Defenseless in National Parks — Again

Thanks to the gun control lobby, people who might be attacked while visiting any of our vast and often remote national park areas have once again been rendered largely defenseless. A ruling March 19th by a federal judge in Washington, DC, has at least temporarily overturned a rule issued in December by the Bush Administration. The ruling by the Bush Interior Department would have allowed campers, hikers and other persons travelling through or in any of our national park areas, to possess a loaded firearm to defend themselves, so long as they complied with the firearms laws of the state in which the federal park was located. Now, thanks to the judge’s ruling, a person may only possess that firearm if it is unloaded and packed away where it is not readily accessible. In other words, now you can only possess a firearm for self defense while hiking in a national park if the gun is kept somewhere and in such condition that it is not available to defend yourself!

The judge’s ruling is based not on facts, laws or policies that are even remotely relevant to consideration of the right of self-defense or any other legitimate interpretation of federal power. Rather, the judge pegged her ridiculous ruling on the fact that the Bush Interior Department had failed to conduct an extensive environmental impact assessment of the new rule’s effect before implementing it. An environmental impact assessment! In other words, according to the judge’s “reasoning,” even though the pre-existing rule (which is now once again the current rule) allowed a person to carry a firearm in a national park so long as it was unloaded and packed away, and the proposed rule would simply have permitted that very same firearm to be carried loaded rather than unloaded, the administration should nonetheless have engaged in a lengthy and costly environmental impact study — a process likely to have continued for years.

Once again, we are seeing the environmental laws, enacted initially in the 1970s, applied to matters and situations not remotely contemplated to have been covered by those laws, in order to thwart a rule from being implemented because a liberal interest group — in this case, the Brady gun control organization — doesn’t like the policy to be implemented. The National Rifle Association has filed suit to overturn the judge’s ruling.

Even though some Park Rangers have praised the ruling, the real beneficiaries of the ruling are criminals who prey on defenseless campers and hikers — people like Gary Hilton, who has been linked to, charged with, or confessed to several murders in national park areas.


127 comments Add your comment

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
8:38 am

Here’s a thought to ponder, Mr. Barr:

You want to defend yourself against armed lunatics? So do we. And it’s the gun-fanatics who are the “armed lunatics” in question. We’re defending ourselves through legislation, keeping as many of these nuts disarmed as possible.

Nan

March 30th, 2009
8:38 am

Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?

Joe

March 30th, 2009
8:51 am

Copyleft…Your legislation will only keep law abiding gun owners like myself from protecting ourselves. A criminal on the prowl does not care one iota about gun laws.

Sugar

March 30th, 2009
8:57 am

Slowly, one by one, our rights are being taken away from us. When do we stand up to this government that is supposed to be working for us? When did WE start working for the government.

When does it stop? When all the woman are wearing burkas and not allowed to leave the house?

David S

March 30th, 2009
9:01 am

The premise of all gun control laws is that criminals (people who break the law) will obey the law. Copyleft and Nan, please explain this logic.

clyde

March 30th, 2009
9:02 am

Nan—Where did you get you information from?

David

March 30th, 2009
9:03 am

I never have understood the rationale that arming citizens is a panacea for stopping or reducing gun violence. In south Alabama the man killed 10 and then himself before the armed law enforcement professionals could stop him (seems like an awful lot of these rampage perpetrators kill themselves). In Atlanta Brian Nichols killed two law enforcement officers – at least one of them armed – before surrendering. In Oakland last week four police officers were shot to death in pursuit of an armed suspect. Sometimes I think people like Mr. Barr as a kid watched too much of Matt Dillon and Little Joe Cartwright, i.e, “just put a gun in my hands and I’ll take care of any situation”; unrealistic fantasies that appeal to some testosterone-laden males. Actually, I think, if people start carrying guns in the federal parks, it won’t deter those who mean harm; the perpetrators will just shoot from ambush rather than chance confronting an armed citizen face-to-face.

zeke

March 30th, 2009
9:10 am

RIDICULOUS GROUPS LIKE BRADY AND PEOPLE LIKE COPYLEFT ARE SIMPLY SIGNS OF OUR COUNTRIES DEMISE! IF, IF, THE ACLU HAD ANY CREDIBILITY OR INTEGRITY, THEY WOULD SUE THESE GROUPS, AND, THE VARIOUS LIBERAL JUDGES WHO MAKE THESE ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS RULINGS! THE SUPREME COURT, IF, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PACKED ONTO THE BENCH BY LIBERALS RULED WITH ANY COMMON SENSE, WOULD THROW OUT ALL THESE UNAMERICAN SUITS AND GROUPS! IT IS NOT THOSE WHO HAVE CARRY PERMITS WHO ARE THE PROBLEM! IT IS THE CRIMINALS WHO OBEY NO LAWS AND GROUPS LIKE BRADY! CHECK THE FBI STATISTICS! IN ALL THE YEARS SINCE CWP’S CAME INTO EFFECT, THERE HAS BEEN ONE, ONE INCIDENT OF A CWP HOLDER DOING SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS WEAPON!!! AND THOUSANDS WHERE A CWP HOLDER HAD PREVENTED A RAPE, ASSAULT OR MURDER BY HAVING HIS WEAPON!!!

Turkey Slayer

March 30th, 2009
9:12 am

We have a simple solution to this problem. Arm yourselves and defend yourselves even if it means breaking the law. I would rather be alive and a law breaker than a dead law abiding citizen.

Road Scholar

March 30th, 2009
9:18 am

While the premise of needing an EIS for the gun law is ludicrous, the more important issue is why would anyone go out of their way to go to a Federal Park to shoot someone! Is this using the same database from GA on election fraud?(I support voter ID, but have never heard of a specific related crime at a polling station in GA.)

There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.

ESR

March 30th, 2009
9:18 am

Copyleft, are you insane? It’s not law-abidding citizens you see on the news daily robbing places and shooting innocent and hardworking store clerks daily in this city. The only way to protect yourself from the out-of-control crime these days is to self protect with a legal and permitted gun. Crazy people like the man that killed the innocent people at the nursimg home should be shot dead on the spot, just like the two thugs that shot the store clerk last week. I bet those two guys were hard working, upstanding young men, yeah right. Face it, this is Atlanta, a city full of thugs running around with hoodies on looking for a victim. I for one may be a victim someday, you never know what will happen but I won’t go down without a fight.

Davo

March 30th, 2009
9:34 am

Copyleft and Nan obviously have very little regard for their fellow citizens. To them that neighbor down the street with the NRA bumpersticker is the one to watch out for…not the transient raking leaves for a hit of crack. But I digress…protect yourself as you see fit. Just allow me (under the Constitution, btw) to do the same.

David S

March 30th, 2009
9:40 am

Turkey Slayer – The proper phrase is “I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” Yes, being alive to defend your right to be alive is superior to being dead and the government wiping their hands of any complicity through their rights-violating legislation.

Saul Good

March 30th, 2009
9:43 am

I’ve hiked thousands of miles over the years in both State and Federal forests… never have I needed a gun. Nor will I ever. I’ve seen bears before and they’ve entered my campsite. Know what happened? Nothing. You are more likely to get killed or shot going to a gas station compared to going camping or hiking. Know what statistic you left out Bob? More people are killed in our state and national parks by hunters every year (accident shaxident…just ask Dick Chency)…then have been killed by murderers or wildlife in over the past 20 years.

Want to keep our parks safe? Ban hunting in them. Hunters kill people.

David S

March 30th, 2009
9:49 am

Road Scholar – What is the phone number for the ranger? and how long do you think it will take him/her to come file the report on your death?

