Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

Packing Heat in Our National Parks: How Did We Let the Gun Fanatics Get Their Way?

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted May 26, 2009.


Our national parks are among the safest places in America. So against what, exactly, are the proponents of the new gun law defending themselves?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

WASHINGTON -- Hiking boots, check. Sunscreen, check. Water bottles, check.Guns, clips, ammo. Check, check, check.It's enough to make you sick before you've grilled a single hot dog. Just as the National Park Service was kicking off the summer season by reminding us that these public jewels "offer tradition, heritage, recreation and fun for all members of the family," the National Rifle Association was having one heck of a good time. The gun lobby had much to celebrate this Memorial Day weekend.With their usual steely conviction, contempt for the rights and safety of others, and string of nonsensical arguments, gun supporters in Congress managed to accomplish what even President George W. Bush failed to do with a last-minute rule that was blocked in court: They pushed through a law to allow national park visitors to carry loaded weapons -- openly or concealed -- in the millions of acres of wilderness, scenic byways and historic sites that generations of Americans have come to treasure.It is difficult to calculate which is the more dangerous menace: the disdain the gun lobby shows for the nation's most beloved public spaces, or the gutless Democrats, especially in the Senate, who went along with this abomination. Then there is President Obama, who as a candidate said he supported gun control but who as president has complied with the gun lobby's dictates, and without much protest.In April, Obama reversed a campaign pledge to try to reinstate the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, turning aside a plea from Mexican President Felipe Calderon to re-enact the ban as part of an effort to quell drug-related violence along the border. Now Obama has signed legislation -- a credit card reform bill he eagerly promotes as part of his economic reforms -- without making a strenuous effort to keep the guns-in-the-parks rule from being brazenly attached to the unrelated consumer measure.Candidate Obama used to say this sort of legislative trick was symptomatic of Washington's old ways -- the unsavory logrolling that results in bad laws. Now he just rolls right along with it.As with most arguments the gun lobby and its supporters make, the case for toting loaded weapons in parks and historical grounds is phony. It starts with the premise that the Second Amendment right to bear arms always trumps regulatory common sense, when nothing is further from the truth. Legal gun owners are not allowed to carry loaded weapons aboard commercial aircraft, for example, nor into federal courthouses or other federal buildings.Though supporters, notably Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, claim that gun owners who hold state permits need to have "the right to defend themselves" in national parks, the question must be asked: What, exactly, are they defending against?The parks are reliably -- in fact, almost unbelievably -- safe. In 2007, according to the park service, there were 382 incidents that fit the FBI's categories of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault). They were spread across 34 million acres of parkland that were visited by 275 million travelers.Coburn and pretty much every other American would be much safer in a park than at home. Oklahoma, with 3.6 million residents, recorded 18,072 violent crimes in 2007, FBI data show.Before this legislative coup, gun owners were not banned from transporting their weapons into or through the parks. They merely had to keep them put away and unloaded, under rules established during the Reagan administration. Last year, when it became known that the Bush administration wanted to change the regulation, seven former directors of the park service -- dating back to the Johnson administration and including Republicans and Democrats -- opposed it. The former directors said in a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that the regulation was meant to put gun-owning visitors on notice that "they are entering a special place where wildlife are protected and the environment is respected both for the visitor's enjoyment and the enjoyment of others."In the gun lobby's crabbed worldview, the enjoyment of others -- let alone the safety of others -- is of little concern. The right to carry a loaded weapon, concealed or openly, even where families gather to celebrate nature and history is paramount.The parks and various charitable organizations that support them are celebrating their heritage this year in part with the release of a Ken Burns documentary titled "The National Parks: America's Best Idea." It is a tragedy that our political leadership decided to mark the occasion with one of America's worst ideas.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: national parks, nra, gun rights, gun lobby, gun laws

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for The Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What You Mean "We"?
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on May 26, 2009 12:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Word: Critters
Posted by: ranchero42 on May 26, 2009 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tom Coburn, in his snide way was paying a compliment to the folks who have brought endangered species back from the brink. Ironically by pretending to be more worried about these critters than really nasty two-legged critters like Wayne La Pierre.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's the big deal?
Posted by: Nodarse on May 26, 2009 12:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer states that since carrying a weapon in Federal Courthouse or Airport is not allowed, that the National Parks should be off limits to weapons as well.

Courthouses and Airports have something in common that the vast expanse of Federal wilderness does not, and that's heavily armed security patrolling every square meter.

The Parks are impossible to secure in that manner. The Parks also have guests that Courthouses and Airports don't. They're called Bears and Wolves, who I am sorry to say will, on occasion, attempt to EAT a visitor to the park.

To prevent visitors from adequately defending themselves in a wild environment is foolish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's the big deal? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: What's the big deal? Posted by: Quannah
» How about bear attacks??? Posted by: Prophit
» Wow-- way to miss the point! Posted by: Col. of Truth
» Wolves? Posted by: Hiroak
» RE: What's the big deal? Posted by: rtihista
bigbaddog
Posted by: bigbaddog on May 26, 2009 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe anyone could be so out of touch with reality. Why isn't Alternet more careful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hmm...
Posted by: j.zamora on May 26, 2009 1:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few things caught my eye here:

1) 275 million travelers?? I am pretty sure this number has been inflated by the parks service. There is no way that the vast majority of Americans have the luxury of enjoying the great outdoors.

2) "What, exactly, are they defending against?" As stated in another comment above, there is plently to defend yourself against out there lol. Have you ever heard of these things called wild animals? Let alone pot farms and meth labs and whatever else might want to be and stay hidden out there.

3) Maybe there is a bit of class struggle underlying the writer's text. I am sure that they imagine any gun owner to be a drunken, inbred, toothless, uneducated and poor redneck hellbent on shooting anything that moves. And this is why it seems like such blasphemy that guns would be allowed in the parks and in the plain view of FAMILIES even! Precious upper-middle class children who go to science camp and recycle may have to see one of these poor hicks with a gun one day :gasp:

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hmm... Posted by: clvngodess
bigbaddog
Posted by: bigbaddog on May 26, 2009 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excelant job of distorting information. I am sick and tired of this sort behavior. This nation didn't get this far by being anti gun. Anti gunners are killers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bigbaddog Posted by: FlowerGirl
» logic lesson ahead Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» RE: bigbaddog Posted by: rinthy
» Uhmmmm... What? Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» Good Posted by: felipe
» RE: ignorant Posted by: thealltheone
a few thoughts
Posted by: tjg1984 on May 26, 2009 1:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the author on one point: sneaking assorted provisions into unrelated legislation needs to be done away with. Republicans and Democrats both do it, and it has resulted in many bad laws. I'd prefer to see simple, honest pieces of legislation, with their entire contents accurately summarized in a single sentence (no "and for other purposes"), and clearly citing the portion of the Constitution that allows such a law to be made.

