Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:52 PM on 02/21/2009
Until this is reversed ... maybe it's wiser, instead, to spend both our time & our hard-earned tourist dollars outside of our National Parks this Spring & Summer (I hear the Canadian Rockies, near Vancouver, are absolutely gorgeous for mid-summer hiking & zip lining); so that fewer people have to worry about our fellow Americans ~ with itchy trigger fingers ~ being stupidly armed.
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
03:06 PM on 02/21/2009
It would be wiser. It would be incredibly silly, shallow, and narrow minded.
03:35 PM on 02/21/2009
I know that you and some other individuals here support this controversial rule change pushed for by the NRA, OE. And I wish that Pres. Obama had been able to stop it, once he took office last month.

Still, that doesn't mean you folks & the gun lobby have won.

Paul Helmke's an attorney & he's explained well how these things go. As he's indicated, the government has defended itself, which is what they must do; & the Justice Dept. offered a response ... though arguably a weak one. Salazar, though, is stating that a review must be done on this; and I think what the Brady Campaign writes about how the Bush Administration did this will be carefully scrutinized and probably, criticized.

In the end, I think it may go back to the way it was (and the way most park service & conservation officials believe it should be) ~ with unloaded guns only being allowed in transport through our national parks.
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
03:31 PM on 02/21/2009
Correction:

It would NOT be wiser. It would be incredibly silly, shallow, and narrow minded.
06:21 PM on 02/21/2009
I agree with you--going to Canada instead of spending vacation money here is silly
01:14 PM on 02/21/2009
One more thing, 336. I've lived in a house full of guns for 20+ years, no one here has ever been harmed, or anyone around us. Does this make us a statistical anomoly? I don't think so. We are all well versed on gun safety and grew up around guns, that is the difference.
01:12 PM on 02/21/2009
Hey 336, just because you don't like guns, doesn't give you the right to deny me the right to own/carry/enjoy firearms. Gun ownership is my INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, irrespective of what the community thinks. The community at large does not get to dictate my rights, this is the core of the Brady philosophy, which pisses me off the most. I practically live for shooting my guns on the weekends, you nor the Brady's are going to take that away from me.

You say the chances of being the victim of a violent crime are very small, which is true. However, using you're logic, we shouldn't use smoke detectors, because the chance of a fire is very small. We shouldn't use seat belts, because the chance of a car wreck is very small. Its called preparing for the worst, but hoping for the best. You're logic doesn't fly here, 336.
01:38 PM on 02/21/2009
Progunamerican: It may well be your "individual" right ~ as per Heller & the Supreme Court ~ but it is not without limits & important regulations.

In addition, every single one of us has an equal say in the violence & safety concerns/needs of our particular society ~ like it or not. I don't live in your home, and I don't care what you do (assuming you're not breaking the law) any more than you care what I do or own in my own home.

However, I do care when you bring loaded concealed guns into our shared national parks & put myself or my family or anyone else there at possible risk for unintentional, accidental or other types of shootings.
01:47 PM on 02/21/2009
How does a holstered pistol carried by a lawful gun owner put you at any risk? It doesn't. Pistols don't sprout legs, jump out of the holster, and go off on thier own. So long as they are used properly, they are not a threat to anyone but criminals.

Gun control advocates have some very twisted logic. They talk about the right to be free from violence, yet they feel they have the right to deny lawful citizens the ability to fight off criminal attack just to satisfy their own irrational fears.

Sheedances, do you live in one of the 48 states that allows CCW? (which will be the only ones effected by the rule change) If so, please explain how someone carrying a gun in a park is any more threatening to you then someone carrying a gun anywhere else.
02:10 PM on 02/21/2009
Kelli--Heller did not address the "bearing of arms" because that topic was not before the court. However Heller did emphasize that ownership of firearms is AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Rights can only be legitimately restricted after they have been abused--and only for the person proven to have abused them--therefore your demands for preemptive restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is wrong
12:49 PM on 02/21/2009
To sheedances and all others who oppose CCW in parks:

If no one needs a gun in a park, why are Park Rangers armed? What do they need the guns for? I bet if you passed a gun ban that applied to everyone, including rangers, they would all oppose it.