If all of you folks are too afraid of yourselves or of guns to protect yourself, then fine. What gives you the right to take away my right to keep myself alive? Since when did you become god, or the elected officials you cheer on? You fail to realize that you too benefit from thousands of individuals carrying legally in society. When a criminal knows that anyone might be carrying, it is an implicit deterent, even if you don’t have a gun. Yes, you can come up with a million ways in which a criminal can still kill you even if you have a gun. It just becomes THAT much easier to do if he knows you are a law abiding citizen and definitely don’t have one.

Again, please explain how my carrying a gun in any way violates your rights. And please do explain by what right do you believe it is ok to take away might right to preserve or defend my life??? By the way, the Supreme Court has ruled very clearly that it is NOT the reponsibility of law enforcement to protect me in any way.

Jimbo

March 30th, 2009
9:51 am

@Copyleft
Claiming that more people people who own guns die from gunshot wounds is ridiculous. YES it’s true, but it’s because suicide is the highest cause of gun related deaths in the nation. You should also note that many more people commit suicide in the US than are murdered. Your little factoid is taken out of context and is completely irrelevant. Or, if you really wanted to save lives you might try taking the money devoted to anti-gun lobbying and devote it to treating depression. If you guys did that then the NRA would disappear and their money could go to curing cancer or something else that’s actually useful. The fact is that out of 2.4 MILLION deaths in 2005 (the last year where stats are given by the CDC) guns killed less than 30,000 people total and wounded under 70,000 (That includes all uses both legitimate and criminal, so when a cop shoots a bad guy it’s included in those statistics). That sounds like a lot, except cancer killed hundred of thousands and cirrhosis killed tens of thousands. Cars killed almost 50,000 and wounded over a million people. If you want to talk about things that kill people, guns are pretty low in the list. In 1994 (the time such a study was done) 110,000 crimes were stopped by armed citizens, that number isn’t from some lobby group, that number is from the DoJ. 1994 was the last year crime rose in our country before falling sharply. By the way, crime continued to fall sharply even as more than a million new guns were purchased every year and concealed laws proliferated across our country.

I guess what I’m saying is that you’re an idiot who hasn’t done their research and likes the convenient easy to chew sound bites you get off the brady campaign to end gun ownership (because it doesn’t stop gun violence) website.

@David
It’s not a panacea, it’s a chance you won’t have if you’re not armed. You said it yourself, law enforcement response times are long and getting longer as city and state government reduce police services. At the same time crime goes up because of the deteriorating economic situation. Why don’t you mention Pearl, Mississippi? You know, where a vice principal recovered his gun from his car and stopped the rampage? Why don’t you mention the numerous articles here in the AJC where a person defend their home or person from criminals? How about the fact that most cops I’ve met are appreciative of the fact that I carry a gun and support the carry rights of citizens? I don’t think anyone who carries believes they can simply carry a gun and everything will be ok, that shows ignorance on your part. It takes training, knowledge, and maturity to carry a gun and use it properly. It’s not for everyone and I’m ok with that, but I don’t think it’s right for you to decide that it’s not right for me either. I’d rather have the chance and take the risk than not. You rely on the police, I’ll rely on myself.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
9:55 am

I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks. Even the same color, hard as that may be to believe.

The biggest gun-related risk to a typical suburban resident is his armed neighbor, friend, or family member–not a mythical “career criminal who ignores gun laws and seeks out middle-class suburbanites to rob and victimize and violate the wimminfolk, bwa-ha-ha-ha!”

So yes, the neighbor with the pickup and gun rack and NRA sticker IS a more serious threat than the homeless guy raking leaves. Because everyone carrying a gun is school, church, or mall shooting spree just waiting to happen.

The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist. They’re YOU.

Jay Dubbe

March 30th, 2009
10:05 am

I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.

Why is so hard to understand that evil people will perform evil acts, be it with a gun, knife, a 2×4? If evil is ingrained within some, and they cannot be reasoned with, then by all means, give us the means to defend ourselves.

Joe

March 30th, 2009
10:09 am

WOW copyleft…do you want to go ahead and put a match to the Constitution? There is a very real distinction to criminals and law abiding citizens. I suppose we should castrate all men because there is no distinction between law abiding citizens and the criminal pediphile? Wake up! You can not just toss out the constitution because you don’t want the ability to protect yourself and your family…I will put my families safety in my own care before I push it off on someone else.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
10:17 am

Joe: Tell me what’s unconstitional about this… given that the Supreme Court has upheld our right to regulate gun ownership (a “well regulated militia,” remember?) every single time it’s been challenged.

Regulating gun ownership is the epitome of Constitutional process.

Jimbo

March 30th, 2009
10:31 am

Dear Copyleft,

Please provide the statistics that support your argument. There isn’t any evidence that you’re correct when I review the CDC mortality statistics on the subject unless you’re counting suicides. All told, police shootings included there are around 30,000 gun related deaths in a year. That sounds like a lot, but we’re a nation of 300 million people and two and a half million of us die every year. Over half of those deaths are suicides, less than 10% are accidents and the rest are homicides. The number of homicides include legitimate shootings by cops which are just a few hundred. In the grand scheme of things you’re more like to die of cirrhosis of the liver than a gunshot wound.

You fail to point out that there are as many guns in this country as there are people and that something like 40-50 million households own guns. So the people you speak of as “lunatics” are actually a larger demographic than some minorities. You also fail to point out that the assault weapons ban (which I’m sure you would say reduced crimes with assault weapons by 40%, just like the brady campaign talking point says) only reduced overall gun crime by 2% according to the DoJ and that in the year before its enactment crime began a freefall that continued to 2005, which it hit its lowest point in almost 40 years. During this span of time concealed carry laws proliferated across the nation and now only a handful of states deny qualified citizens the right to carry. The truth is Copyleft, that we’re all around you.. carrying every day. The best information I can find on Georgia carry permits indicates that there are tend of thousands of applicants every year and many years applications for concealed carry permits exceed 100,000. That means with years of permits being issued there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people with concealed carry permits in Georgia alone. Tell me, copyleft, where is the gun fueled holocaust? Oh right, you just repeat the statistics you’re fed without any real understanding of the facts.

a

March 30th, 2009
10:40 am

Copyleft is cracking me up and he obviously is a product of the public/government school system (say you’re a female, or that you’ve stepped foot into a private school, and I’ll call you a liar!)!!! Too funny, his “interpretation!” OOOOoooooohhhh…..legislation! THAT will REALLY scare murderers and rapists who use the north Ga. trails such as the north Ga. mountains and the Silver Comet Trail to find female victims! According to CopyLeft, if Meredith or the woman who died on the SCT had had guns on them, THEY would have been the dangerous ones! Oh, please tell me you didn’t go to school in Georgia!!

Umm, Nan, you’ve been asked to come up with your source….hiding??

Road Scholar – Have you come up with that handy-dandy number we can all use to contact our friendly, 5-mile away park ranger while being attacked?? And if the attacker has our phone, or doesn’t give us a 3-minute time-out to call the friendly park ranger while being attacked, do you have any advice for us regarding what to do?

Do any of you think Meredith might be alive if she had had a gun? Or are you saying it is her fault for not giving the attacker a time-out and calling a magic number to get a park ranger beamed down to her spot where she was ultimately decapitated?

Seriously? Copyleft and Road Scholar and Nan? You don’t think Meredith should have been allowed to have a gun? You are all saying (esp CL) that Meredith would have been dangerous if she had had a gun?

Thank you to all of you who are literate, who know how to read the Constitution, and who work several jobs so that your kids don’t have to attend CopyLeft’s government school.

Joe

March 30th, 2009
10:43 am

Copyleft…the Constitution says a well regulated militia, the very next line says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

a

March 30th, 2009
10:49 am

Nan said: “Given that gun owners are twice as likely as non-gun owners to die from gunshot wounds, I’ve never quite figured out just who the gun nuts are defending themselves from — each other?”

