Is this the best argument you have? that my concerns are parsed into different posts? Poaching and lack of Park Rangers are blatantly obvious to most informed persons.
Guns In National Parks Amendment
- Thread starter Mango
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Is this the best argument you have? that my concerns are parsed into different posts? Poaching and lack of Park Rangers are blatantly obvious to most informed persons.
No, my point is that your whole premise is that guns in national parks will encourage people to do things that are already illegal, and that banning guns suddenly gives the criminal a respect for other laws. By showing how you shifted the goalposts from protecting campers to protecting endangered species (5:09pm post - "The difference is there isn't protected wildlife in these places."), I was showing that you were starting with the premise that individuals who happen to have the right to legally carry a weapon are the problem and working backwards to find a reason to usurp that individual's rights.
I think the above, bolded sentences of 6thGen's post, are the best arguments in this discussion so far.
Maybe that's because I agree, but still...
Well then, I suppose the all of the below groups in opposition shifted the goal posts as well. Not sure why it is so difficult to understand both premises.:roll:
FULL ARTICLE
In a letter sent to President Obama today, several national park ranger organizations, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), The Humane Society of the United States, Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence asked for the president’s help in stopping efforts to allow loaded rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in America’s national parks—risking the safety of American families and wildlife.
“This rider is a vote against the safety of American families in our national parks. The U.S. Senate disregarded the concerns of national park rangers and former Park Service directors who want American families and wildlife to remain safe in our national parks. We hope that President Obama won’t do the same.”
“The Coburn amendment would result in more guns in our national parks and put more hikers, campers, and families at risk. It is a reckless measure that should be rejected—whether the gun lobby tries to push it on to credit card reform legislation or anything else,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
“If signed into law, this bill would create confusion for visitors who may not know what law would apply to the national park they are visiting, and would further complicate the job of America’s understaffed national park ranger corps,” said John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police.
“This is astoundingly misguided and presents a clear threat to not only visitor and ranger safety, but to wildlife.”
In a letter sent to Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, 2008, seven former directors of the National Park Service opposed changing the existing Reagan-era regulation, stating, “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
The American public also registered opposition to changing the existing regulation: of the 140,000 people who voiced their positions on this issue during the comment period, 73 percent opposed having loaded, concealed weapons in our national parks.
“From their beginnings, national parks were intended to be special places where we can get away from the routines, pressures, and risks we face in our everyday lives. We believe that Americans want to keep national parks that way—and not like the mean streets of some U.S. cities. Allowing firearms in national parks, in accordance with state law, significantly diminishes their national stature, and increases the risk not only to visitors and employees, but to the very natural and historic resources Americans expect to be protected,” said Bill Wade, chair of the executive council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
On March 19, 2009, a U.S. District Court issued an injunction against the implementation of the Bush Administration regulation. The judge found that the Bush Administration’s process was “astoundingly flawed” because the Department of the Interior “abdicated their [National Environmental Policy Act] obligations” and “ignored substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts.”
“Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said McElveen.
“The presence of a loaded weapon is one of the only clues available for rangers to discover and prosecute those who illegally kill wildlife,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States.
“Allowing loaded weapons in national parks will put wildlife—and possibly park visitors—in the crosshairs, as well as create even more law enforcement challenges for already overtaxed park rangers.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I can just see it now a family trip to Jellystone Park
"Picnic basket, check...kids, check......oh, dang, forgot the bullets! :roll:
you are free to defend a bad idea. are there any valid reasons to tote weapons in a national park?If our government continues to make decisions that drive our economy into the abyss then some folks may have to resort to poaching to put food on table or whatever they do with what they poach.
This is unbelievable to me that this is even an issue. What a waste of time. It is the person behind the gun and not the gun. Do any of you that don't think it is ok for a gun in a park understand what Liberty is?
Politicians don't appeal to me as a rule. It does seem however, the weapon portion of this proposal would appeal to anyone who feels the constitution is a valid document. The issue is not that you may or may not be mugged or attacked by a wild animal or even raped in a park. The issue is that the park is located in a country where law abiding citizens happen to have the right to bear arms. My opinion is that all bills should be stand alone, but that is another discussion. If you have a problem with bills being fattened up, you may want to write the white house.
The Constitution gives citizens the right to arm a militia - not to poach in a national park or carry a gun wherever or whenever you want.
There are limitations to where you may carry a gun - federal buildings, airplanes, courthouses etc. and there are times when other things trump your "right to bare arms". National parks fall under both of these headings IMO.
There are limitations to where you may carry a gun - federal buildings, airplanes, courthouses etc. and there are times when other things trump your "right to bare arms". National parks fall under both of these headings IMO.
I just don't understand why someone would want to carry a gun and not use it. I carry my wallet, keys and cell phone, and I use them. If I carry an axe, hammer or chainsaw, it's because I plan to use them. I don't understand the carrying a gun for protection. What do we need protection from? I've got a neighbor stock piling assault rifles and ammo in order to protect himself. He told me things are gonna get real bad, and I better do something to protect my family. I really don't see what there is to fear.
It is perplexing, isn't it?
I think when one comes from a place of fear--or is motivated by fear--then, fear is seen everywhere.
It's the same with coming from a consciousness of lack: if one thinks there is "not enough", then, there is a reason to "hold on to what is mine"...
It has to do with the evolving of human awareness IMO.