That said, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their (loaded) guns in national parks will probably not make them any less safe; under concealed carry laws already in place in most states, people carry loaded guns almost everywhere else. In Vermont, you don't even need a permit for this, yet Vermont is one of the 5 safest states in the nation. Criminals are already carrying their guns wherever they please; this new rule only affects people who are willing to abide by the law, and therefore are probably not poachers, murderers, etc.

Though this isn't closely related to the main point of the article, I really think the term "assault weapons," as used by the author here, is misleading. The "assault weapons" ban created the definition of that term, based almost entirely on cosmetic features; many gun control advocates admitted as much. The only provision really related to function of the guns was the restriction on "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices." The rifles regulated by the ban were rarely used in crime anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the "1" rating... Posted by: tjg1984
» An example of my stats Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: a few thoughts Posted by: Cory.Goodman
bigbaddog
Posted by: bigbaddog on May 26, 2009 1:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened to responsible reporting ? And why is this under " Rights & Liberties " ? Where do's her right's come from ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ahaaaa haaa! Posted by: miles_ahead
bigbaddog
Posted by: bigbaddog on May 26, 2009 2:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all fairness, If you call me a fanatic, Then I can call you stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bigbaddog Posted by: FlowerGirl
» RE: bigbaddog Posted by: tjg1984
» bigbaddog not a fanatic Posted by: wisegalah
» RE: bigbaddog Posted by: Crazy H
» BE VERY CAREFUL COMMENTERS Posted by: sirios
"contempt for the rights and safety of others"
Posted by: tjg1984 on May 26, 2009 2:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry, but gun owners and gun rights supporters do not have contempt for the rights and safety of others, at least not any more than the average gun control proponent does.

What rights of yours are being infringed? If anything, it's the other way around; we have a right to keep and bear arms that is recognized by the federal Constitution, but even if a gun owner's state of residence has issued him/her a permit (usually following a background check, and possibly including mandatory training), that gun owner cannot carry into a national park. How, exactly, is this justified, and how is it your right to have other people (who pay federal taxes) disarmed when they enter national parks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being stalked and shot
Posted by: FlowerGirl on May 26, 2009 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that disturbs me is now that guns are now legal to be carried into national parks - which is disturbing enough, in and of itself - is how these NRA fanatics are are allowed to even carry a gun. They are obviously disturbed when they say they need to protect themselves from danger when they themselves are the danger.

What about the risk that these members run by killing a person? Can they just make an excuse for it because they thought their lives were in danger and get away with it? We will have killers in these parks. Oh yes, it will happen.

And what about the animals? While these hunters - I mean, NRA gun wielding quacks - are allowed to carry guns into national parks, that does not give them any clearance to kill the animals who reside there. These animals are allowed full immunity from the danger of being shot. Is that something that is going to be repealed due to this stupid decisions, to allow this?

Because of Obama, the "good ole boys" from the Bush administration are back. Obama is a lying bastard and I will not vote for him again. He's proven himself to be a liar and has made the general public unsafe.

I go to state and national parks to hike every summer - I climb mountains and trek through the woods. Am I in danger of being shot because of something I like to do? Do I have to say goodbye to my friends and family before I go, in case I do get shot and never see them again?

This was a dangerous decision that Obama signed off on and it proves that he is part of the problem.

Things will only get worse from here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Being stalked and shot Posted by: tjg1984
» Don’t let facts get in the way. Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» RE: Being stalked and shot Posted by: hughesrg
This makes no sense
Posted by: FlowerGirl on May 26, 2009 2:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are the dangers that exists in national parks that would need a NRA member to carry a gun? Tourists?

What or who are they protecting themselves from? Chipmunks?

They are protecting themselves against getting shot by themselves.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This makes no sense Posted by: tjg1984
» Criminals on a camping trip Posted by: mjglow
» Your statistics Posted by: tjg1984
» RE: Your statistics Posted by: Crazy H
» Gawd, you're a wuss, mjglow Posted by: sausage
» WTF?! Posted by: mjglow
» I have a solution. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Airports and courthouses next
Posted by: Swatopluk on May 26, 2009 2:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I have any idea about the NRA in its current state, then the conclusion of "guns are banned at airports and in courthouses but not in national parks" is not "don't allow them in the parks" but "bans anywhere are an infringement on our sacred rights". Iirc there have been local initiatives to make gun carrying mandatory (with fees for people caught without a gun), claims that air travel (and schools*) would be safer, if every passenger (and pupil) carried a loaded handgun etc. In my opinion that is consistent but utterly mad.
If you ask me, there are nation states where this (and the 2nd amendement) could work but the US definitely is not among those (few).
Don't get me wrong, I personally know some quite rabid defenders of an absolutist interpretation (including portable nukes) that I would blindly trust with acting responsibly but I consider those a minority.

*I have seen many a thread on alternet where commenters argued along those lines (and quite often accused their opponents of every abomination known to man). I just wait for the day that someone comes up with a fake Bible quote "Thou should not suffer a gun opponent to live" for I have heard that sentiment often enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Divisions
Posted by: Plenum on May 26, 2009 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... This is another way that the world becomes a bit more lethal, and another way that we divide ourselves from eachother...and it makes me sick.

Any bets that a spate of petty arguments in the next few years lead to murders - when a simple yelling match would have sufficed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Divisions Posted by: tjg1984
» Was that a threat??? lol Posted by: Prophit
Americans are “Gun Fanatics”.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI on May 26, 2009 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at the NRA’s candidate report card. You will see that out side of Jew England and California most politicians, including democrats, support gun rights. They support gun rights because their constituency supports gun rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My comment below is much more racist. Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
Gun Rights
Posted by: electron on May 26, 2009 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it extremely disturbing that the author and so many others think that the 2nd amendment is for what they call "Gun Nuts". This is one of your rights under the constitution of this country. Carrying a weapon in the Federal Parks is being smart and prepared. The liberal left would want everyone to think that because a person is prepared they must be terrorists. This is plain blind stupidity at the best.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» All the links Prophit provided? Posted by: Col. of Truth
» Rare, but gruesome nonetheless Posted by: countingdaisies
I don't understand the pro gun line of needing one
Posted by: Ellie1 on May 26, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for protection of your home. If you live in an area where there are killers knocking on your door, you got bigger problems than any gun might help with. Like make a financial effort to MOVE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Are you kidding? Posted by: tjg1984
Our Founders Did Not Create Democracy-awful form of gov't-but a Constitutional Republic
Posted by: ATH on May 26, 2009 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We do not, and never have--officially--lived under the terrible form of government known as "Democracy," which is a kind of "mod rules" gov't, but our Founders created a Constitutional Republic!

Of course now, we don't live in a constitutional Republic anymore either.

In a democracy, 51% of the people completely control the other 49%! It's an awful form of government, with no guaranteed rights! If 51% of the people decided, say, that from now on everyone had to be a Christian, they could do so.

Our Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic, wherein each individual (minus black and women @ the time, which was a grave mistake, but that was how people thought back then)was guaranteed certain "inalienable rights" upon birth.