The fact that park rangers are armed proves that there is some possibility, however remote, of needing to use a firearm to defend your life. And since the lives of rangers are not any more important then the lives of citizens they protect, CCW holders should be afforded that option too.

"When seconds count, the police are minutes away" is how the old saying goes. But in parks, the police are more likely several hours away (if they are coming at all). Perhaps shedances feels she has the skill to fight off violent predators (with two or four legs) on her own with mastery of hand to hand combat, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to do so.
04:55 PM on 02/20/2009
The point of this article is that the Bush Administration bypassed the legal channels through which the carrying of weapons in National Parks should be allowed.
I do not understand the love affair many Americans have with firearms. What are you afraid of? Odds are you will never have to use a firearm to defend yourself from an attacker, and I hope you never have to. But possession of a firearm within your home or on your person increases the risk of someone around you being harmed.
The point, I think is not whether you have the right to do something, but whether you choosing to exercise that right is harming someone else. Does the benefit outweigh the cost? I don't.
05:57 PM on 02/20/2009
I agree, Prtnts336 ~ well said!
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
07:45 PM on 02/20/2009
"I agree, Prtnts336 ~ well said!"

Are you able to provide factual information in support of your position?
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
07:45 PM on 02/20/2009
"The point of this article is that the Bush Administration bypassed the legal channels through which the carrying of weapons in National Parks should be allowed."

Your statement is not entirely accurate. The "point" of the article is to assert, without actually demonstrating, that the Bush administration "bypassed the legal channels through which the carrying of weapons in National Parks should be allowed". That the article makes such an assertion does not mean that the assertion is correct; the current Presidential administration, which opposed a number of the previous Administration's policies, has voiced the opinion that no rule was violated in altering this particular regulation of National Parks.


"I do not understand the love affair many Americans have with firearms. "

To what "love affair" do you refer?


"What are you afraid of?"

Who has expressed fear?


" Odds are you will never have to use a firearm to defend yourself from an attacker, and I hope you never have to. "

I am aware of no individual who has suggested otherwise.


"But possession of a firearm within your home or on your person increases the risk of someone around you being harmed. "

Please substantiate this assertion.


"The point, I think is not whether you have the right to do something, but whether you choosing to exercise that right is harming someone else. Does the benefit outweigh the cost? I don't."

What is it that you do not do?
12:06 PM on 02/21/2009
* The following is opinion-only.

I'm sure you would agree that (A.) hunting & (B.) self defense are the most widely publicized reasons for U.S. firearm ownership. People have a right to hunt in specified areas & during designated seasons & with specified wildlife ... as well as to keep guns in their homes or on their persons in certain places ~ hopefully only ~ for self-defense reasons. Even the collecting of firearms, like antiques, is not really at issue.

However, not all areas that are highly popular ~ to both non gun owners & gun owners alike ~ require being armed for those reasons (i.e., hunting or safety).

Since our National Park Service areas are places for shooting of wildlife with a camera (not a gun) and are also among the safest places to visit (as outlined by the DOI/NPS stats), then why would anyone want to pack heat there? Because they can? To distress other visitors or the protected wildlife? Because a gun lobby told them to? Other reasons?

Truly, if you do plan to visit a particular place & pay heed to the signs of bears or other potentially dangerous animals spotted by wildlife officials or guests ~ or you remain at home instead, due to fear of wildlife attacks ~ then everyone else interested in seeing our incredibly lovely Parks can also enjoy them ... without fear of their child or elderly parents being near someone who's armed.
12:28 AM on 02/22/2009
Dimensio--I tend to put the possession of defensive firearms and fire extinquishers in the same Boy Scout category of "better to have and not need than need and not have" and earnestly pray not to need
02:33 PM on 02/20/2009
"We may love a place and still be dangerous to it..." (W. Stegner).

I don't take our national parks lightly. Not only is it a privilege to visit these beautiful & (up til now) very safe places, it is also an ongoing responsibility. Loaded firearms don't belong there, among large numbers of visitors ... it would be like playing with fire.