So, if Meredith had had a gun on her park trail, she would have been a gun nut, and she would have been dangerous?

Road Scholar said: “There are trained Park Rangers who can be contacted to assist the people if they are threatened. Otherwise it would be the wild west.”

So Meredith should have called the Park Ranger?

Copyleft said: “I see the confusion continues about some imaginary distinction between “law-abiding citizens” and “criminals.” They’re the exact same people, folks.”

So, if the law had allowed Meredith to have a gun, you would have eyed her as a criminal? This quote of yours is perhaps the most laughable of all.

Copyleft said: “The line between “law abiding gun owners” and “deranged mass-murderers and career criminals” doesn’t exist.”

Ask anyone who knew Meredith, or Jennifer Ewing, and they’ll tell you differently, I bet.

GTchemE

March 30th, 2009
10:49 am

You all ask why anybody would actually need a gun in a national park. I’ll admit that one in a million people would never actually need one. However, just remember that man who killed God-knows how many people on hiking trails in North Georgia over many years time. I’m sure one of his victims would have loved to have been armed.

John

March 30th, 2009
10:58 am

I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. I bought my gun under the assumption that I’ll never have to use it. I want it to sit and collect dust. However, if the day does come where my life or my family is put in danger I will be happy knowing that I have the greatest possible advantage to protect them. Ask yourself this…if someone invades your home and you’re tied up watching your wife being raped I can promise you that the thought of you having a gun will enter your head. You won’t just sit and passively accept it.

rogsmith66

March 30th, 2009
11:07 am

I am not worried about Legal gun carrying citizens having a gun in our parks. The ones you need to worry about are the bad guys who have no regard to laws. I was almost mugged one time. If it were not for my handgun, eith my wife or myself may have been hurt or worse. I welcome the sight of a person open carrying a handgun. He will be your friend. A person who is up to no good will always try to hide his intentions.

David S

March 30th, 2009
11:09 am

I think these responses make it very clear who in our society is the REAL threat to our personal safety – Road Scholar, Copyleft, Nan, and Saul Good (and everyone like them). We would still be living under a British thumb if it were up to them.

Again, by what right do you get to decide whether I live or die?

Who made you people god?

The constitution is in plain english. The Declaration of Independence is written in the same clear english. My rights are inalienable. They are mine because I exist. They do not come from government, they come from my creator (whomever or whatever that might be). First among them is LIFE. That does not negate my personal responsibility. Once I step over that line and violate YOUR rights, then fine. Up until that point, keep your “divine” wisdom away from MY RIGHT TO LIFE!

ESR

March 30th, 2009
11:11 am

Are we going to ban knives too? After reading how the nutcase in MA decapitated his sister after stabbing his other sister to death, perhaps we should move to ban knives too. Had someone had a gun at that scene, perhaps two innocent people would still be alive today and a gravedigger would have a job to do today. The ciminals running around today pick their targets. They’re much less likely to run up to a pickup truck with an older while male who has an NRA sticker and a Support the Troops decal; they know we’ll blast them to hell and back and still be home for supper.

Emily

March 30th, 2009
11:18 am

Gun control means hitting your target. I think everyone should have the right to be armed and ready to blow someones head off if threatened and in danger. If more people carried weapons think of all the criminals we could knock off and not end up having to pay more taxes to keep them fed and watered in jail.

KUERG

March 30th, 2009
11:20 am

BETTER TO BE TRIED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6

JJ

March 30th, 2009
11:20 am

I’m a proud gun owner. I am armed, and I know how to use it, and I will. I carry it just about everywhere I go.

David S

March 30th, 2009
11:25 am

What I find most amuzing about the anti-gun croud is that they personally don’t want to be in a position to have to kill or injure someone in order to defend their lives, but they are more than happy to be paying someone else to do their killing for them. They are not pacifists nor do they even pretend to follow such a principled journey through life.

They are the same folks who condemn Hitler’s violent actions, but conveniently ignore the fact that two of his first laws were to ban private schooling and gun ownership. Just aske the jews in the Warsaw ghetto how successful they would have been if not for their conscious and willful refusal to obey when told to disarm.

Just look at the violent crime rate in both England and Australia since virtually every gun was “banned” in those countries. Sky high.

There is no point in arguing with these types. They do not care about the constitution. They do not care about your life. They are comfortable with their complicit subservience to the authorities for the so-called promise of safety. Time and time again history has shown their type to be on the receiving end of everything bad. But then how would a wolf survive without sheep to feed on?

GA Gun Toter

March 30th, 2009
11:25 am

All of you people who rely on law enforcement to keep you safe should remember a few things (1) the cop carries a gun for his (or her) protection, not yours; (2) people licensed to carry a firearm are statistically more law abiding than the rest of the general public and law enforcment officers (didn’t 3 rogue APD officers MURDER an innocent, law abiding citizen a couple of years ago?), and (3) when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Your Founding Fathers sought to protect your right to bear arms and defend yourself. They had a reason. Wake up people.

bob

March 30th, 2009
11:26 am

i have a winter handgun and a summer handgun depending on how i need to dress to conceal the weapon. i take it everywhere regardless of the law – SEE KUERG, 11:20AM

Mafuta54

March 30th, 2009
11:33 am

I have fire insurance on my house, yet I hope I never need to use that insurance. Does that make me a pyromaniac just waiting to burn my house as well as yours? If my house ever catches fire, I will be glad that I have insurance! I hope to never have to use my gun either, but if the need arises, I will be glad that I have it as well.

JJ

March 30th, 2009
11:45 am

If Meredith had a gun, and knew how to use it, she would be alive today, and the deadbeat who killed her would be taking a dirt nap.

I’m all for gun ownership. Especially in these times!!!! I’m also for gun education.

Jefferson

March 30th, 2009
11:45 am

Cats and dogs.

matt

March 30th, 2009
11:46 am

Copyleft and Nan – Try to be a little more self sufficient. Do not rely on the government to step in and save you. You’re a human being; not a passive, submissive Paris Hilton style dog. I hope you never confront evil or insanity, because if you ever do- you’ll surely wish you were armed and not the pushover that you are.

tommcginnis

March 30th, 2009
11:51 am

What an astounding array of ignorance displayed here, in those wishing to quash the self-responsible right to bear a firearm in protection of self, family, and society. Horrendous, really. But to return to the National Park System and the associated firearms ban as the primary subject: please remember three things: 1) the “ban” was/is not that old; 2) the effect on NPS crime was/is nil 3) the only for-sure, concrete result was the ridiculous criminalization of those exercising their self-responsible right to bear a firearm, even while in transit as for example, while traveling the Blue Ridge Parkway or Rt 441 through the Smokys, hopscotching across NPS lands often without designating signs.

D-Rock Sizzle

March 30th, 2009
11:52 am

I just purchased my first firearm at the Eastman Gun Show in Savannah this weekend. I’ve been properly trained and do not take the responsibility of owning a gun lightly. I’m very glad that I have a S&W .40 to confront home invaders rather than a baseball bat. If you liberals are so afraid of me having a weapon for self defense, then don’t invade my home and you won’t get shot!

Dan

March 30th, 2009
11:55 am

My Guns have still killed less people than Ted Kennedy’s car. My Guns: 0 Ted Kennedy’s Car: 2

Anti-Gun Extremist Liberals are delusional as you can see from the facts..