Our process of selecting our leaders is a democratic process, but our form of government never was, and thank God because the masses are stupid! Look at how people reacted to 9/11! The masses get scared, and they're willing to start giving up their rights! That's why they--our current government--wants us to think we live in a "Democracy." This is the exact sort of thing our Constitution is supposed to protect us from, as well as defining and limiting the powers of the Federal government, as well as the States. All powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and people, respectively! Try reading the Constitution sometime.

Of course, now, they've taken the worst forms of capitalism and communism (central private banks, taxing people's labor are both planks of the Communist Manifesto) and combined them under a government in the form of corporatism. What is corporatism? Well, Mussolini once said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, for it is the perfect merger of corporate and State power."

Please learn this important difference, people, and please pass it on. Thanks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns don’t kill people. (Brown) People kill people.
Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI on May 26, 2009 4:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
States like Vermont, Idaho, the Dakotas ect have very loose gun laws but very low violent crime rates. Places like NYC, Chicago, LA, have very stick gun laws and a much higher violent crime rate. I wonder why that is.

Go ahead and censor me. But in the words of the Govenator, “I’ll be back”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Care to explain? Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» I got Honky figured out Posted by: sausage
» RE: I got Honky figured out Posted by: Crazy H
AZLBRAX
Posted by: AZLBRAX08 on May 26, 2009 5:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-gun folks are a bunch of naïve, hysterical fools who, actually, believe that disarming law-abiding citizens will make the world safer. To which I say: dream on!

The world is a much more dangerous place than it was, even, just 20 years ago…but not because of those who LEGALLY own guns and other weapons. Accept this and deal with it! If you, actually, believe that not being able to protect yourself from the subhuman predators extant…who, incidentally, would love nothing better than to see everyone else disarmed…makes you nobler than those of us who don't choose to become victims, then, by all means, don't arm yourself and go with "God"!

And good luck to you!

Besides the obvious threats that various larger carnivores always pose, one never knows what kind of sick, twisted pervert one might encounter out in the wilderness. I live less than a mile from a national forest…a BIG one…and, just about every year, a few hikers go missing. Invariably, it isn't the bears that kill them but, rather, squatters who live in The Forest illegally and make a pretty good living robbing, raping and killing their victims. Too many hikers have, also, reported being harassed and threatened by these squatters if they don't give them some money. Of course, law enforcement tries to roust them when they become too obnoxious and aggressive but these parasites just slither back and set up camp somewhere else…and then, it's "business-as-usual"!

This is Reality, folks. Sorry if it conflicts with your warm-n-cuddly fantasies!

It's a shame that there are so many two-legged predators, out there, who think nothing of hurting and killing others for sport or profit but I guess this is just "Human Nature" (an oxymoron if ever there was one!).

I am glad that, FINALLY, law-abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves when enjoying our national forests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AZLBRAX Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: AZLBRAX Posted by: AZLBRAX08
» Education is a MUST... Posted by: jvaljon1
The rights of these Gun-toters END where our rights BEGIN, we are the
Posted by: avidAmerican on May 26, 2009 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
taxpayers who support these parks and we have the right to visit them in safety. I wonder how many people will have to be shot before this sneaky amendment by the biggest moron in the Senate, Cornyn, has to be legislated back out of the National (Public) Parks. I watch the Senate daily and when it came to light what he did, I was appalled. This is a safety concern, and there are not millions of families who will no longer visit the National Parks that we, the taxpayers, take care of. No one is taking away their rights to bear arms, they certainly don't need to take them along to shoot people in the parks. Well, that is the only purpose to carry a gun, to kill someone or something they shouldn't be killing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is inane!
Posted by: jstuv on May 26, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole discussion is inane!

It is simply an obfuscation of the gun lobby. -For an industry to profit from an ill-used product!

The second amendment reads: “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.”

That means that soldiers have the right to take their weapons with them.

However, even the Military prohibits that. They mandate that weapons must be secured and locked (for safety).

[…For the strict conservatives, that means that you may go sleeveless.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree Posted by: mary-alias
» Militia does not mean military Posted by: leafsong1
How did we let the gun fanatics get their way?
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 26, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political cowardice. It's a simple as that.

QUESTION: Have you ever had a loved one shot and killed in an act of mindless gun violence?

ANSWER: If you haven't, you will. Count on it. Your elected representatives will see to that.

As Americans arm themselves to the teeth, the law of averages will eventually forbid such an unspeakable tragedy from not touching the lives of almost everyone. It has already happened to my family - twice. Two female cousins of mine - who never even had the joy of meeting one another - (one on my mother's side, the other on my father's) both died as the result of being murdered by men who were stalking them. Don't for a moment reflect on the passive tranquility of your lives and delude yourself into thinking, "It can't happen here". It can. It will. Whether child, parent, sibling, cousin or friend; gun violence will touch your seemingly untouchable lives eventually. Count on it.

"The Rant"

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Law Shouldn't Have Been "Snuck In," But It's Ultimately a Victory of Our Rights!
Posted by: ATH on May 26, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is our Constitutional Right to bear Arms! The reason this was given to the people by our Founders was to discourage the gov't, should it become rogue (ummm!) and start ignoring the Constituion, or try to take away the rights of the people! Our Founders believed there should be a revolution every 20 years! They believed that "the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots." And while this is extreme, we obviously did the extreme opposite, which is how we have ended up with our current near utterly corrupt gov't! What you should fear is the government trying to take your guns away!

And as far as Nationa Parks, I think it would be very irresponsible to take your family into the wild without a gun! (preferably a .45 with hollow points.) Because of mankind's continual encrouchment upon the habitats of wild creatures, they are losing their fear of us! Not too long ago, a mountain lion had its jaws around a five yr old's skull, and was about to maul the boy. Luckily, his father had a gun, who fired a shot into the air, which scared the animal away-they had already tried yelling, etc. And I'm a big lover of animals! I'm part of WSPA. What we are doing is wrong. But how would you feel to watch one of your children mauled by a bear or mountain lion, knowing you could have stopped it if you had a gun? With the way things are today, with more and more encounters with & attacks by bears, I sure wouldn't go into the wild without a gun.

As for the idiot who said "If crimianls are knocking on your door, just move to a nicer neighborhood," I only have to say: that is one of the most stupid things I've ever read. If your rich a*s didn't notice, we're in a major recession/depression right now! Perhaps the reason the person is in the "bad" neigborhood is because he/she had to move due to foreclosure! And criminals do not knock on your door, obviously. They sneak in through a back door or window, usually when they hope you're away, but if you surprise them, they will shoot you! Crime is going to skyrocket as this depression worsens, and things of value will need to be protected! You will need to protect your family, or be robbed,& possibly raped & killed as well, along with your family, if you have one.

In a total collapse, the only things that are going to worth anything will be food, water, shelter, & weapons.The only "money" that will have any value is gold. But at first these will be worth far less than weapons, and if you have them, but no weapons, they will be taken from you!

