Guns In National Parks Amendment

[Pirate]

So there we have it

Ok so the only reason anyone would want a gun is to stock up assault rifles for the Armageddon, poach some poor animal on federal land or shoot an unsuspecting passerby in Central Park. Is there anyone here that is serious?

 

[6thGen]

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:

No, they didn't shift the goalposts, you did. Your position was that you wouldn't feel safe camping next to someone who might have a loaded weapon because your tent doesn't have a lock. The end. When I pointed out that anytime you are in public you are likely to pass by people with loaded weapons you said that in public there aren't protected species. I responded that protected species do not exist solely in national parks. Do you want me to have it read back to you?

Their argument didn't shift the goalposts, it is just weak. Again, they argue that people are more likely to do things already illegal if they are armed. I disagree. Do you want to compare violent crime statistics in NYC or DC with cities that have less restrictive gun laws? (HINT: For your argument's sake, you don't)

As I keep repeating, you are working backwards from the fact that legally armed citizens are the problem and the burden is upon them to prove why they need to carry a weapon. I'm working from the premise that in order to take away a right spelled out in an amendment to the Constitution and recently affirmed by SCOTUS, the burden is on those seeking to usurp that right to make a compelling argument on how legally armed citizens, passing various levels of certification and training, pose a heightened threat to their surroundings. I'm still waiting.

 

[steyou]

you are free to defend a bad idea. are there any valid reasons to tote weapons in a national park?

Because I can.

 

[Bob]

Because I can.

recess will be in five minutes

 

[Bob]

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.

redneck agenda....low on thought, high on feeling

 

[6thGen]

redneck agenda....low on thought, high on feeling

Yes, Bob. We are all aware that you have little respect for the Founders.

 

[steyou]

redneck agenda....low on thought, high on feeling

Bob, that was pretty funny. It took me 10 minutes to get up from the floor laughing. I forgot my visine today so my eyes are going to be red all day. Thanks

 

[poppy]

Is there any place in this country where you gun advocates would support a weapons ban? I believe this is a fair argument and I can agree with needing a weapon in some situations but not a National Park IMHO. Should we allow them in a bar, a daycare, church, why not let pro athletes carry them like in the opening scene of The Last Boy Scout, that would sure make for some exciting football!

 

[30ashopper]

After reading over this thread, it's clear to me the "gun nuts" aren't the only people suffering from an extreme case paranoia.

Individual liberties should be respected even if you disagree with the way they are expressed. People pooping on the flag or carrying a gun in public - these and others are rights we should all defend.

 

[30ashopper]

you are free to defend a bad idea. are there any valid reasons to tote weapons in a national park?

Are there any valid reasons not to? Clearly you are seeing this from the wrong angle Bob.