ESR

March 30th, 2009
11:57 am

The anti-guns zealots must not think we ever watch the local news in Atlanta. They must not realize that we know that cops are having to send emails to people saying that whole parts of Atlanta is not safe (thank you Queen Shirley for running such a safe city!) even when walking to or from your vehicles to your doors or talking to a neighbor in your own yard. I suppose this way of life is the norm to them. They must not realize we know that the leaders of most of the metro area continually fail in regards to keeping us safe. They want us to roll over and play politically correct. We’re not stupid, we know what’s going on on the streets and although we can’t for sure say we won’t ever be a victim, my locked and loaded Sig 9 mm in my truck and my pump 12 gague in the home makes my chances a little less than that of Copyleft.

Dan

March 30th, 2009
12:06 pm

Gun manufacturers should stop selling to guns & ammo to Police departments in liberal districts, since they hate guns so much. Because, you know, we wouldn’t want to encroach on their liberal values. I for one see this country balkanizing eventually. That will be a good thing, because that would leave the liberals (like Copyleft) to their own devices. After they self destruct by killing each other with whatever sharp objects they can get their hands on, after their socialist utopia collapses & everyone is starving & robbing each other, we can move back in & use the land & resources for something positive..

DDT

March 30th, 2009
12:06 pm

Jay Dubbe

March 30th, 2009
10:05 am
I think the anti-gun crowd is missing the point. Take yourself as the example. If I gave you a gun, would you feel compelled to go shoot someone just because you possess the means to do so? Of course not. You could fill Philips Arena with 20,000 responsible people, all carrying guns, and not have one incident.

Do they sell beer in Phillips? If so, think again Jay Dubbe.

DDT

March 30th, 2009
12:17 pm

How many “law abiding” citizens are buying guns that wind up in Mexico? Obviously quite a few. But then they couldn’t really be considered “law abiding” could they. And how many of these “law abiding” citizens have been involved in all these rampages we’ve seen recently? Again, kind of cloudy as to how “law abiding” they really were all along. More than likely if any of you wannabe gunfighters have to have your peice pried from your cold dead fingers, it will probably be another “law abiding” wacko that took you out. Remember the “law abiding” wacko in Florida that went inside and got his gun to straighten out his neighbor for too many bags of garbage out at the curb. Wasn’t this “law abiding” citizen just that right up to the time he blew his neighbor away over garbage bags? You guys sure like to throw around that “law abiding” line knowing full well that most shootings and almost all shootings involving household incidents or accident are perpetrated by who? “Law abiding” citizens, that’s who.

My Gun/My Right

March 30th, 2009
12:18 pm

Copyleft, I hope that you have recently slipped, fallen and hit your head, as your comments are more than ignorant. I hope that you do not one day find yourself in a situation where you need a firearm for self defense, because I am afraid that you just might try to throw it at your assailant. But in case you do one day pull your head out of the sand and decide to lawfully defend yourself, the barrel of the gun is to be pointed at your attacker. Oh, and read the Constitution, and ALL of its amendments when you have time.

Saul Good

March 30th, 2009
12:19 pm

I love how some of you gun “owners” cite the 2nd Amendment. As if you even understood what it means. To be honest… the “right to bear arms” means that if I have the means to afford one… I should be able to protect myself with a small nuclear weapon…perhaps a few missile launchers as well. If those are the “arms” I choose to “protect” myself and my family… you show me where it says anywhere in our constitution or any of our amendments where I can not have those things.

What part of “well regulated militia” do the majority of you not understand. Want to go to the woods? Leave your guns at home. As I stated above…I’ve hiked thousands of miles and never had the need for one. Yet not ONE of you has responded to what I said above…the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.

Dan

March 30th, 2009
12:21 pm

I think we all agree that guns & more than a small amount of alcohol don’t mix.. In other words the same laws that apply to drinking & driving should apply to handling a firearm. I don’t know one legally carrying firearms owner that would disagree with that.

Liberals try to paint us as the nuts, when in fact their party’s constituents make up most of the U.S. prison population..

Jonesy

March 30th, 2009
12:24 pm

The one thing I keep noticing that is missing is this important distinction: The law was written allowing those that ALREADY HAD A CCW to CONTINUE carrying in national parks located in that state. It did NOT give the normal non-licensed individual the right to suddenly carry a loaded weapon.

Now the crux of the reversal is as Mr. Barr described it. A loaded weapon is no different than an unloaded one (as complying with the existing old law-unloaded and ammo separate) as far as environmental impact. So the reversal on the new ruling is just a bogus loophole someone decided to use to stall the ruling by saying the Bush admin didn’t ‘check’ the box. And I’ll bet anyone a round that it wasn’t checked for the old rule either.

Now for my friends Copyleft, Nan, etc…..please….lighten up. You can hate guns all you want, you can use stereotyping, insults and all other rhetoric to describe folks who own guns…whatever, it’s your right to feel that way and say what you want. You can choose which rights you do or do not excercise. I choose to exercise the 2A, and it’s my right to own and carry a firearm if I so feel inclined. So please respect others’ rights. You do as you want, but please leave me to do as I see fit.

Do the people around you know that you have so little trust in them? I’ll bet that they would definately see a distinction between them and career criminals/mass murderers. I know there’s a huge one between myself and people like those: I’ve never been arrested. Can you say the same? I wonder who you think the “good guys” really are….

Dan

March 30th, 2009
12:27 pm

Saul Good, would a militia not consist of individuals? & where in the Constitution does it say that those individuals can’t take their guns home for their own protection?

Also, there has never been any argument made by gun owners that they should have access to a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION.. You’re being ridiculous, & twisting the facts because you can’t come up with a rational argument against firearms.

Lastly, I’m sure you drive an automobile, which kills more people than guns do in this country, but I don’t hear you liberals asking to have your cars taken away.. You’re arguments are biased & idiotic.

Dan

March 30th, 2009
12:32 pm

Hey Saul Good.. Care to back up your BS claim (see below) with some data? Links? Proof? We’ll be waiting.. A LONG TIME I think..

“the MAJORITY of people that have been killed in our nations parks…have been killed by HUNTERS. Dare you now prove me wrong. You can’t. All statistics point to what I just wrote as being both true and factual.”

Jonesy

March 30th, 2009
12:32 pm

Saul Good: Check these statistics – more people die in car and traffic accidents every year than in all gun related incidents combined.

So here we all are going about our daily business in large, heavy, motorized deadly pieces of equipment that are all regulated up the wazoo (as if that does anything but generate revenues); and there are no calls to ban cars, not even those evil, deadly sports car types. Yet we go day to day trusting that the guy next us on the highway is going to do his best to NOT cause an accident and kill us on the way to work.

AJC Reader

March 30th, 2009
12:38 pm

Why does everyone assume that the loaded firearm would necessarily be used to defenda against another *person*? Was there something in the law/rule/proposed rule change that said that? Because it seems to me that if I am hiking in a national park, I am a heck-of-a-lot more likely to want a loaded firearm to protect me against wildlife than against another person.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
12:41 pm

It’s amusing how many of the gun fondlers claim to be experts on the Constitution, yet continue to insist that regulating gun ownership–an act specified in the Second Amendment itself–is somehow “unconstitutional.”

Clearly, some remedial reading training is needed… but not for those of us who can read the ENTIRE amendment.

Mafuta54

March 30th, 2009
12:42 pm

It is for defending against 2 legged as well as 4 legged varmints! It just seems that the “Anti’s” always refer to gun/2A enthusiasts as going to kill people left and right!

Mafuta54

March 30th, 2009
12:45 pm

If you read the second amendment, it says nothing about regulating the right to keep and bear arms. What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?

A well regulated militia… not a well regulated bearing of arms!

ESR

March 30th, 2009
12:49 pm

Yeah Copyleft, reading a bill is critical. Would have been nice had you democrats read all of the so called stimulas package, you could have read Dodd’s little insertion about the AIG fatcats getting to keep the contractual bonuses. I suppose they were too busy kissing Obama butt to bother ot read it. That would have saved all the phony and fake outcry from Obama and his confederacy of dunces on the hill.

