unabated…and while attempts by anyone, public or private, to provide desperately-needed assistance to New Orleans’ residents were also blocked.
–Several hundred Good Samaritan Louisiana boaters rushing to NO to rescue people from rooftops were turned away.
–U.S.A.F. helicopter pilots flying out of Pensacola FL were reprimanded upon their return to base for daring to rescue people from NO rooftops while on a resupply mission to an AFB outside NO. They rescued people until their fuel ran low.
–A U.S. hospital ship sat offshore of Louisiana, unused.
–Truckers carrying much-needed ice to NO were diverted elsewhere.
You see, the smear campaign against Louisiana Democrats just wouldn’t have been as effective if actual help was making it into NO.
So, while horrific images were coming out of flood-ravaged NO, the Republicans (Karl Rove) were trying to pin blame on the Democrats, to score partisan political points, while U.S. citizens in NO suffered or died.
But there’s more.
Louisiana’s governor Blanco called other state governors after FEMA’s disaster relief effort dried up, asking for help from their national guard units (those not in Iraq, that is) in providing disaster relief, rescue and security in the Katrina-ravaged areas, but especially in the flooded NO.
At the same time, someone in the Bush administration (Karl Rove? DHS-head Chertoff? Rumsfeld? Cheney? Bush?) began demanding that Gov. Blanco turn over her state’s security to them, federalizing Louisiana’s national guard units. (Note: the same demand was NOT made of the Republican governors in Mississippi or Alabama). She repeatedly refused, even when asked face-to-face and bluntly by Bush on Air Force One at the end of the week.
(Second Note: about a year after Katrina, the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress passed a law stripping state governors of any say in their state’s security during and following any emergency, as declared by the Bush administration. All fifty state governors, Republicans and Democrats, protested the loss of their authority of their national guard and their state’s security, but to no avail. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was one of these Republican governors protesting. During the recent devastation by Hurricane Ike along the Texas Gulf Coast, Gov. Rick Perry had NO authority…George W. Bush literally became governor of Texas again, with Chertoff calling the shots, freezing Gov. Perry out of the command loop, which they’d tried to do to former Gov. Blanco of Louisiana during Katrina).
So, you see, we must all come to realize that every crime committed by the Bush administration, every action taken, wasn’t “bungled,” but was intentional. Nothing the Bush administration has done over the past eight years has been “by chance.”
For instance, the Iraq War and its aftermath.
Some say that Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority “bungled” the occupation, but they’re not viewing it from the Bush 43 administration’s perspective. To the Bush 43 administration, Bush 41’s first Iraq War was a failure…because the U.S. military did their job so exceptionally well.and relatively quick. Hey, where’s the profit in that…especially if an administration run by corporate lobbyists, owned by corporate lobbyists wants to make a profit off a war? Thus, Bremer’s CPA and the on-going, five-year occupation of Iraq has provided tens of billions in “profits” for a whole lot of crony Republican individuals and corporations, sucking our federal treasury dry, which is something that the First Gulf War didn’t do because it was commanded and coordinated so well, and was over so quickly. When viewed from the Bush administration perspective, therefore, the “Mission” was “Accomplished,” which will probably be the same banner flying over Bush 43’s head as he leaves office in January. Everything was intentional. Everything done for a right-wing purpose. Everything done for money and power. “Mission Accomplished.” America destroyed. A permanent Republican majority in place.
Oh, wait. Maybe the Bush administration and Republicans DID bungle (in this regard, and after the last election results), unless one substitutes conservative majority for Republican majority and realize that the Blue Dog Democrats are more conservative Republican than liberal Democrat. Where President Barack Obama falls along this right-left ideological line is anyone’s guess right now. Is he more liberal, progressive…or is he more Blue Dog? We’ll see shortly.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:31 amWhat’s wrong with allowing people to exercise their rights? If someone has their concealed weapon permit and wants to carry in a national park, then they should be able to do that. IT IS THEIR RIGHT to do so. Most crimes involving guns don’t occur among law abiding gun owners. And I’m sure that includes gun related crimes in national parks. I don’t care for liberals or conservatives, they’re all full of shit. I care for the constitution and that ssys that individuals have a right to bear arms in this country.
Doesn’t anyone have any respect for the individuals choice to decide whether or not they exercise that right?
December 6th, 2008 at 3:17 amThis is just another reason why the world laughs at us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WugcAuQMP1s
December 6th, 2008 at 5:16 amcjbchar85 Says:
What’s wrong with allowing people to exercise their rights? If someone has their concealed weapon permit and wants to carry in a national park, then they should be able to do that. IT IS THEIR RIGHT to do so.