National Park Service act (1916) states, "The Service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations ... by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks ... which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired..."
04:41 PM on 02/20/2009
So prove that CCW will 'impair' them. It should be simple enough for you.
05:53 PM on 02/20/2009
Actually, I don't have to "prove" anything for you, thirdpower. But, I will reply that you should take a look at a very good press release, on this issue, from the Freedom States Alliance. Sums up my position, too:

"Before leaving office, the Bush administration overturned a regulation to keep guns out of national parks. Despite the objections of every living former director of the National Park Service, tens of thousands of national park visitors, and several ranger organizations, loaded, concealed guns are now allowed in most of the country's national parks. For over 20 years, firearms were only allowed in our nation's national parks if they were unloaded or dismantled. Now the Obama Administration has done the unthinkable by defending this last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush, even as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for an internal review of whether the regulation meets environmental standards...

"The Bush administration's ruling was clearly a gift to the National Rifle Association, and now, the reversal of this ruling should be a priority for the Obama administration. What You Can Do: Please call the White House today to demand that the Obama administration protect Americans by keeping guns out of our national parks.

White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111

Thank you!"
photo
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
05:03 PM on 02/20/2009
"Loaded firearms don't belong there, among large numbers of visitors ... it would be like playing with fire."

I am certain, then, that you can provide a rational justification for your concerns by showing a demonstrable and statistically significant negative impact in state parks wherein concealed deadly weapons are allowed resulting from such an allowance by comparing them to state parks where concealed deadly weapons are prohibited. Please do so. I am in fact curious as to why you have, thus far, not provided evidence in support of your position.
06:15 PM on 02/20/2009
Great question, Dimensio.

But no gun control advocate, including shedances, has answered that question when asked.

I wish you better luck than I have had -- but I doubt it.
03:53 PM on 02/19/2009
First, the guns in parks rule will be allowed to stand and now, the tenth circuit court of appeals has overturned a lower court decision, regarding guns in cars at work, in favor of the law. Brady Campaign = 0, NRA = 2. yeee-haaaaa.


http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=12135
03:35 PM on 02/20/2009
I think you need to take a closer look at the entire CBS news article & quotes linked below by thirdpower, before drawing such conclusions that this Bush Admin. rule change "will be allowed to stand," progunamerica.

And, a good piece of info. came at the article's conclusion includes: "The national park system has a relatively low rate for crimes or for attacks by wild animals ... in 2006, there were more than 270 million visits to the national park system and 384 violent crimes. In the course of more than 1.3 billion visits to the system since 2002 ... there have been two reported fatalities and 16 serious injuries caused by 'encounters with non-domestic animals.' "

I'm more worried about the two-legged creatures with guns in our parks, than the four-legged ones who live there!
09:51 PM on 02/20/2009
So far, the Obama justice department is DEFENDING the rule change allowing CCW holders to carry in the parks
01:29 AM on 02/21/2009
You've never seen the drug labs in these parks, have you?
02:01 PM on 02/19/2009
Check this out folks, looks like guns and ammo are still flying off the shelves. By the time Obama gets around to doing anything on guns, Americans will be pretty much stockpiled. Its an excercise in futility.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/custom/consumer/sfl-flbbullets0217sbfeb17,0,2241248.story
12:18 PM on 02/18/2009
2nd posting--Kelli do you even care if your proposals are constitutional? Heller made it very clear that banning entire classed of popular firearms and civilian disarmament will not pass ANY LEVEL OF SCRUTINY.
11:25 AM on 02/20/2009
djkrlsn...

With all due respect, shedances hasn't even read the Parker decision yet, let alone Heller.
06:20 PM on 02/20/2009
Since you are apparently appointing yourself as the firearms legal scholar here, kaveman (I certainly would not claim to be) ... why don't you enlighten everybody else reading: How does the Heller decision have any bearing on the loaded-guns-in-national-parks rule?

I don't see that it does.

