Ya' mean this Teddy Roosevelt?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Liberals Hate the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, they are UNAMERICAN and NOT PATRIOTIC.
This guy is probably ok if our new president doesn’t meet 1 of 3 constitutional requirements to be President.
This is about visitors packing loaded pistols onto the Padre Island National Seashore or onto the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. These are supposed to be places of respite and sanctuaries for natural beauty. Allowing loaded weapons onto these parks trespass on that mission.
What? A concealed firearm spoils the view?
I can only offer one suggestion to the author, in the future, buy bunch-proof undies.
Useless. Where was this rule 8 years ago. It’s lifespan is measured in months until it’s repealed by B.O.
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
Just yesterday, I was discussing this with a liberal acquaintance.
I asked her if she REALLY believed that wackos who would use a gun on someone in a National Park would care whether or not there is a law against carrying a loaded firearm?
How naive are these people??
So does the 2nd Amendment
I guess there were just OUTRAGEOUS things happening in our precious parks between Teddy and 1983!
http://www.aldha.org/murders.htm
Two women hikers were found slain June 1st, just off the Appalachian Trail near Skyland Lodge in Shenandoah National Park. The bodies were found on National Trails Day by park authorities who had been alerted a day or so before that the women were overdue from a backpacking trip.......
...They were the eighth and ninth people killed in the past two decades along the Appalachian Trail. "In three of those cases, they were double-murders: six incidents, nine murders," the ATC's Brian King was quoted as saying by the Associated Press....
I can’t seem to duplicate this page to FR (html impaired), but here is a summary of National Park crimes through 2001.
An eyeopener
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/crime_in_nat_parks.html
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
This part of the article is a lie.
Nothing in the Public Hunting Lands Proclamation or State Parks Proclamation prohibits a person from possessing a concealed handgun, loaded or unloaded, under the authority of a concealed handgun license issued by this state or any other state. Persons carrying concealed handguns must comply with all concealed handgun laws.The Executive Director reserves the right to prohibit the carrying of all firearms during certain events or in certain locations on Departmental lands.
This order is issued pursuant to Title 31, Texas Administrative Code, Sections 59.134 (f) (1) and 65.199, and is effective immediately.
The “editorial” comes from a Scripps affiliated “paper.”
The Editor who wrote this should be fired even if the paper is anti-gun!
He hasn’t a clue what he is talking about..
The new rule allows carry only by those who can carry legally in the state the park is in. I.e., law enforcement and CHL holders. In my state, Texas (where the Big Bend park is located) CHL requirements are more strict than law enforcement as to qualification!.
BIG POINT -> THE EDITOR DID NOT DO ANY RESEARCH OR GET ANY DATA! If he did he would realize that the new RULE IS NOT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER from the president! It is a rule by the National Park Service, a part of the Department of the Interior — and has been going through the standard process, and has been in the works for over a year. The time usually allowed was even extended in order to give anyone interested - either for or against - an opportunity to provide input. As a private party, I sent in my two cents worth (for) as did a number of senators and several governors from around the country and many other JQ Publics.
We really have to look at most of our printed media as we now see most of the electronic media — in the tank for the dark side.
Sean Hannity was right — 2008 will be remembered as “The year the media died.”
“Allowing concealed loaded firearms is a travesty and a violation of the spirit of national parks best expressed by President Theodore Roosevelt “
Sure...and so is being defensless to attacks by criminals who sometimes frequent these places in search of unarmed victems.
These people need to get over their fear of armed, law abiding citizens who pose a threat only to common criminals, tyrants and the sycophantic thugs who support tyrants.