Comments on: Interior Dept. overturns regulation, clearing the way for concealed, loaded firearms into national parks.

By: S A HAWK

S A HAWK — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:12:40 +0000

I 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!!

By: bt

bt — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:45:45 +0000

had two rape / murders locally in the park? So why would you want to deny anyone the right to defend themselves?

By: murderBYzeN

murderBYzeN — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:54:41 +0000

I think Obama should demand that there be not guns…especially armed police at his inaugural…that would prove he is a real man

By: murderBYzeN

murderBYzeN — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:53:20 +0000

they 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?

By: LarryA

LarryA — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:21:03 +0000

WIZARD2000 needs to share whatever he’s smoking with Bush-then he really would be as stupid as everyone thinks.

By: LarryA

LarryA — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:04:46 +0000

IF 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.

By: Robert048

Robert048 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:22:23 +0000

Hello 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.

By: deebaser

deebaser — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:41:17 +0000

Buckie Boy Says:

ok, 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.

That’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.

By: kalashnicov dude

kalashnicov dude — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 01:47:09 +0000

in 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.

By: hellcat

hellcat — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:27:29 +0000

Just 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….

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:14:37 +0000

kalashnicov 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?

By: LiberalVoter

LiberalVoter — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:05:18 +0000

kalashnicov 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.

By: kalashnicov dude

kalashnicov dude — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:13:36 +0000

A 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?

By: Cicero

Cicero — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:17:16 +0000

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.

Wow, 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,

By: abarts

abarts — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:20:33 +0000

I’m sure President Cheney creamed himself when he finally got this passed.

By: Cats r Flyfishn

Cats r Flyfishn — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:55:04 +0000

Next 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.

By: judyinnm

judyinnm — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:39:41 +0000

Dear National Park Conservatio Association: “Affect” is a verb. There may be an “effect” caused by this rule change, not an affect.

Thank you

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:52:25 +0000

I 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.

By: Wayne A. Schneider

Wayne A. Schneider — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:45:13 +0000

dbadass 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.

By: LiberalVoter

LiberalVoter — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:33:40 +0000

Currently, 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.