Bob

March 30th, 2009
12:54 pm

This is why I voted for you Bob. Keep it up!

JimInMT

March 30th, 2009
12:58 pm

Amazing how the anti-gun people are so “positive” that they cannot address facts, having to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks against perfect strangers — the rest of us, since they do NOT know who does or does not own a gun in their neighborhoods — including some NRA members who choose not to own, but belong to that group for its express defense of the ENTIRE US Constitution. What a bunch of stupid paranoid morons! How you idiot leftist weenie cry-baby sheeple like to be insulted? Makes you feel good and superior to the rest of us doesn’t it? But, it does not change FACTS. FACT: 60 million law-abiding gun owners in the US did NOT kill anyone this year. Or last. EVER!

shark60

March 30th, 2009
12:59 pm

While we are at it lets ban cars from National Parks. Better still ban cans period. They cause many more deaths daily than guns do. The idiocy of some people baffles me. Call 911 dial a prayer and a Police officer may get there in time to keep you from rotting and stinking too bad.

Jack Franklin

March 30th, 2009
1:04 pm

Stay out of parks & stay out of blogs & you’ll be OK.

JimInMT

March 30th, 2009
1:06 pm

Regarding, “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment, it refers to training and espris de corps (that’s French for something akin to coordinated in action, purpose, interchangeability of calibre of bullets so a dead soldiers lead projectiles can be fired from any other of the militia-persons’ weapons). One cannot have a militia full of morons who decide when or if to attack, or show up with hammers and sickles instead of the best fire power needed to take down tyrants attacking them… The latter “if” would probably be emanating from those who capitulate at the first sign of “trouble”, like those fools who give in to the gummint when it bellows at them from a “bully’s pulpit” — that would be “Obama, The Tele Prompter” Hollywood’s latest action hero — himself unarmed, but SURROUNDED by armed citizens, who by extension of the reasoning proffered by Nan and others, are no different than criminals — which may well be, but for entirely different reasons than they might suppose… the rationale for the Second Amendment.

Jonesy

March 30th, 2009
1:06 pm

Copyleft: since you are so “trained” and no doubt endlessly educated, I thought that you might know what “well regulated” meant in the Founders’ context. Back then “well regulated” meant proficiently trained, armed and well maintained – it did not pertain to the regulation of gunownership by the government.

I know that you probably just made an honest mistake right?

luangtom

March 30th, 2009
1:14 pm

Okay, history students, let’s look at what the 2nd Amendment says….militia is a term that meant the whole of the adult male population of the time to fight against a tyrannical government. The militia of the time did not refer to organized programs such as our current national guard or reserve. These programs did not exist. The arms referred to weapons equal to that of the foot-soldier used against the citizenry, such as muskets and side-arms, not cannons. This information was gleaned from listening to the presentations of Joseph Olson, Hamline University, MN, constitutional law professor….where did you other folks that speak against the gun-owner garner your information from?

luangtom

March 30th, 2009
1:18 pm

Oh, the side-arms carried by law enforcement are there for the protection of the officer wearing them. They are a reactionary force, not a protection unit. They respond to crime 90% of the time and prevent it 10% of time….I apologize for having to add this later rather than include it in my last blurb. So, to say that the Park Ranger or Police Officer is going to protect folks that are out and about is incorrect.

DDT

March 30th, 2009
1:33 pm

Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh a “law abiding” citizen until he blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City?

DDT

March 30th, 2009
1:34 pm

Too bad some of you 2nd Amendment experts don’t have the same regard for the 4th Amendment.

Doug

March 30th, 2009
1:36 pm

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
1:37 pm

Read the cases, folks; the Supreme Court has come down on the side of constitutional regulations on gun ownership over and over.

U.S. v Miller; Robertson v City of Denver; U.S. v Oakes; U.S. v Johnson; Eckert v Pennsylvania; Burton v Sills; U.S. v Booker; Mullenix v BATF; U.S. v Walters; and so on….

Regulated ownership is Constitutional; you’re stuck with it, folks, so don’t bother trying to get all fundamentalist on this one.

Jimbo

March 30th, 2009
1:40 pm

For those of you who believe that the right to bear arms is a collective right (meaning you think it’s only for the militia and not individuals.. and have you thought about that? Is any other right in the Bill of Rights collective? No? Huh.. wonder how that works?.. oh wait.. it doesn’t.. yeesh) then I direct you to the Militia Act of 1903. Which says that all males age 17-45 are to be considered part of the “unorganized militia” so I guess the question is “why are we depriving 17-year-olds the right to bear arms?”

Mark

March 30th, 2009
1:42 pm

Copyleft, learn how to use a dictionary! “Regulated-To put or maintain in order;To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.” Therefore, a ‘well regulated Militia’ is one that is properly equipped and ready to respond to ‘provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.’ By the way, that’s also from the Constitution.

Copyleft

March 30th, 2009
1:46 pm

Mark: As I said, check with the Supreme Court. Regulated gun ownership has always been constitutional, and it still is today. HUNDREDS of case precedents back that up.

You may not like it, but you don’t get to make the call. Your preferred interpretation doesn’t matter; the Court’s does.

AtlantaConservative

March 30th, 2009
1:47 pm

It is interesting hearing some of the rhetoric by people such as Copyleft. I can sum this viewpoint up as being “pro rape.”

PRO RAPE – To be pro rape means you are telling your daughters, mothers, sisters, nieces, et al that you are making a collective decision to notify a person looking to commit a violent crime such as rape that the statistical chances of this person being armed for self defense are dramatically reduced, thus making the risk of committing such a crime also reduced.

Jonesy

March 30th, 2009
1:51 pm

DDT: Everyone should have the same regard for the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. That’s the problem. All the ammendments do not get equal importance, the 4th included.

Copyleft: yes regulation has been a part of guns for some time; but that was NOT the intent behind the 2nd ammendment. The fact that it exists has been a result the the slow but progressive encroachment of progressive and liberal idiologies into legislation, not because the Constitution says its OK. Its for “public safety” mentalitites and my favorite: “Do it for the children”.

AtlantaConservative

March 30th, 2009
2:02 pm

I think this whole matter can be summed up with the quote:

“If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.”

I like the idea of having a person looking to perpetrate a crime against another person looking to ask himself if the person he is looking to attack is carrying a firearm.

Where the law falls short typically is enforcement of illegal guns. The reason there is a surge in gun sales, beginner’s shooting class and GA carry permits is because people do not have the confidence in the system (system = laws + law enforcement) to guard them against the threat of violent crime.

Where is the community outrage that people have lost their feeling of security to the point they feel they need to pick up arms. There are alot of new gun owners and first time carry permit holders having to grapple this question. It is a scary thing to ask yourself, ‘I am willing to point this gun at an attacker, fight for my life, and put the rest of my life on the line through litigation an court proceedings because of my actions and the fact I wasn’t willing to trust a violent attacker to spare my life.”

EJ Moosa

March 30th, 2009
2:15 pm

For all of those that believe in using statistics for your safety, I have to laugh. Statistical averages did nothing to stop Jennifer Ewing from being attacked on the Silver Comet Trail.

What is the problem with letting individuals protect themselves? If you are not up to that responsibility, so be it. Some of us are up to it.

Roads Scholar–is that you Michael?

EJ

Stupidity

March 30th, 2009
2:16 pm

Copyleft – Since when did a criminal ever give a damn about gun laws? It’s not the honest citizen out hiking or camping with friends and family we need to worry about endangering someone because they HAVE A WEAPON FOR SAFETY…it is the “Couey-type” guys out there who are looking for their next UNARMED victim we should be worried about.

