Posted on 02/19/2012 8:06:35 AM PST by marktwain
In a display of defiance at the U.S. Capitol’s governing gun lobby, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and eight colleagues have introduced legislation to reinstate a ban on carrying loaded firearms in America’s national parks.
The legislation was prompted by January’s murder of Mt. Rainier National Park ranger Margaret Anderson. Anderson was shot as she set up a road block for a car that didn’t stop at a chain-up checkpoint.
By Joe Sebille“The dreadful and deeply saddening event that occurred on Mt. Rainier makes me question why on earth people should be allowed to carry loaded weapons in our national parks,” said McDermott.
It became illegal to pack heat in national parks in the early 1980′s under the Reagan Administration.
The gun ban was overturned in 2009. Senate Republicans attached a pack-heat provision to legislation designed to control excesses and hidden fees charged by credit card companies.
Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., is cosponsoring the legislation along with House members from California, New York and Virginia.
Advocates for loaded guns have cited such dangers as encounters with grizzly bears in the back country of national parks in the Rockies and Alaska. In response, an association of National Park Service retirees has argued that statistically there is a greater chance that visitors will be struck by lightning than mauled by a bruin.
“Millions of families visit our national park historic sites and monuments every year to see our nationally protected sanctuaries and learn about our nation’s history,” said McDermott. “Why anyone should need or be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in our national parks simply doesn’t occur to me.”
Target practice on stealth members of the CPUSA?
>>>”The dreadful and deeply saddening event that occurred on Mt. Rainier makes me question why on earth people should be allowed to carry loaded weapons in our national parks,” said McDermott.<<<
Yeah, the next time I’m up in the Brooks Range at the Gates of the Arctic National Monument, I’ll make sure to keep all my firearms at home since I know if I don’t have any weapons, that grizzly bear will respect me for my decision.
The only deeply saddening event here is listening to this moron’s reasoning.
I just did a search on it. Seems that most of the articles focus on Reagan making it a law that firearms needed to be empty and stored in trunks, etc. while in a National Park.
HOWEVER - one article said a ban on any guns in the parks was made in the 30’s to limit poaching. So it sounds like Reagan relaxed the rules. (And Bush even more so).
One more HOWEVER though. Guess which Governor of California outlawed open-carry in California? Yep - Ronnie. In response to the Black Panthers in parades and on the capitol steps with loaded guns. I’m always reminded of that, and other things, when some candidate doesn’t fit our 100% image of the True Conservative.
The “logic” of these people just slays me. THey pass the law, and the only people impacted are the law abiding people who wouldn’t be shooting the park ranger anyway. The nutjobs and other criminals continue as per usual.
Idiots.
Yes, Aristotle forgot this line of reasoning in his book on Logic. I call it the argument of ignorance.
"I don't know why x is true, therefore x is false.
e.g. I don't know why Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is true, therefore it is false.
The stupid can prove anything, it's great, and the liberals love it.
Now we can all breath easier. Nobody’s going to shoot Yogi and Booboo, even if they go postal and attack to get a picnic basket. If he wants to eat you, just let him. Otherwise, there are criminal charges.
Yep. I am surprised we don't have some sort of screening getting on Ft Knox and other government facilities.
No, you make it a $20. fine to OWN a pry bar! Of course the greatest opportunity of all is being missed, we should long ago have outlawed storage trunks on vehicles, if cars didn’t have trunks then live kidnap victims or dead bodies could not be hauled in them. Ain’t I the brilliant liberal? While we are at it we should get rid of those rooftop racks as well. You could mount a machine gun up there and ride through LA with a rooftop madman mowing down pedestrians at random, now that I think of it I’m amazed it hasn’t happened already.
Why doesn’t he introduce a bill banning murder in the national parks.
hold on. Baghdad Jim is from inner city Seattle, not representative of the entire state.
Its not the 4 legged animals I would be worried about.
Its the 2 legged crack and meth heads and pot farmers
and assorted wierdos living rough up there.
Besides the obvious assault on the second amendment, this is a moronic bill. My family chooses to enjoy the national parks by hiking in the back country. We often hike in bear and even grizzly territory. Yes, we have encountered bear on our hikes as well. I will not go armed with pepper spray against back country predators - the two or four legged variety.
>>Why anyone should need or be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in our national parks simply doesn’t occur to me.”
I carry a gun because it is easier than carrying a spear, short sword, and shield, which is the next-best self-defense setup.
Whenever some leftist moron starts telling me that the “second amendment couldn’t possibly cover a Glock”, I just tell him that I’ll carry all of the above when guns are outlawed and the Second Amendment definitely covers archaic weapons and even leftists agree on that.
And brown bears and black bears and wildcats and moose and dozens of other dangerous critters not to say the illegals you may encounter or run-of-the-mill criminals who want to harm you.
That busterd is an idiot and Washingtonians have to get rid of him.
For the same reason people carry loaded guns everywhere else.
We either can't afford, or do not wish to hire personal bodyguards, to carry them for us.
DUH!
He clearly thinks there must be a "need", one that he approves of, for exercise of a Constitutional right.
“Why anyone should need or be allowed to carry a loaded firearm in our national parks simply doesn’t occur to me.”
And since one doesn't "occur to" him. He thinks we have no right to our right.
Shall not be infringed is such simple language, even Congressmen should be able to fathom it's meaning.
Truth told they do, but they don't care.
Well, some of us do.
I...do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
This is an irrelevant argument - You cannot prevent yourself from being struck by lightening by carrying a firearm. You CAN, however, prevent yourself from being mauled by a bear if you have a firearm (no guarantee, of course, but having a gun gives you far better odds than not having one).
I'd like to reduce the odds of deaths or injuries from both lightening strikes and bear maulings, but the solutions have literally got nothing to do with each other. Denying someone the right to carry a firearm for self-protection is simply a denial of a basic, Constitutionally-protected right, no matter how the argument for doing so is framed.
Another reason.
The western 3/4’s of Washington State should seceed and join Idaho or force the eastern 1/4 to leave and join San Franscisco.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.