Although I totlly disagree with what Obama said about healthcare, and "starting from scratch," it is true regarding weapons. We've been a gun owning society from the beginning,& if we outlawed guns now, only criminals would have them.In societies France, the police don't just start shooting people for protesting. That image of the guilotine sent a strong message that has lasted, for the French: respect the power of the people, or suffer the consequences! It's too bad we don't have such an example here, or maybe they wouldn't allow these bankers, who are our true rulers, to first collapse the economy, then take massive amounts of our tax-dollars, to give themselves huge bonuses for what a fine job they did of destroying so many American lives! Do you know how many people lost their entire life savings? And now, these bankers, by receiving such huge loans,& converting their paper into gold,when they're done they will have completely devalued the dollar, and you'll discover that stuff you thought was "money," is just green paper! It's not backed by gold or anything else anymore!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We all just want to be safe
Posted by: p4th on May 26, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To summarize:

Gun owners rejoice at this news because they can't feel safe unless they are carrying their loaded guns. They are worried about being physically attacked by criminals and bears (I presume in that order) and want to be able to protect themselves.

What they need to understand is that the same emotion that makes them desire to keep their guns at the ready also drives the people who want them disarmed. The only difference between pro and anti-gun viewpoints is that the people who are anti-gun are more afraid of YOU the gun owner than they are of criminals or bears.

So before you call people on either side hysterical or fanatical take a moment to realize that everyone is just trying to feel safe, they're just disagreeing on how to get there.

Now here is where I feel that the anti-gun viewpoint is the more logical of the two. Statistically speaking people are much more likely to be hurt in a gun related incident/accident than in a bear attack or robbery (within the national park system). Emotions aside, statistically speaking fewer guns are safer.

In addition to the statistical argument I will also give one personal example. A few years ago while hiking to my designated camping area I got lost..in bear country..and had to camp for the night in the middle of nowhere. I was wakened in the middle of the night by a large animal that sounded like it was trying to get into my tent. Terror coursed through my veins and if I was sleeping next to a loaded gun I would have used it. Good thing I didn't...it was a park ranger coming to see if I was alright. Again, gun accidents are a more likely outcome than bear attacks.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We all just want to be safe Posted by: drhibbart
» RE: If it was a park ranger, Posted by: Fempatriot
» the "CRITICAL" difference Posted by: zipper696
rgd
Posted by: rgd on May 26, 2009 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a headache! Lets hope that those who bring firearms to the campground have nothing to prove. And what about alcohol and firearms together? While I don't believe there will be wholesale bloodshed in our national parks, I am sure incidences will occur. Maybe the park servie should set up shooting ranges with contests in designated areas with qualified rangemasters. Make it a regular park recreation with regular hours of operation. Anyone found shooting outside this area would then be in big trouble. At this point we can only hope for the best. But I'm having my doubts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rgd Posted by: tjg1984
Some things, like the answer to all those "gun nuts"....
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 26, 2009 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some things are pretty obvious, like the reasons so many people are buying guns and why the law is being changed in order to let people have the power to defend themselves. As the rates of violent crime decrease everywhere the public is permitted to carry guns, as the government and its protection racket - the police and all the rest of the kind - grows more inefficient and feckless, as private security has become both more necessary and the nation's one real growth industry, it becomes more apparent that having a weapon handy is the price we pay for humanist liberalism that frees more violent criminals than it imprisons.

Those who would disarm you when you are facing a self-destructing and viciously hostile society, especially one of their own making, simply reveal the degree to which they have demented themselves, the degree which they ought be - and are being - ignored.

It's one thing to piss into the wind out of misdirection; it's another to keep doing it out of blind ideology - which means demanding that every one else do the same

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gun Fanatics?
Posted by: drhibbart on May 26, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that anyone who is a gun owner or stands up for their right to bear arms is considered a gun fanatic or gun nut? Gun control doesn't work, face it and move on. If there was a gun ban, only law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns. This would leave us with a bunch of armed criminals and unarmed people. Not to mention, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin all enforced gun-control measures...and then committed genocide against the unarmed peasants. Do you want to be an unarmed peasant?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gun Fanatics? Posted by: zipper696
» RE: Gun Fanatics? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Out of Touch
Posted by: leafsong1 on May 26, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are reasons to allow guns in parks and reasons to not allow them. It's not a constitutional issue, and it is not a major public safety issue either way. It seems a waste of time and energy to focus on this when there are far more important issues. Progressives are no longer knee-jerk gun control advocates. The impending collapse of the economy and government are a real concern these days. Constitutional violations have become a major target for us. Leftists are wanting to own guns again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Out of Touch Posted by: Sushi
pacifism
Posted by: ismac76 on May 26, 2009 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can only be meaningfully implemented if the immediate option exists to use violence or not use violence. The run on guns has not been solely because of any impending secret gun bans, it's because the economy is collapsing and the people with the most to defend want to keep things arranged exactly the way it is, if not attempting to impose some fascist pseudo libertarian order on the rest of it should the state recede.

Lets not be lambs led quietly to the slaughter, your dignity is worth more than that....it's worth asserting it's right to exist, absolutely, if and when the time comes. The legal rights to bear arms still exist, use them. It would be far, far better if people could somehow do it without supporting businesses that are contrary to everything else most people reading this seriously, value. Some popular research is in order perhaps....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The trouble with guns is
Posted by: adempatriot on May 26, 2009 7:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...there is always someone else who has bigger ones than you do. I know a man who, for the past twenty years at least, has sat in his house, with a M1911 Colt .45, a .357 magnum, a 9mm semi-auto, a huge WW2-era Webley, and a Chinese knock-off of a Kalashnikov (AK-47). He probably has other guns hidden around the house.
He is a miserable person. And he is a paranoid, and talks about how he is ready for the time when "they" come through the door to get him. Who is the "they"? He can't say, because he doesn't know. "They" are going to come and get him, though- in his paranoid mind. Since no "they" has ever actually tried to come through the door and get him, he periodically takes his guns out to the country to shoot at the trees or into the woods.
He doesn't even hunt. No one is trying to get him. It's paranoia, that's all. Thank goodness he doesn't drink any more.
One time he shot off a round of the Webley and was just about to shoot the next one, when fortunately he noticed that the first bullet was sticking out the end of the barrel. It was very old ammo; the powder had lost its oomph. Another time he was showing off the assault rifle, which is called an SK instead of an AK. Anyone who has seen assault rifle ammo knows that it is a lot bigger and more powerful than a .22, or even the standard .45 automatic round.
I asked, "Uh... is it loaded?" "Of course it's loaded!" he said. "Well, could you not point it at my knee!? I said. I had to push the barrel away. He wasn't even watching where the gun was pointed.
There are too many people like this. And in most other ways, he is someone I consider one of the "good guys." but he is a bonafide gun nut.
I call people like him the "ready for 'THEM' people".

