More Guns, More Guns

5:10 pm EST April 30th, 2008 | Republicans | 18 Comments

Guns

Because you know nothing is better with our national parks than gun toting jackassery.

The Bush administration formally proposed Wednesday to scrap a longtime ban against bringing loaded weapons into national parks and wildlife areas.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced the beginning of a 60-day public comment period on the proposed update to the nation’s gun regulations.

Under the plan, an individual could carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if he or she is authorized to do so on similar state lands in the state where the national park or refuge is located.

I guess its an improvement over the Republican idea to drill the national parks for oil. But not much of one.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

18 Responses to “More Guns, More Guns”

  1. Jay says:
    April 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    This is perfectly reasonable. Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to a National Park?

    Oh and nobody has proposed drilling for oil in “national parks.” ANWR is not a national park.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    April 30, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to a National Park?
    Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to the US Capitol?
    Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to the White House?

    Etc.

    Sometime we use the Google.

    The National Park Service last week quietly approved the drilling of two new onshore gas wells within Padre Island National Seashore on the Texas Gulf Coast. Conservation groups charged that this action will threaten popular vacation beaches and nesting areas of the endangered Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, the rarest of all sea turtles.

    “Energy development does not belong within our national seashores,” says Randall Rasmussen, acting director of the National Parks Conservation Association’s (NPCA) Southwest Regional Office. “People and marine life that use Padre Island will be put at great risk in a rush to sink wells because of Bush Administration policies designed to speed up drilling without careful consideration of its impact on the environment.”

  3. Jay says:
    April 30, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    You’re comparing the White House to Yellowstone National Park? I’d say it’s a TAD different.

    And anybody can use the Google, but it helps if people know what they’re reading. Those wells are for natural gas, not oil. In addition, drilling for natural gas has been going on at Padre Island for a long time.

  4. Gyuss Baaltar says:
    April 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Thank goodness the criminals obey those gun rules.

  5. Sean D. Martin says:
    April 30, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to a National Park?
    Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to the US Capitol?
    Why should my rights to carry stop at the entrance to the White House?

    To be fair, why should the restrictions on carrying stop at the exit from the White House?
    Why should restrictions on carrying stop at the exit to the US Capitol?
    Why should restrictions on carrying stop at the entrance to my home?

    It is not a simple issue, as any number of discussions here on your own blog have shown. And smart aleck straw man snarks don’t do much to support your view.

  6. Jay says:
    May 1, 2008 at 7:31 am

    Sean, there are obvious security concerns with carrying at the White House and in the halls of Congress. It’s silly to compare that to carrying at Glacier National Park.

    Let’s make it simple. Oliver (as he often does), didn’t actually explain his opposition to people carrying in national parks. I am guessing Gyuss’s snark was in response to Oliver’s (gun toting jackassery).

    So here it is: Why the opposition to people legally carrying in national parks?

  7. RKBA says:
    May 1, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Concealed carry is legal in the vast majority of states which means the vast majority of places you go, you are surrounded by law abiding citizens who are carrying concealed weapons. OH NOES!!! PANIC!!!! BLOOD MUST BE RUNNING IN THE STREETS!!! Um, no. Concealed carry permit holders break ANY law at the rate of 1/2% of the general population. Why should they be denied the right to self-defense in a park? Do they suddenly turn into homicidal maniacs just because they step over an invisible line on a map?

    And please, who thinks that CRIMINALS (who by definition break the law) are concerned about such laws.

    And no, concealed carry holders aren’t paranoid nuts. Do you have fire extinguishers in your home? Wear a seatbelt? Have airbags? Look both ways before crossing the street? Exactly. If I KNEW when I would need a gun, I’d avoid that time/place. But since I can’t, and can’t carry a cop/security detail, I’ll have one with me – just in case.

  8. Sean D. Martin says:
    May 1, 2008 at 11:34 am

    Do you have fire extinguishers in your home? Wear a seatbelt? Have airbags? Look both ways before crossing the street? Exactly. If I KNEW when I would need a gun, I’d avoid that time/place. But since I can’t, and can’t carry a cop/security detail, I’ll have one with me – just in case.

    I’m curious. Just what are the odds of someone with a concealed carry permit will need to use their gun?

    Your comparison to fire extinguishers, seatbelts, etc. make the carrying of a gun sound like an insurance policy. Something to have on the off chance that it’s needed. So, what are the chances it will be needed, and how do those compare to the other items you mention?

    I do have a fire extinguisher in my home, along with the alarm system that building codes require. But I don’t have one in my office or car, where I typically spend almost as much time as at home. Presumably

  9. Duros62 says:
    May 1, 2008 at 11:47 am

    Sean, there are obvious security concerns with carrying at the White House and in the halls of Congress. It’s silly to compare that to carrying at Glacier National Park.

    I heard they got bears in the basement of the Capitol.

  10. Jay says:
    May 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Sean, many people do have small fire extinguishers in their cars and nobody needs one in the office because unless your firm is paying off the fire marshal, they have a fully operating sprinkler system that will take over in the event of a fire.

    As for the odds, who knows what they are? But why should that matter?

  11. RKBA says:
    May 1, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Sean,

    I don’t know anyone who has been in a fire. I do know someone who almost died in a home invasion robbery (in a quite upscale “safe” neighborhood). I’m not a gambler and I don’t like playing odds with my life. By your logic, why take any safety precautions – the chances of getting hurt are so low. My father hasn’t had a single accident in 68 years – he still wears his seatbelt and purchases exceedingly safe cars with every available safety option.

    To be sure, the firearm I carry is the LAST resort – much better to avoid confrontation in the first place, and escape if possible when confronted. Nobody is saying people should be forced to be armed. Feel free to walk around defenseless. But DON’T presume to make others defenseless so that you can feel better. That is immoral.

  12. Gyuss Baaltar says:
    May 2, 2008 at 8:18 am

    Ok, non-gun-toting jackassery here.

    My real question is, why do people think the first step in stopping gun violence is taking guns away from people who have been finger printed, background checked and obey the law?

  13. Jay says:
    May 2, 2008 at 10:01 am

    Gyuss, the gun control movement is the only one that I know of that points to the constant failure of gun control as a means for enacting more gun control.

  14. Dave in SoCal says:
    May 2, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Gyuss, the gun control movement is the only one that I know of that points to the constant failure of gun control as a means for enacting more gun control.

    I dunno, the “War on Poverty” comes to mind.

  15. Enlightened Liberal says:
    May 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Except the War on Poverty was a huge success.

  16. Duros62 says:
    May 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    and nobody needs one in the office because unless your firm is paying off the fire marshal, they have a fully operating sprinkler system that will take over in the event of a fire.

    Dude, you should have some in the office anyway. I’ve experienced fire at my family’s business (at 2:30 in the morning) and the sprinklers didn’t reach the fire. My father knocked it down with a fire extinguisher.

  17. Dave in SoCal says:
    May 2, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    Except the War on Poverty was a huge success.

    Hey, that’s great news! We can go ahead and cancel all those programs that have been enacted over the years to fight poverty. Once we drop welfare, that will free up a LOT of money for other things.

    Mission Accomplished!

    Looks like someone should notify Obama that the war’s over, man.

  18. CDWard says:
    May 3, 2008 at 1:37 am

    You really get the D-list trolls Oliver. The point of the gun ban in national parks is to make it easier for the Park Service to control poaching of wildlife. With the ban, they can prosecute poachers just for bringing guns into the park. Without the ban, they have to catch them in the act of poaching, which is much harder, especially given the Bush Admintration’s cuts in the Park Service budget.