A right that other Americans don’t have. The yokels can do what they want outside the parks if the state allows concealed-carry – but others who use the parks, and don’t have that state-given right, are not being treated equally. That goes against the equal-protection clause of the Constitution. So no, it’s not their right to carry a weapon inside a national park. State parks are a different matter.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:17 amI care for the constitution and that ssys that individuals have a right to bear arms in this country.
You don’t know much about the Constitution, if you’re making that argument. See the above post.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:20 amI have argued for years that people should be required by law to go armed.
With one proviso: Whenever anyone sees a gun drawn, everyone would be legally required, also, to draw their own gun and point it at the person who had first drawn their weapon, and to shoot said person should that person’s weapon also discharge.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:39 amThank “Loserman”!
He’s been a GOPuke mole since at least ‘94.
December 6th, 2008 at 7:44 amCheney has new places to hunt now.
December 6th, 2008 at 8:10 amMost states permit concealed carry now. What’s the difference in carrying in your own downtown and carrying in a National Park?
Criminal incidents involving legally permitted concealed carry weapons are among the lowest in the country.
Crooks are going to have weapons – they don’t care about being legal.
Why do Forest Rangers carry guns?
December 6th, 2008 at 8:34 amIncidently, I still haven’t found anyone who has ever had to defend themselves with a handgun a week after that feelow last week claimed a upstanding law abiding citizen has to defend themselves every 13 seconds. Some of you are clearly working overtime it seems.
What is with all this imaginary need to defend oneself?
December 6th, 2008 at 9:30 amHey There, It’s Yogi Bear (1964)
Yogi Bear: He’s turning this park into a boot camp, with me getting the boot.
Yogi Bear: [On the Ranger's phone] Hello? Hello? Is this the White House?
December 6th, 2008 at 10:26 amRanger Smith: Yogi!
Yogi Bear: Hey, the President knows my name.
So for those arguing it is their Constitutional right to have and carry weapons anywhere they want, then it should be OK to carry one into the White House. Yeah, give that one a try and be sure to carry a copy of the Constitution as you go. Let us know how that works out.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:05 amthat ssys that individuals have a right to bear arms in this country.
Look, nobody here is going to try to stop your from wearing sleeveless shirts if you insist.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:12 amconniptionfit Says:
Does anyone have the shrubs’ new address? Let’s sign him up for a bunch of progressive magazines, and get him on the ACLU’s mailing list!!
10141 Daria Place
December 6th, 2008 at 11:17 amDallas, TX 75229
If national parks were crime-free, then park ranger/mystery writer Nevada Barr never would have sold so many books!
More here:
December 6th, 2008 at 11:23 amhttp://natureblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-self-defense-rules-for-national.html
Nothing, but this is still a democracy and we get to decide what your rights are……live with it.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:26 amCurrently, there are about 1.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people in national parks. Any cities with guns have that? Didn’t think so. And this from the folks who WORK in the parks:
The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Parks Conservation Association issued a joint statement condemning the change. They noted that national parks currently enjoy very low rates of violent crime, and argued that the the new regulation “could increase the risk for impulse shootings of wildlife, and risk the safety of visitors and rangers.”
There have also been a lot of books sold on Martians attacking the earth. I guess that makes it real as well.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:33 amdbadass Says:
Incidently, I still haven’t found anyone who has ever had to defend themselves with a handgun a week after that feelow last week claimed a upstanding law abiding citizen has to defend themselves every 13 seconds. Some of you are clearly working overtime it seems.
What is with all this imaginary need to defend oneself?
December 6th, 2008 at 9:30 am
dbadass,
The NRA likes to tout the figure that “over two million times”, Americans used guns “to defend themselves.” With there being over 31 million seconds in a year, dividing that by a number between two and three million will get you around one incident every 13 seconds. That’s where that number comes from.
What they do not make clear in any way, shape, or form, is whether this “use” of a gun to “defend themselves” involved actually discharging a weapon, or merely brandishing it. If they merely took a gun out and pointed it at someone, they wouldn’t have needed an actual gun. They could have used a well-made, harmless replica and no one would have been the wiser. If, however, each of these incidents involved discharging the weapon, then we have a problem.
I’m going to say something that some will object to, but I don’t care. I feel they’re wrong.
The NRA likes to push the false idea that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This is a deadly distortion of reality. People with guns kill people. The reason it’s dangerous to let people walk around with guns is the same reason we don’t want other countries to develop long-range nuclear weapons: They can harm us from a distance without putting themselves at immediate risk.