Usually these types also like to talk about "The Lord" and about how "I've given my heart to Jesus".
Every so often this man gets really depressed, and calls up people telling them he has decided to shoot himself, and not to try and talk him out of it. He apologizes in advance for the mess. Says he will do it in the tub so the cleanup won't be so bad.
Talk about insanity! Some day he may really do it. His guns are calling to him. Even though a gun is just a machine, it can call to people, and it says, "go ahead and shoot."
I am not even a gun owner, but experienced that "call" once, when house-sitting for the guy. Out of curiosity, I was handling the big Webley, and out of the blue, suddenly felt that I should shoot it- at myself. It was an eerie feeling. Very creepy. The gun was calling to me.
In this country, many people talk of faith in God, but in many cases, their real faith is in firearms. Guns are the unofficial religion of our country.
I don't have an answer. The human race is crazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I live among guns, but Posted by: Fempatriot
» RE: I live among guns, but Posted by: adempatriot
Why the labels?
Posted by: Fempatriot on May 26, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do some people equate a person who is pro-right to bear arms with being "fanatic" "a nut" "rabid", etc? I'm a grandmother who is pro-right to bear arms. I have a gun (borrowed from my son) and I know how to use it. We have had bears, cougars, elks and God-knows what else dumped in our national forests. I live surrounded by forest--and critters. (Remember the woman in Calif. nearly killed by a cougar as she was riding her bicycle?) We live within spitting distance of 3 penal institutions and occasionally an inmate escapes. I know an old couple who were beaten and robbed by 2 escaped convicts. I know a young woman who was raped at gunpoint by someone wearing a ski-mask. She lived in the country here and didn't lock her doors. (They caught the escaped inmates but never the rapist.) Both acts of violence nearly destroyed these people. I have to keep my doors locked even though I live in the country where crime used to be almost nonexistent till they brought in the "prison system" to raise our rural economy. Yes, I'm paranoid; but with reason. I've seen a cougar at the side of a busy highway; so did my late mother--in her front yard. My brother-in-law saw one too. One of our dogs was killed by a rutting deer--she looked like someone had stabbed her repeatedly with a pitchfork. (Elk rut too, and they attack people.) My son now packs a gun when he hikes. To kill another human? No. Hopefully never. For self-defense. People have been killed in schools, restaurants, all sorts of places by people who were mentally ill. I've heard some of the victims say, "If I'd only been able to defend myself and others..." Being on the defense is not crazy or rabid. To those who wish to be unarmed, I say, more power to you. I hope you are never harmed by a human or a wild animal. But don't put some stupid label on people who wish to defend themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the labels? Posted by: micko
» RE: Why the labels? Posted by: Sushi
micko
Posted by: micko on May 26, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How? A bought and sold Congress. Until graft is exposed, member by sellout member, in their home states and across the land, it will flourish. Maybe it could be prosecuted under treason laws, since that, essentially, is what it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Confiscation? Posted by: zipper696
How to *not* scare a gun-toter
Posted by: giniajim on May 26, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I go to our national parks frequently. I guess I now have to assume that anyone I meet is (1) armed and (2) believes that I am a threat. I'm hopeful that the park service will develop guidelines for folks like me (grungy hikers) to use to lower the level of fear in the gun toter. Maybe things like keep our hands in plain view, avoid eye contact, don't speak first, that sort of thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leave our guns alone
Posted by: jstepp590 on May 26, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will agree with a lot of the liberal viewpoints. However, gun control isn't one of them. Leave the guns alone and concentrate on the things most people agree with, or you risk losing massive levels of support and leave an opening for conservatives so large you can drive a truck through.

I am not and never have been worried about law abiding citizens being armed. The citizens who are not armed, in a crisis situation, are victims who are useless to themselves and unable to take care of the people around them. To try to get rid of them based on fear of your fellow Americans is not a very good idea.

Hitler was a firm believer in gun control and the first thing he did when he got power was remove the guns from the citizens. That by itself is as good a reason as any to make sure that legal and law abiding citizens are not just armed but trained in their use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As someone that leans heavily........
Posted by: steven w on May 26, 2009 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the left and also a country boy, this is ridiculous- our country is going down the crapper in a 10 different ways and you are worried about this??? Just let it go!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns, butter and lies
Posted by: PROFPETE on May 26, 2009 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for him, but never believed he was a messiah (small "m" intended). I knew he would sell out; his candidacy was, is, and will continue to be that of straddling the fence that gives him celebrity, dynastic wealth, and power.

He has done none of the things FDR did, and HAS done many of the things Bush did. He is a softer kinder, liar than Bush was, whose goal are wealth, power, and a dynasty for his children to join the elite to which we are all opposed. I am an elite-I come from a royal Italian family, but my ancestors, rejected that life of privilege to come to America to live in a just nation. They were correct because 70 years later their homeland was completely corrupted by criminal elitists.

Obama has increased spying on Americans. He has signed a weak credit card bill that does not take effect for nine months. He has not ended either “war,” as promised and in fact appears to want to appease the arms lobby

He has not stopped Legalized Drug Dealers-the pharmaceutical companies from addicting tens of millions of Americans with often deadly and addictive drugs which cure little to nothing and use the same fear tactics in millions of hours of air time to cower weak minded people, and make simple, ordinary, human tics appear to be diseases, which they most certainly are not. He has also done nothing to aid unions, and everything to facilitate outsourcing of the lifeline of jobs to over sea and offshore. He has aided and abetted criminals, and has done so for money and for his efforts in less than four years he will loose an election and in so doing will become a multi-millionaire and possibly a billionaire.

Unlike Eleanor Roosevelt, Michelle Obama, is joining the fun of elitism. She makes no visits to publicize the damage greedy outsourcing has done. She visits no CCC camps to buoy up the hopes of the unemployed because her husband has created nothing like the job making CCC camps. She visits no ghettos or soup kitchens and she raises no efforts to direct her husband, as did Eleanor Roosevelt, to causes he missed. Instead, she lives the good life. Obama raised $750 million dollars and now he is repaying his investors. He have GM $15.6 billion dollars at a time when it’s 611 million outstanding shares of stock was valued at less than $1.5 billion. He rewarded the financial criminals with over $1 trillion to “bail” them out, when it was not they who needed or should have been saved; it was the job market that needed a boost.

He rewarded incompetent, greedy thieves with more of the god they worship and punished the average American family whose livelihood is being shipped to China and India and Malaysia where workers are paid pocket change per hour and sleep often in dormitories where bathing and hygiene are not a part of the equation and the pretty females regardless of age are shipped into prostitution or “marriage” to serve Arab billionaires.

Obama, unlike FDR, is trying hard to become one of the Evil, Avaristic, Billionaire Criminals and why? Because he has no ties to faith or to true morality. He is what he is, an elitist wannabe, scrambling to live the life of the soon to be retired multi-millionaire and why not he is being aided, abetted and tutored by a greedy, little clown, who worships cash.