I guess this is another example of sitting around waiting for the Guberment to save us!
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!

D.B. WILSON

March 30th, 2009
2:19 pm

I’M 51 YEARS OLD AND I’VE HAD A HAND GUN PERMIT SINCE I WAS 21 YEARS OLD! NEVER BEEN ARRESTED OR EVEN HAD A PARKING TICKET!MY TWO BROTHERS ALSO HAVE PISTOL PERMITS AND MY THREE SONS WILL BE GETTING THEIR’S SOON.WE WERE RAISED TO RESPECT AND PROPERLY USE FIRE ARMS! WHAT’S MORE WE WERE TAUGHT THE DIFFERNCE BETWEEN RIGHT AN WRONG,GOOD AND EVIL!MAYBE THAT’S THE REAL PROBLEM,PEOPLE DON’T KNOW OR DON’T CARE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE ANY MORE!SO I CARRY A HANDGUN WITH ME IF I GO TO THE STORE OR A WALK IN THE WOODS WITH MY WIFE! TO PROTECT US AGAINST MAN OR BEAST!IT’S BETTER TO HAVE A GUN AND NOT NEED IT, THAN NEED ONE AND NOT HAVE IT! THANK YOU!

Mark

March 30th, 2009
2:21 pm

I challenge anyone out there to find a case of a concealed carry permit holder engaging in a mass shooting. The nursing home in NC? The VT shooting? The 4 Oakland PD officers? All the way back to Lubby’s in Kileen! NONE! Some of them were even prohibited persons who STILL managed to acquire firearms DESPITE laws to the contrary. When are you people going to learn that laws DO NOT stop crime; competent, aggressive, and (when necessary) armed resistance is what STOPS crime. Less live criminals equals less crime! To quote Mr Burke, ‘All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.’

SaferThanYou

March 30th, 2009
2:31 pm

Since The U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights framed our inalienable rights and predates activist judges, my right to own a gun which can not be infringed, CAN NOT BE INFRINGED by Copyleft or any judge, bill or law.

I choose to protect my family with the gun I’ve never had to use to do so. But, crime still gets reported daily about murders, robberies, home invasions, etc. These crimes are not imaginary. They really happen and guns are often the leverage which allowed the criminal to win.

Any person who willingly allows their family to be subject to force does not deserve to be defended, even though our laws provide him or her with that right.

The thinning of the herd continues.

Maybe we gun owners should provide a hotline for the spouses and children of individuals like CopyLeft. It might be our moral responsibility to protect the defenseless.

Future Park Ranger

March 30th, 2009
2:42 pm

There was a comment made by Road Scholar that make said if there is a problem in a park that you should contact a park ranger and they can defuse the situation. There are a few points I would like to make to this comment. First there are not enough park rangers in most parks to be everywhere all the time. One big reason for this is that most parks whether they are state or federal are having to make cut backs on the number of rangers due to lack of funding. Not to mention the fact that it would be impossible to have a ranger covering every inch of a park to prevent a situation.

Another point I would like to make is the simple fact that a criminal is not going to wait around for a ranger to show up. If there is a criminal with a gun and he is willing to use it on another person, do you really think that the ciminal will allow the person being attacked to call for help??? Or with the person does manage to call for help do you really think that he ciminal is going to wait around to get caught. I do not think so.

So lets take a step back. Not enough protection due to not enough rangers due to not enough funding. A gun man is not going to wait for the ranger to eventually get there if somone manages to get a message to one. By this point in time the criminal is either long gone with all of your stuff and your sitting there going I wish i had a way to defend myself. Or you are on the ground dead because you didnt have a to protect yourself against the guy that had a gun and to ranger to be found to protect you.

Road Scholar

March 30th, 2009
2:52 pm

Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park! Duh! While I have to admit the criminal won’t wait for the Ranger, you could help them find the a$$holes by describing their appearance, license tag, etc. They could close the entrances/exits (ie lockdown) until found. Oh, I know it doesn’t provide you with the instant gratification of blowing someone away, but there are other means!Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.

Bodacious

March 30th, 2009
2:54 pm

Hey Lefty and Nan, Please submit your photos so that we,the lawful bearers of arms, can walk off and leave you at the mercy of the bad guys instead of saving your sorry asses

Road Scholar

March 30th, 2009
2:54 pm

PS Why aren’t we funding adequate security? Raise the price of admission.

centermass

March 30th, 2009
2:55 pm

Well guys here is the problem, as long as we have a Gov’t that is nothing but a bunch of bed wetting lib’s, we are always going to fight for our gun rights. Its the LIB’S way or no way as far as they are concerned and that is whats so disturbing about this country.

Road Scholar

March 30th, 2009
2:56 pm

Forgot to add: Cut taxes some more, that will pay for the security!

Sasquatch

March 30th, 2009
2:57 pm

1. When seconds count, the authorities are only minutes away.

2. I’d rather have the means to protect myself and my loved ones, and never need it, than not have the means and need it just one time.

I’m a former police officer, and I believe that honest citizens who are prepared and equipped to protect themselves, their loved ones, and each other if necessary are the best deterrent to our society continuing its headlong plunge into lawlessness.

Gandalf, the White!

March 30th, 2009
2:58 pm

I hope Copyleft tries to break into my home…. :-)

Redneck Convert

March 30th, 2009
2:59 pm

Well, I keep my anti-tank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self defense loaded all the time and I’ll keep them that way when I go to a park. People give you a wide berth when you stake out a camping site and they see you with a M-60 and a big long string of ammo for it. If one of the criminals ever come for me they’ll need a vacuum cleaner to pick up the remains. This is GA, not some yankee state.

Have a good day everybody.

Bodacious

March 30th, 2009
3:03 pm

Red, I’ll bring mine and we can camp next to each other and have covering fields of fire.

Bodacious

March 30th, 2009
3:10 pm

Bad Boys, Bad Boys, What ya gonna do, What ya gonna do, LEFTY when they come for YOU ?????

BUCK-50

March 30th, 2009
3:11 pm

WE NEED TO POST SIGNS AT OUR PARKS; WARNING ,ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK! THE BEARS DON’T NEED GUNS,ONLY THE CEIMINALS HAVE WEAPONS AND YOUR 911 DIAL A PRYER PROBABLY WON’T EVAN HAVE ANY BARS!!!

Smitch270

March 30th, 2009
3:24 pm

What a LINE Of CRAP!! It is my second ammendment right to bear arms and protect myslef and my family form any threat, person or animal. I have spent thousands of hours hunting fishing and enjoying the outdoors. I have had to use my firearm to protect myself from an unleashed violent dog. I have never shot,robbed or raped any person,or have broke any Laws you see I obey the laws and yes I carry and firearm were ever the law allows me to. It it my choise “Not to be a victim” so it is two shots center mass and one shot in the head!

For all the anti-gunners and Liberals it is my tax dollars spent on hunting and fishing permits, tags, and licenses pays for the upkeep of the National Forest and Parks.

It should be my right to carry a firearm just as the Laws of Arizona allow me to do so. Just remember if you come to me for help and I am unarmed because of this B.S. law…expect NO HELP form me! I don’t know if your intent is to do harm, so I will leave you and your family to your distress and I hope you the best!

Just remember Americans that have a sack will protect thier individual rights and will keep this country safe.

Californication

March 30th, 2009
3:28 pm

CopyLeft, you are very illiterate when it comes to guns. If you stop all law abiding citizens from carrying guns then only the bad guys would have them. Do the bad guys follow the law? I think not, so next time you are robbed at gun point at a place where nobody but the bad guys have them what are you going to do? Oh that’s right Obama will take care of you.