It’s a false argument to claim merely that people kill people and that guns are not the reason. If person A has a gun, and Person B is acting in a way toward Person A that is deadly, harmful, threatening, or merely frightening, Person A could shoot and kill Person B with his gun. If Person A did not have a gun, he would be very unlikely to want to kill Person B, because that might involve bringing himself into close proximity to Person B and endangering himself. But if he can safely shoot Person B from across the room, he would be more likely to do so if provoked in some way (even by a non-deadly action from his victim.)
People with guns kill people.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:45 amI care for the constitution and that ssys that individuals have a right to bear arms in this country.
No, it doesn’t. It says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It does not say that an individual has the right to bear arms, it says the people, meaning it is a collective right, not an individual right. (Supreme Court decisions by batshit insane conservatives to the contrary are simply wrong.) The idea is that your local community can form a well-regulated militia (as opposed to a club of gun owners), and that the federal government cannot stop your community from having an armory where the citizens in the militia can go get their guns in case of invasion ot attack. (Keep in mind that the Framers did not envision that we would have a full-time standing army. That’s why appropriattions for an army can only be for two years.)
Have a nice day, everyone.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:52 amDear National Park Conservatio Association: “Affect” is a verb. There may be an “effect” caused by this rule change, not an affect.
Thank you
December 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pmNext thing you know, workers will be allowed to carry concealed weapons into their work place. If they get in a disagreement with their manager, they can easily remove the “problem” with their concealed weapon. I had a crazy neighbor that would shoot his gun in the middle of the night. When the police came to investigate, he handed them a pellet gun and denied having a real gun. Eventually, he got hauled off to jail for terrorist threats and endangering others.
December 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pmI’m sure President Cheney creamed himself when he finally got this passed.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pmWow, so when the Constitution says “the people”, they’re not talking about individuals? Then what is it talking about?
How would you apply that same logic to the 1st Amendment?
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How about this from the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…
And the 9th Amendment?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Groups do not have rights, only individuals. Seems pretty basic to me.
Later,
December 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pmA popular science fiction writer once said “an armed society is a polite society”All of you progessive minded people dont mean to say that politeness shouldent be extended to these gems of national pride?The fact is,this has been debated and mulled over for years and the powers that be made it law.If you remember,the assault weapon ban was law too.I didnt like that but I lived with it.Stop already with the 11th hour conspiracy garbage and understand this is part of the eb and tide of life and law in america.I live in rural AZ, the same sensibilities that apply to the inner city do not apply to the world I my wife and family live in.We have very little crime and by comparison no gangs.What we do have is a problem with drugs and home invasions that anyone with half a brain can attribute to the political hot potato that is border control.You people are worried about law abiding citizens who have passed background checks,fingerprinting and proficiency tests including range time in most cases.It seems to me the real issue is a lack of willingness on your part to take responsibility for your own and your loved ones safty.Its easy to pass that off too the government who can in most cases come and write a report after the fact.Perhaps if one or more of those poor women was armed in yosemity ther would have been a different outcome to that situation.”mother of two charged with handgun posession in national park”I guess thats better than what happened…..right?
December 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pmkalashnicov dude Says:
You people are worried about law abiding citizens who have passed background checks,fingerprinting and proficiency tests including range time in most cases.
You mean like Seung-Hui Cho? Yeah, background checks etc. Right. I feel so comfortable now.
And since we are now using science fiction writer quotes (what the hell that is supposed to mean), how about this one: humans are too immature to have weapons. I guess that proves a lot.
Also, your argument is specious. Time to grow up.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:05 amkalashnicov dude Says:
Why do you feel that having a gun is the only way to feel safe? Is it because a handgun is an easy way to kill another person?
December 7th, 2008 at 2:14 amJust like abortion, this issue just gets folks all riled up. I’m a left wing progressive. I had one of the first progressive radio talk shows in of all places Phoenix back in 1998. I was pro-Clinton, pro-Choice and pro-guns. Oooops. Ihad so many death threats from the first 2 positions that I was strongly urged to check out the 3rd. Now, I’ve gone through lots of training and still maintain my permit. I’ve never been threatened face to face. But I do carry. The point is, no one knows I carry. So what’s the problem? I always used to say on the air, if you are opposed to abortions, don’t have one; if you despise guns, don’t own one. But trust that I’ll make my own choice wisely and prudently. I used to belong to the NRA just to know what those boneheads were thinking. Sheeeesh….