I voted for him reluctantly, because I saw early on what he was made of. I would have preferred Edwards, Spitzer, Hillary, or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, but took what I could get in which I had little hope of an FDR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns and Fun
Posted by: freshlemon on May 26, 2009 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give me a gun and a target and let the fun begin! Yes guns can be fun,and,yes I do use one. The problem is that I do not trust other people to use them responsibly. As I watch other Americans going nuts behind the wheel of a car,being rude and agressive in the grocery store,parents yelling at their kids, kids running amok,neighbors treating each other as the enemy, seething anger on the faces of people on the street and an average IQ of 98, I worry about this love affair that we all have for the true weapon of mass destruction...the gun. I have experienced 50 odd years of camping, hiking and enjoying our national parks, I have never been threatened by bears, wolves or mountain lions. The only predator I have run into is the human kind. Does this new legislation allow me to shoot these predators in national parks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because....
Posted by: throck on May 26, 2009 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We "got away with it" because we are citizens and we vote. When our elected officials try to ban guns, we vote them out of office. Accept it already!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All about wolves
Posted by: profoflitandtrout on May 26, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you who don't live out in the West or Upper Midwest, this is all about wolves and other predators these fine gun-toting citizens see as impinging on their rights to do whatever they want to do. Weilding a fire-arm for protection against such predators rarely makes you safer because the odds of experiencing an attack are so minimal (there may be exceptions here, like when I am bow-hunting alone on forest service lands where bears are frequent, but even then, bear spray will do the job).

What it does do, is make it more likely that you will shoot such predators on sight as a "threat," as has happened numerous times with grizzlies/brown bears in AK and Montana, where I have worked, lived, and investigated such occurences. Typically, these people keep quiet about what they have done (the shoot, shovel and shut-up practice is alive and well), and in the cases where it is investigated, it is often found that these animals are shot in the side, from above, behind, etc.--evidence that indicates there was no real threat at all.

Having been stalked by a young mtn. lion in Glacier Nat'l Park (MT) and charged by a brown bear sow (Kenai NWR), I know that it is difficult to maintain your cool in such situations. However, I never even discharged my bear spray because these animals did not seem a threat or most importantly, ATTACK me. I knew that it rarely happens-- in the order of 1-2% of the time do you have contact with the animal. If you do not understand this, then you should not be carrrying a loaded firearm. We don't allow pets into Glacier and Banff because they not only typically harass the wildlife, but they provoke confrontations with wild animals--it's simple and practical, not a violation of your rights to do what you wish with your 'property.' There are too many gung-ho anti-gub'ment a-holes out there who are firmly convinced that Obama, USFWS, and "Enviro-nazis" have imposed predators upon them (hence, the now ever popular "Wolves: Government sponsored terrorists" bumper stickers). They have been fighting to delist wolves out West with bated breath, just so they won't be penalized as much for killing them when they decide to. Just check out sights like lobowatch.org, which claims that there is an army of 25-30 mill. gun owners out there just ready to take on the wolves they claim threaten their very existence. Hell, an Idaho congressman (Phil Hart, R-Atoll) just recently proposed a bill that would allow citizens to sue the feds over human deaths caused by wolves, claiming these animals were imposed on the citizenry against their will and that it's just a matter of time before someone's child is taken off into the night, despite no verified accounts of such a thing happening anywhere in the lower 48 (how about those 100 deaths caused by deer gorings? Not too keen on taking out the dangerous deer, congressman, eh?). But this is all nonsensical/irrational--it has nothing to do with any reality on the ground and everything to do with a growing sense of these die-hard 'frontiersman' becoming dysfunctional in their own environment. It really hurts their identities to have to adjust from lording over nature, the dominion-based perception of 'man's' place in nature, to adapting to a more reality-based ecological understanding that looks at preserving the health of habitat more generally (elk and deer overgraze their habitat and go in bust to boom cycles without predators), and not just protecting a few game animals hunters wish to kill. Whenever an elk herd has a hard winter, or is over-hunted by humans, or destroys its own habitat, or is spread out by predators across a range (rather than allowing them to hang out in feed lots), the answer out here is that it must be the wolves, therefore, kill more wolves.

Of course, this recession makes these people feel even more insecure. And just as was predicted, stores out here can't keep the ammo on the shelf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All about you Posted by: thealltheone
...And to conclude (ran out of space in the above post)
Posted by: profoflitandtrout on May 26, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't about protecting anything, other than delusion, and an identity based in a 'noble' myth about persecuted Westerners (who have garnered more subsidies for grazing, water rights, etc., than any inner city school board stressing over how to buy bks. could ever imagine).

We're not out to get you. No one is. I own four guns and am a life-long hunter who grew up in the woods. We just don't want you shooting everything that you consider a threat ( I guess we can thank Rumsfeld and Cheney on this one, with the threat of the 'known unknowns' and the answer of pre-emptive war).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

boblgumm
Posted by: boblgumm on May 26, 2009 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think you ought to be able to leave a loaded gun on your picnic table at campsite 1, where it could be inadvertently (like the fact that it is inadvertent is some sort of an excuse)pointing at my kid's head at campsite 2, just waiting for some drunken fool or his kid, to (mis)fire the thing and kill my kid, then I think you meet a fair definition of frikkin nuts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stay with me here Posted by: boblgumm
What should I be more concerned about?
Posted by: hoppingfrog on May 26, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so in the US in the past 109 years less than 110 people have been confirmed to be killed by wolves and bears, in 2005 over 10,000 people were killed by guns.


What should I be more worried about?

I want a gun, so I can protect myself from people with guns.

You people are so stupid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Having trouble staying on topic? Posted by: Col. of Truth
Everyone has done just fine
Posted by: cdlepthien on May 26, 2009 10:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
without guns in the National Parks up to now. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-hunting, but this is ridiculous. What always strikes me is that the gun lobby supporters apparently feel they can't survive without guns in situations most of us have faced unarmed since we were children. I have a simple solution for those of you who are terrified of lions & tigers and bears! oh my! - just don't go camping. Everyone else gets along fine with the wildlife in the National Parks 99% of the time.

Or maybe you need to defend yourselves against scenery-loving families, or the Girl Scouts. They ought to change the name of the NRA to the NWA, for National Weenie Association.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conceled carry permits
Posted by: marsmath on May 26, 2009 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. The only people that can carry loaded weapons in national parks are people that have State issued conceled weapon permits. What makes this group of people more dangerous the moment they step into a park? If they are found by the State to be competant to carry a conceled weapon, and are 'packing heat' everywhere else in their State, with no problems, WTF are you anti-gun fanatics worried about? Are these people having shoot-outs outside of the parks? These people aren't criminals. Doesn't anyone know how hard it is to get one of these permits? This is just a case of the federal government upholding State laws regarding conceled carry permits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Conceled carry permits Posted by: Crazy H
Who are "we"?
Posted by: dogdiva on May 26, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you beginning to wonder if you really know who your neighbor, your cousin, your Senator, even your grandma and your pastor really are? I don't think any issue of the day could possibly be more revealing and obvious than this amendment that flew through the Congress unchallenged.

Guns in parks and guns in church tells us who "we" are. The absence of health care tells us who "we" are. Unchallenged opposition to a fair immigration policy tells us who "we" are. Hoping the President fails tells us who "we are. All the hate spewing radio and TV tells us who we are. Opposition to a hate crimes bill tells us who "we" are. The celebration of ignorance and bullying tells us who "we" are. Full throated defense of the righteousness of torture tells us who "we" are.
Rewards to the wealthy and bailouts from the working class tells us who "we" are. Is there any need to go on? Isn't it time concede that the question has been answered?