Georgia Gomer

March 30th, 2009
3:43 pm

Interesting that the example Barr gives is Hilton, whose crimes were in National Forests which comply with state carry rules, unlike National Parks. National Forest carry rules weren’t changed by Bush or Obama.

Californication

March 30th, 2009
3:46 pm

CopyLeft, why do you hate America? If you don’t believe in the constitution you are free to leave. In fact let me know where to send you your one way ticket to China, you seem like you would be a good fit there. Only the bad guys have guns there, and they are the government.

Paladin

March 30th, 2009
3:57 pm

I will carry a self-defense gun. Why? Because a cop is too heavy.

Melvin

March 30th, 2009
3:58 pm

Come on people it hasn’t anything to do with safety of non firearm owners. Simply put it has all to do with a activist/political wing exercising they’re ability to take something away from another group that does not chair they’re political ideology.
Look around us, we are surrounding by ankle biting activists who are against everything. They’re against cigarettes, fast food, hunting, fishing, walking on the beach, riding four wheelers, dirt bikes, riding horses, fireworks, motor vehicles, nuclear power plants, light bulbs, fur coats, and humans in general.
Why do we put up with their horse squeeze, like one putz said, “You have your guns we have our legislation to take your guns away from you.” Its bout time we put these little pesky cretins back under the rocks from whence the came.

MojaveGreen

March 30th, 2009
4:14 pm

I’m sorry she feels that way. It don’t have any impact on my life. Why? because the U.S. Supreme Courts (easily verified threw simple research) have ruled time and time again that law enforcement is not obligated to protect me. That that obligation for my own safety rests squarely on my shoulders and mine alone. As such I will do what ever I deem necessary to protect myself up to and including lethal force. Yes I will continue to carry my sheath knife or Colt Commander 45 acp. Yes it will be loaded with ball ammo or +P hydra-shock ammo. Why? because I refuse to be a victim of crime. Yes If some scum sucking pos criminal wants to try his or her luck, I will of course do what I need to do to ensure my safety and well being. Why? Because you law enforcement types, Despite the great jobs you do to try and make the population feel safe, No disrespect intended ,are incapable of protecting me when I might need it. I am forced to live in the real world not a make believe world that these brain dead politicians and judges seem to live in. As such I am forced to acknowledge reality for what it is and act accordingly, and until I see Park Rangers or Police Officers at each corner and at mid point location of a city block or at a tree or desert bush every 500 feet where you can respond faster and until the US Supreme Courts holds you responsible to the obligation of my safety. I will continue to do what I need to do to ensure my own safety as well as that of my family and close friends. If the government don’t like that way of thinking. The to bad so sad. You politicians need to go to the hospital and ask the surgeons to remove your heads from your butts. because it apparently is stuck so far up there that you can not get it out on your own. You also need to recognize that by handing out real punishments to those that choose to attack otherwise law abiding citizen is what works. Not doing things that make it easier for them to make more victims. But then you are on the same side as the criminals anyways. lol. If some people dont want to own fire arms. That is their right. They can rely on the government sponsored dial a prayer, better known as 911 if they choose. Maybe someone will get to them in time maybe not. That is their choice and I respect that. I however will not respect them imposing their beliefs down my throat. I will take my safety in my own hands. Now, what the hell does an environmental study have to do with personal self defense anyways?

Make Guns Illegal

March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm

I would love for guns to be illegal – a complete ban on every firearm of every caliber for every person. We all know that a ban like this would work because we can look at the “war” on drugs for our evidence. Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. are all illegal and billions are spent to keep them out of our country. See how effective this has been? Did I just say that out loud? Crap, I’d better run down to the corner and get me a dime bag and smoke this one off.

David S

March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm

Some quotes from the people who drafted and approved the Bill of Rights:

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

for more: http://www.uhuh.com/guns/2ndquotes.htm

MojaveGreen

March 30th, 2009
4:27 pm

BTW I view guns like I would a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher. As I have all three in my house and in my Jeep.My feelings are this. I would rather have one and not need it. Than to need it and not have it…. It’s your life, protect it the way you want to. I will protect mine the way I want to..

David S

March 30th, 2009
4:27 pm

The second amendment has always been about giving the citizens the right to protect themselves against tyrranical government, not about hunting, target shooting, or even about crime prevention. But since you can’t pick and choose when the citizenry might need to exercise that right, you can’t deny it ever.

Daniel

March 30th, 2009
4:36 pm

I wonder how many of this anti gun people has a Home Security system, Locked their doors when they leave home and go to sleep or owns all kinds of insurance policy? If they are so confident that everything is Ok if only guns are taken away, they should take off the doors in their homes and stop using all this services that they use to protect their family and self otherwise they are just bunch of Hypocrites. Guns are the last line of defense for gun owner.

Bodacious

March 30th, 2009
4:36 pm

God I love it when you guys are right, MGI; hold on brother I’m right behind you!, got a light?

Eric

March 30th, 2009
4:37 pm

For those railing against liberals, slow yourself down there pardner. There is a diverse universe of liberals. I for one vote liberal but I own guns. The current stance by the Democratic party doesn’t make me happy, but I also know that they can only take it so far – political will against gun bans is too great in this country, thus it is very unlikely to happen. For a host of reasons (abortion rights, separation of church and state, select social programs), I find that the liberal/progressive approach is more appealing. For gun rights, the conservatives have the right idea. Just be careful about generalizations. There is very little that is black and white in this world. For intelligent folks, the existence of nuance can be easily appreciated.

BJ Peppers

March 30th, 2009
4:46 pm

It’s so sad that all these people are so anti gun! I think all the follow up to these wacko anti gunners has been addressed here. I just want to ask Road Scholar about his comment “Give them what they want, then aggressively contact the police.” Are you out of you mind? You trust some thug to POINT a gun at you while you give them all of your possessions more than you trust me (the smiling guy with my wife and kids) concealing a handgun for our safety? CRAZY! First of all what if I don’t want to give them what they want? What if I actually want to keep my stuff? Second, since guns are SO dangerous don’t you think a mistake would most likely be made in a situation where the creep is putting a gun in your face? Third, what if the a-hole decides that he doesn’t like the way you look and shoots you? Lastly, AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? That makes me laugh. He has a .45 in your face and when he robs you and runs away never to be caught you are going to AGRESSIVELY CALL THE POLICE? LOL! That’s a good one. You go ahead and do that so they can come quickly and photograph your body.

BJ Peppers

March 30th, 2009
4:54 pm

These must have been some CRAZY CRIMINALS because they think like me??

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
— Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796

The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
—Tenche Coxe,
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” —George Washington

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.” —Patrick Henry

These People must have been WACKO right? What do side did they sound like they were on. Of course they were just criminals anyway because there’s not much difference…IDIOTS!

paul S&W

March 30th, 2009
5:05 pm

I wonder if copyleft, nan and others who feel the need to attack our right/duty to protect our loved ones with a conceled carry weapon while visiting our Nationl parks could pass a ccw bockground check? One should not overlook what there real motivation is.

Sam S.

March 30th, 2009
5:58 pm

Moron Mark, I’m sure that not all gunowners have concealed carry permits. Good try though at cherry picking a small portion of the populace to make your point. Now tell us wise guy. How many gun crimes and crimes of let’s say passion were committed by those gun owners. Plenty I bet. From seeing you in Badies blog the other day spouting off your your Aryan Army delusion/fantasy, you are the last person that needs a gun. You’re dumber than a box of rocks.

Sam S.

March 30th, 2009
6:03 pm

Enter your comments here

AA

March 30th, 2009
6:06 pm

Drink a beer. Bust a few caps. Drink another beer, blast away some more. Drink another beer, belch, fire a few more rounds. Is that all you Barney Fifes think about. I know it’s your entire life, but damn…..