December 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pmin response to liberal voter i would say,as with firearms there is no such thing as a foolproof safety.in other words the background checks are only as good as the people perfoming them.these and the other prerequisits to obtain a ccw are no guaranty that an INDIVIDUAL will not go berserk and try to end the lives of innocent people around them.as for MR Heinlines comment i must say i just like the way it sounds.while i must agree that collectively we as a race would be better off without weapons of any kind,my grownup thought for the day is”that pandoras box was torn open long before i got here”.in responce to Wayne A. Schneider iv gotta tell you with people like JB running around,there aint no gun gonna make us safe!in all seriousness a responsibly carried firearm in my opinion,is the most effective means of stopping CERTAIN kinds of attacks one might experience at home or in the public,yes even in national parks.i value human life with the utmost regard but if someone else is going to try to harm me or mine,me and mine will go home safely.at the tender age of 17 i had what you might call a life altering experience in the form of a very typical “gang banger”threatening the life of another with a 9mm handgun.unfourtunately for me i was situated between these two,and as i could see the round nose of the bullet from the angle i was seated at,my only thought was its going to hit me!on that 100 plus degree day in phoenix az i decided for myself i would never allow something like that to happen again without at least having the option to defend myself.argue all you want,its my right and i choose to take advantage.over the years i have also found firearms,shooting and the acumulation of, not collection mind you of akm,ak47s,and related brickabrack to be a rewarding and sometimes lucrative hobby.this is also my right(pursuit of happiness)and as with all of the wonderfull freedoms that our constitution affirms as given by god(not gives us)i will defend them for me and you with all means at my disposal(i vote)i live by example and humbly repect the veiws of others,but i would hope to be treated in kind.as for hellcat if you walk in the middle of the road take care ,you might get run over.
December 7th, 2008 at 8:47 pmThat’s not fair buckie. There are many intelligent, responsible, non-DB owners of firearms. The thing is that MOST gun owners look like everyone else and don’t do stupid stuff to call attention to ourselves.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:41 pmHello to all, obiviousley you all have missed the boat. If you read the change the President made it only gives people who have a “current Concealed Carry Permit” to take there weapon onto or into National Parks. As the original order did not permit any weapons in National Parks. Most people with Concealed Carry Permits are , Security People, Law Enforcement People, Body Guards and some Privlieged Individuals for Special Bussiness Reasons. I personaly have such a Permit to carry a concealed weapon. If I was to take my family to a National Park for a day outing or whatever I had to make it a point too disarm myself before entering said property. My personal protection could be at jeopardy as well as my families saftey if I wanted to go to these locations, which kept me from doing a lot of things with my family. These permits although granted by the State in which you reside aren’t given out without Homeland Security Checks and their sign off also since 911. Most all off duty law enforcemnt personal carry concealed weapon, and you don’t see it because it’s concealed.
January 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pmIF OVERTURNING A SINGLE LAW WILL HAVE SUCH DIRE EFFECTS, AND CAUSE MURDER AND MAYHAM IN OUR NATIONAL PARKS, WHY DON’T WE COUNTER IT WITH A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO USE A FIREAEM TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON? A NEW LAW SHOULD HAVE EVEN GREATER EFFECT THAN AN OVERTURNED ON. AFTER ALL-NEWE LAWS SOLVE EVERTHING.
January 11th, 2009 at 7:04 pmWIZARD2000 needs to share whatever he’s smoking with Bush-then he really would be as stupid as everyone thinks.
January 11th, 2009 at 7:21 pmthey dont even have guns in england yet some poor tourist got pumped full of lead right after the London bombings…go figure…the government gets to keep their guns…who knew?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:53 pmI think Obama should demand that there be not guns…especially armed police at his inaugural…that would prove he is a real man
January 16th, 2009 at 7:54 pmhad two rape / murders locally in the park? So why would you want to deny anyone the right to defend themselves?
January 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pmI have been around fire arms my whole life and have hiked many miles in the wilderness of Alaska and many other states down below and have always carried. I have been lucky so far nothing out there attacked but in the event we were always prepared. It is rather ominous to put your foot in a fresh grizzly print and see that it is bigger than the boot you are wearing. Lost a freind to a grizzly attack years ago in the north country some people have no clue about the back country and the dangers it posses if you are not prepared. We never took game out of season, we never shot up a camp ground, never showed our weapons and never shot a person. We are responsible and most gun owners are but not to say that there are not some kooks out there but for the most part you find them in the larger towns as they would never survive being in the bush. I love being able to have rights that allow me and others to protect ourselves in the event something would become a threat as it is better to walk way than be dinner as we are nothing but part of the food chain to larger predators and they are out there even in CA. Look at the cougar attacks on the bike trails and the joggers up north have become victims to large animals also just walking to town in some places people have lost their children to bears snatched right from their arms or from their side. We live in a great country, America and we all have to be responsible for our actions that so many have fought and died for, our FREEDOMS. Some folks just don’t get it!!
January 26th, 2009 at 10:12 am