There comes a time when all the good intentions of those who oppose the "we" above, need to ask themselves if there is any real possibility of delivering us from ourselves. If ignorance reigns and corporate corruption prevails isn't it questionable if the bottom can be raised in this decline?

When do you quit trying to save the Titanic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Word to Mari Cocco...
Posted by: Crazy H on May 26, 2009 12:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"paragraphs"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An issue who's only purpose is to divide voters.
Posted by: reelectnoone on May 26, 2009 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a non-issue. Follow politics and you will see that over all, nothing really changes much in the gun law situation regardless of which party is in power. The right wing "nuts" as they are called are always looking for a wedge to drive between voters for their benefit. Democrats often take the bait and rail about gun proliferation or deaths.

The gun issue is always made out to be about regulating the good guys so criminals won't use a gun. Hog wash! Criminals, by definition, won't ever care what the law says. Gun regulation only effects the very people who by definition, don't rob or mug people.

If the only argument boils down to accidental shootings or even someone using a legal weapon going over the edge, then you must look at the statistical likely hood of these events. They are very small. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? No.

Many laws are knee-jerk reactions to non-threats. Even sex offender registration is a sham. US has about 1-9 abduction/murders a year and so far not one committed by someone on a registry. On the other hand a child is 15 times more likely to be killed by their own parent than by a rapist.

Laws of these types, whether it is registering a gun or a sex offender are "feel good" laws that do not result in any protection for the public. They serve to distract us from the real truth. They offer some false sense of security while the very people we should worry about pay no attention to those laws.

These laws, in reality, make victims out of the law-abiding public who think Congress is actually making them safer. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I am a democrat and I support gun ownership rights as part of the Constitution I support.

We have criminal laws to deal with those who abuse the right of gun ownership. ( and those don't work either. More laws just equal more criminals by definition. )

//

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's a national park for, anyway?
Posted by: willymack on May 26, 2009 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It means several things to me. Peace, quiet, and serenity, for starters. Being in what's left of the extraordinarily beautiful natural world is another. I don't want to be in my canoe on a pristine lake, only to be swamped by a moron in a speedboat, or hear a group of drunken, loudmouthed jerks and their vulgar noise. I can camp by a freeway for that. Just tell me one thing: What kind of numbskull would want to take a weapon, concealed or not into a special place like a national park, anyway? What is a national park, a battleground?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What exactly is the problem?
Posted by: pyramid on May 26, 2009 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"gun owners were not banned from transporting their weapons into or through the parks. They merely had to keep them put away and unloaded."

"The parks are reliably -- in fact, almost unbelievably -- safe."

So what exactly is going to change when law abiding citizens can carry firearms openly or concealed instead of just concealed and unloaded? Do you really think that is going to make our super safe national parks into old timey western shootouts on a daily basis? Do you really think everyone is going to be packing heat and looking for a fight now?

I will have no problem visiting national parks and I will not feel any less safe knowing that the family camping next to mine might have a loaded firearm with them for their own protection. I might have one too.

I have owned firearms since I was 18 and it was legal for me to purchase my own. My firearms have never taken a life or harmed anyone, even my scary evil black rifles, and I'll be perfectly happy if things stay that way.

I don't know who or what has brainwashed you people into believing that all gun owners are wannabe Rambos who are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone but it makes you look really stupid when you spout off nonsense like that. Gun owners are just as friendly and peace loving as those of you who are apparently afraid of inanimate objects.

Maybe you should climb down off that high horse and meet some real gun owners sometime. Maybe go out to the range and see what shooting is all about. Then maybe you wouldn't have so many irrational fears about us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

arocco
Posted by: arocco on May 26, 2009 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has become the new "UNCLE TOM"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Giant Paragraph is Giant.
Posted by: Starfall Deception on May 26, 2009 2:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously. It's all just one giant blob of text. It makes the article hard to read. Please add paragraphs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Packing Heat in Our National Parks: How Did We Let the Gun Fanatics Get Their Way? »
Posted by: manishfusion on May 26, 2009 11:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hii
I just skimmed this article, but it didn't seem to mention that you needed to have a permit to carry a gun in the city in order to do this, so unless this law has changed, it's really relatively meaningless.
I'm not anti-gun by a long shot, however I have to wonder why a person would feel they need to arm themselves in a national park. Oh yeah the usual tripe will be puked up, protection, blah blah blah. Tell ya what, if you think you need to carry a gun in a national park, maybe you should just do yourself a favor and stay the hell home where it's safe and warm.

----
fusion
----
EQ2 Plat--EQ2 Plat

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

REply: Packing Heat in Our National Parks: How Did We Let the Gun Fanatics Get Their Way? »
Posted by: manishfusion on May 26, 2009 11:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of gun deaths is irrelivent. Autos kill far more and we don't consider banning them.

Where and when you carry a weapon is no ones business but your own.

The idea is to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it. Grab a ouija board and talk with the victims of VA, San Ysidro, Columbine etc.
-----
fusion
-----
Something that everybody seems to forget is that you just need to look back at history and you will so that it has all been done before. Look at EverQuest, it is still going strong with the same game play from the past. Does anybody think that it really matters.
EQ2 Plat--EQ2 Plat

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep your britches on dude.
Posted by: knight on May 26, 2009 11:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this column shows his desdain for gun owners and gun licence/permit holders in such a childish way,I am conceled carry licence holder,and is something that we don t take lightly,nor do we make fun,it comes with great responsability,yet the writer of this column seems to think of us as crazy gun nuts who will shoot at anything and any one at the slightest or no provocation at all,man,you are so far off the mark,I carry,you may pass me on the street,you won t even know I carry a gun,it protects me if the need ever arises,I hope and pray it doesn t arise,and i will carry it wherever is allowed,the way it should and must be,so to say that people won t be comfortable now that we are allowed to carry in the nat l parks,that s insane,I take my gun permit seriously,and yes i am a lifetime NRA member and proud of it,just like there are nuts in the global warming histerya,so i join a group of patriots,it is my right and i chose to exercise it,weather any one likes it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow Posted by: Col. of Truth
WHY do you not put my posts up on the board, Alternet?
Posted by: jvaljon1 on May 27, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're not doing anyone a public service by keeping me off the boards.

I just posted some facts about bears. Since you saw fit to not post my post, I will only say this: Keyword "Bear Attacks", people.

You will see why 1) No one should go into a National Park alone and 2) Everyone should carry a heavy weapon; specifically against bear. In the summer they eat and eat, getting ready for hibernation--and we are its food of choice.

Always register with Forestry, once in the park. Let them know where you'll be. They usually know what bears are in the area and can warn you.

Camping isn't for amateurs. I'm not sure that you'll post this--but it never occurred to me to go into the woods without being 'loaded for bear'. And yes, a couple of times, I had to shoot a critter that had decided that I was going to be its dinnerm, and which was stalking me.