Not even the Court's non-binding dicta applies, IMO, except perhaps for the position that the right to keep & bear arms is NOT unlimited; and possibly it could be argued that our national parks are fragile (i.e., sensitive) areas. However, the most applicable argument has to do with tourist's safety and protection of wildlife and the lands.
08:40 PM on 02/17/2009
Wow thirdpower, I'm very surprised and delighted, the justice dept will let this rule stand. Ken Salazar probably had something to do with this, as he is pro-gun and comes from a CCW state, Colorado. CCW has caused zero problems out here, Salazar knows this. This might bode well for the future, maybe, just maybe, Obama will just leave us alone and let us be, we can only hope. How ironic, a left wing, anti-gun administration is not going to challenge this rule, I love it! Even with a "friend" in the white house, the Brady's are still losing, lol.
10:07 AM on 02/17/2009
The Obama administration does not share Kelli's 'humble opinion':

The Obama administration is legally defending a last-minute rule enacted by President George W. Bush that allows concealed firearms in national parks, even as it is internally reviewing whether the measure meets environmental muster.

In a response Friday to a lawsuit by gun-control and environmental groups, the Justice Department sought to block a preliminary injunction of the controversial rule. The regulation, which took effect Jan. 9, allows visitors to bring concealed, loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges; for more than two decades they were allowed in such areas only if they were unloaded or stored and dismantled.

In its reply, the Justice Department wrote that the new rule “does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/17/politics/washingtonpost/main4805192.shtml
03:01 PM on 02/17/2009
I think it's fanastic that the BC has decided to waste their money fighting this. Let them squander their precious few resources on something that won't have any effect.
10:51 AM on 02/20/2009
It IS surprising to me that the Justice Dept./Obama Administration is apparently making this problem much more difficult to correct! Moreover, I think the Brady Campaign is absolutely right to question why "the new administration was defending a rule that embodied 'bad policy and bad procedure' ... It is hard to tell who is calling the shots on this at this point," [Paul] Helmke said. "You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past."
11:19 AM on 02/20/2009
Kelli--you and Paul are STILL in EXTREME DENIAL and fearmongering since CCW holder have NEVER been a problem anywhere despite all the BC claims of the return of "BLood in the streets"{TM}, the "return of the WIld WIld West" (tm) and I also remember Paul calling Florida the "Gunshine state"(TM) and warning tourists (and it turns out that the tourists only had problems from the criminal element (because too many of the locals are armed).
04:43 PM on 02/20/2009
You mean it's surprising to you that the Obama Administration didn't immediately kowtow to the demands of the Brady Campaign.

All you need to do is show how it's a 'problem'.
photo
OdinsEye
Silenced by HP. Cant be intimidated into Facebook
01:31 PM on 02/16/2009
If poaching is really that much of a concern, I guess we better ban sticks and rocks from National Parks too. Maybe shedances/UCClady have heard of slings, slingshots, spears, atlatls, and bows and arrows? Allof which can be used to take down a variety of animals and even better for poachers, they are silent.
10:54 AM on 02/16/2009
To shedances and her alter-ego.

First, poachers use rifles, not concealed handguns, so let's drop this imagined fear of poachers in national parks. It's utter nonsense, as anyone who knows anything about hunting wild game, or firearms will tell you. So you can stop using it as part of the smoke screen.

Secondly, it has been asked (and never answered), since none of your fears of yahoos accidentally shooting children, or yahoos poaching, or "joy-shooting" at the wild life, have ever been any kind of problem in state parks, or state or national forests, upon what are you basing your fears that this will happen in national parks?
01:00 AM on 02/16/2009
for ucclady and shedances: how do you plan on getting rid of the 250 million plus guns already in the u.s. when every illegal alien can walk into the country with an illegal handgun tucked into their diaper bag...
10:53 PM on 02/15/2009
One more point, poachers use RIFLES, which are unaffected by the rule change. Anybody that tries to poach a deer, elk, moose, or bison with a 45 ACP, deserves the darwin award. There might be someone stupid enough to try it, but I doubt it. If you really want to shoot an Elk legally, all you have to do is get a tag and wait just outside the border of Yellowstone, once the Elk migrates beyond the border, boom.....dead elk.