Kim

March 30th, 2009
6:26 pm

Another ridiculous statistic trotted out for idiots’ consumption: gun owners are (your number) as likely to injure or kill themselves than those who do not have a firearm in the home. So, does owning a gun make you a danger to yourself OR do YOU make owning a gun a dangerous thing?

Does owning more than one or two guns make you more dangerous than someone owning one gun? What about REAL gun-nuts like ME, who own 25, thirty (Lord help me, I’ve lost count). This logic reminds me of Dr. Suess’s ‘Green Eggs & Ham’. Every silly scenario presented by Sam is just as laughable as the gun control freaks’ imaginations: More guns, less guns, no guns, pop-guns!

JenNeva

March 30th, 2009
6:33 pm

David, you must be a real wimp, and I take offense to your statement that only ‘testosterone-laden males’ have any interest in guns or defending themselves/families/other innocent people. For your information, I am a woman, a USAF veteran, who legally carries a gun and values her 2nd ammendment rights to do so, and I know alot of other women who either have guns and/or carry them for protection. My baby sister just got HER ccw. And, if you have a clue what is going on right now, you would know that guns and ammo retailers are seeing an influx of WOMEN buying guns and ammo, even ‘old ladies’. So take your 1950’s views and shove ‘em, you’re obviously a male chauvinist pig. Guys like you make me sick.

JenNeva

March 30th, 2009
6:38 pm

Georgia Redneck, honey, I hate to tell you, but it’s not just rednecks that own guns anymore dear. You must have had a very misinformed upbringing, and obviously your parents, probably your father, set a great example for you, since you grew up to be a prejudicial, idiotic bigot of a person.

ConservativeAnchor

March 30th, 2009
6:42 pm

Just get a subcompact .40 S&W.

Then blame someone else and hide the gun.

I still don’t like Bob “Northern Arc” Barr.

Second Amendment

March 31st, 2009
11:05 am

First lets put everything into perspective. Liberalism is a mental disorder. Okay, can’t hunt in national parks because of that bad old lead ammo. Well, the only people I heard of that ate lead paint were usually low IQ inner city YUFFs. In my neighborhood we typically don’t eat lead paint atleat not without barbecue sauce. Okay, lead is to be made illegal just as CO2 is to be. Okay, lets take lead out of the nuclear reactors that are located near these urban welfare centers. CO2 is used by plants to convert to oxygen. Last time I looked Oxygen is a good thing. Obvious not enough oxygen got to the brains of Hillary and Kerry. Okay Hillary and Kerry let’s look at their life experience. Hillary dodge sniper fire in Bosnia, she also avidly hunted ducks with her grandfather. Kerry came to OHIO and baited geese and supposedly shot one. Kerry also went up the Makong delta into cambodia. Okay, to much lead in their food atleast based on their thought. Guns should be allowed in parks because people hunt and their are bears, and actually there are brazen homosexuals who try to assault innocent park dwellers. Well liberalism is a mental disease right Hillary and Kerry.

Secondamender

March 31st, 2009
12:00 pm

It is so easy to tell Anti rights people, They all state lies and mistruths instead of facts because they can not do research on their own. They follow like sheep when they are themselves elitists and hypocrytes who think they are better than the rest of society.
Copyleft & Nan for example have no facts just insinuations. When the briliant men who founded the Constitution and this great country had more brains in their small toe than Copyleft or Nan have combined.
At the time the Bill Of Rights was written the meaning of (Regulated) meant supplied or stocked. Theirfore (A well supplied militia)was the intent of the time. Our society is going to hell because of the likes of Copyleft and Nan for they are so dependant on government they would love Chavez or Hitler.

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
12:39 pm

Let’s get everything into perspective.

First of all: Regulation of gun ownership IS constitutional</I, and there’s not a dang thing you can do about it. So quit whining about some insane fringe, absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and accept what it ACTUALLY means here in the real world: regulation means regulation, period.

Second: Facts include things like ALL the Supreme Court cases I’ve cited on this very point, as well as hundreds more that address this same issue. Regulation of gun ownership was, is, and always will be Constitutional barring a new amendment.

You really can’t do anything about it, gun nuts. Your rights DO have limits, and those limits DO stand up in court. Quit acting like spoiled babies and start looking for ways to make your case a bit better.

Our society is doing just fine, thank you, and getting better the more often we can put liberal officials in office to move us forward, rather than back to the jungle (or bunker, in your case).

Have a great day! I know I will (grin).

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
12:40 pm

Hmmm… forgot to close the bracket. Oh well.

Dave R

March 31st, 2009
12:54 pm

The LAST thing you need to believe is a liberal telling you what the Framers of the Constitution meant.

Mark

March 31st, 2009
2:15 pm

Sam S. Sense you can’t refute my argument you resort to name calling? I have no idea what ‘Badies blog’ is and I assure I am NOT an Aryan! My point was that everyone who is against this rule seems to think it would allow just ANYONE to carry a concealed weapon; it applies ONLY to those who have passed the requirements to be granted a carry permit. As a subset of ‘gun owners,’ concealed carry licsencees are WAY more law abiding than just about any other group of people, including law enforcement officers! Look up any States’ statistics on revocations and you’ll see something on the order of 0.05 to 0.08% of CHLs granted are revolked for any sort of criminal misbehavior. For your information, the process to receive a permit includes an FBI level background check, training by a certified instructor, authorized examination of your medical history for any mental health, alcohol or drug addiction issues, and any other various state requirements.
Road Scholar, you said “Well, you could dial 911 or the number posted at the entrance to the park or your entrance pass to the park!” Excuse me, but there are LARGE sections of National Parks with absolutely NO cell phone coverage. Also, if it took you several hours to get from the park entrance to where you are, then it will take a Park Ranger about that same ammount of time to find you!

Copyleft

March 31st, 2009
2:56 pm

Dave R: Sorry, you still flunk Constitutional law. You see, they don’t need to take “a liberal’s word” for what the Constitution means.

What they have to take is what the Supreme Court says it means.

Dave R

March 31st, 2009
4:10 pm

Yes, copylefty, and that can change with a single ruling. When, and if, that happens, there will be a new precedent set.

The problem, as I have articulated for you loser lefty’s over on Bookman’s blog, is that you and your Socialist buddies have corrupted the Constitution over the years with liberal loopholes and torturous interpretations to where the ORIGINAL INTENT has been DEFILED by the law.

We talk raw, plain-spoken Constitution here, son, not your ba$tardized version of the Constitution through the eyes of liberal judges. Take your lack of law degree elsewhere.

Barry Soetoro

March 31st, 2009
4:33 pm

The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gun ilk need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.

Barry Soetoro

March 31st, 2009
4:43 pm

The judge overturned it because the Bush Administration didn’t do an assessment? These are the same anti-gun people that want to pass rediculous gun control laws without doing assessments. But now since it is pro-gun now they want an assessment? These liberals don’t assess their useless anti-gun laws because they know that if they did that America would see that they are counter-productive to making Americans more safe. Oh and NAN and COPYLEFT and the rest of that ilk, to help you out with your argument: only paranoid people need to own guns. The muggers, robbers, rapists and murderers don’t own guns and don’t carry guns because they are not allowed to by law, and we all know how well criminals obey the law. Guns pull their own triggers, cars cause accidents and kill people, pencils are the cause of spelling errors not the people using them. So as long as we throw logic and common sense out the window we can understand people like NAN, COPYLEFT, and the rest of the anti-gun crowd. There is a difference between somebody who is armed that is a criminal, and someone who is armed legally, i.e. LAW ABIDING citizens. You anti-gunners need to stop confusing us LAW ABIDING citizens with the criminals.