I tell people--check with Rangers. They'll tell you all about bear attacks. And how you should never sleep unsecured or without your weapon right at your hand. Far as I know, there was NEVER a 'gun ban' in our National Parks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

anne johnson
Posted by: annejohnson on May 27, 2009 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This song's been running through my head. Sorry if someone's already posted it.
****************************************
"Don't Forget The Guns" (a.k.a The Nelson's Ride Along)
Words And Music By
Cheryl Wheeler

Now let's get the kids and pack up the car
Take that vacation we've been waiting for
Drive across this country leave our worries ar behind
Singin' four-part harmony to "Sweet Adeline"

`Cause I got these books and maps from Triple "A"
We'll visit friends and sites along the way
So bring the bikes and toys and diapers
Pay the neighbor's son
And call to stop the mail and, Honey,
Don't forget the guns


Now don't forget the guns you know exactly what I mean
Bring the pistols, bring the Uzi and the old R-15
We don't look for trouble but by golly if we're in it
It's nice to know we're free to blow nine hundred rounds a minute

We'll head for Chicago, stop for the night
Hope for good weather hope the kids don't fight
They've never seen Mt. Rushmore and they ought to understand
The kind of men who forged our freedom all across this land

We'll hike up a trail and ride down a street
Stand by Old Faithful and watch her blow off steam
When we pack picnic lunches that's not all we'll bring along
`Cause we'll be packing 45's case anything goes wrong

(Chorus)

Oh riding along we'll follow the signs
Over the mountains under the pines
Up to Boot Hill where they got what they gave
In the land of the free you've got to be brave

**********************************************

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was wondering
Posted by: Diego on May 27, 2009 5:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why my Internet had slowed down. It's because someone dared to question the NRA's sacred 2nd amendment rights to carry a gun anywhere they damn well please. The gun nut network has been abuzz. "Sign on to some lib site called, Alternet, and spew your memorized, talking point drivel". I would be willing to bet that 90% of these bogus constitutional scholars couldn't even name another amendment. Fortunately, most of the people who visit national parks do so get away from the mentality of these creepy morons. Wolves, bears and belong there, they don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

your in no danger
Posted by: earthman on May 27, 2009 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I walk past you in walmart with my gun and don't shoot you , being in a National forest would make no differance . (your just as safe there too.) I have a concealed carry permit . I had to take a safety course , prove I could fire the weapon , and hit what I was shooting at . Then have a background check by the state police before I was issued this permit . I am a husband and a father of two wonderful children , and I will defend them if necessary . And if any of you non gun owners were ever threatened with physical harm , I might come to your aid . And for those of you that think there is no dangers in the world you live in , just turn on any news channel on your tv set . A gun is a tool , like a pocket knife , but its of no use if you don't have it with you .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bears and wolves in national parks
Posted by: Tricia on May 27, 2009 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bears and wolves once roamed most of this country, but are now confined to the much smaller areas that constitute our national parks. They should at least be allowed to have this area as a home without threat of being shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Gun Stats
Posted by: clvngodess on May 28, 2009 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:
• 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
• 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
• 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
- CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2008.

FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

FACT: Contrary to popular belief, young children do possess the physical strength to fire a gun: 25% of 3-to-4-year-olds, 70% of 5-to-6-year-olds, and 90% of 7-to-8-year-olds can fire most handguns.
- Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1995.

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
• 373 people in Germany
• 151 people in Canada
• 57 people in Australia
• 19 people in Japan
• 54 people in England and Wales, and
• 11,789 people in the United States
(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

FACT: Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)

FACT: In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice

FACT: From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.
- Bureau of A.T.F.

FACT: As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.
- National Institute of Justice, May 1997

FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 2003, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 30,136.
- CDC National Center for Health Statistics WISQARS online data collection system, 2006.

In the spring of 2002, Field & Stream magazine took a web survey of 2,897 readers about the state of hunting in America. The results from this informal survey were published in F&S in the spring of 2003. Below are responses to a few questions relative to gun violence prevention issues.
15. Do you consider assault-style rifles to be legitimate sporting guns? 
67% NO
 33% YES
28. Do you think people who want to purchase rifles and shotguns should be given background checks before they are allowed to buy the guns? 
66% YES
 34% NO
29. Do you belong to the National Rifle Association? 
57% NO 
43% YES

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some Life Stats Posted by: pyramid
» RE: Some Gun Stats Posted by: mmdog
Guns Are Bad...
Posted by: Hankbrilliant on May 28, 2009 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
especially in the hands of those who are always crying about the "right to bear arms." The argument that is made that one has to have a gun in a National Park to protect themselves against bears and wolves is total B.S. I've spent a lot of time in National Parks over the past 70 years, and in camp sites away from "civilization." I took the precautions necessary to protect me, my family, my food, and my gear. I never found it necessary to shoot at a wolve or bear. Just you watch...someone is gonna get killed by gunshot. And the Park Rangers are going to have a nightmare protecting the Parks and their visitors. Is there a provision in the measure to increase the number of Rangers in the Parks because of this measure? I'll bet not! Ain't Democracy wonderful? The analysis of the vote was that many of the Democrats who approved the provision were elected by gun totin' voters who would've "unelected" them if the measure wasn't passed. And even though I voted for Obama, he's a gutless wonder on this issue!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NRA is a powerful trick
Posted by: Cameo on May 29, 2009 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As usual, those who make billions are manipulating us. The corporate media serves to keep us in a state of fear. The fear encourages us to agree that "we need guns for self protection" despite the evidence that having a gun in your home INCREASES the likelihood of your family suffering harm from a firearm. The people's support of "freedom to carry weapons" supports the military industrial complex by adding to demand for weapons, which sends the signal loud and clear to politicians that the people of the US are not peaceful people, and encourages the warmongers.


It may sound like a conspiracy theory worthy of another alternet article, but I do believe we are caught up in a vicious cycle of fear and violence. So sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Assumptions
Posted by: Sushi on May 29, 2009 1:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assuming that the owner of a gun is going to assalt someone is like assuming that the owner of a penis is going to rape. That it happens periodically with the criminal, irrational, irresponsible, the drug-addled and aggressive does not mean that all owners of such "weapons" are necessarily going to be a threat to the public, your family and yourself.

Sushi
"Crimes sometimes shock us too much; vices almost always too little."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The constitution protects, current laws are illegal.
Posted by: rjs on May 30, 2009 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The second amendment reads: “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.”

Not just to keep arms, but to bear arms!

That is the highest law of the land. And the lawlessness of this country and it's courts is why people do NOT carry weapons. Not the opposite. We are to keep, and to carry.

People have been mentally sick for generations not knowing that it's the states and federal govt that has broken the law by not allowing U.S. citizens the rights of arming themselves NO MATTER WHERE THEY GO!!

The militia was NOT A FEDERAL ARMY, but citizens whom formed and banded together to fight all enemies foreign and domestic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement