Guns In Parks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30832809/

WASHINGTON - In a stinging defeat for gun-control, the U.S. Congress has voted to allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The House approved the measure, 279-147, on Wednesday, one day after the Senate acted. A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure, which essentially restores a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks for two months earlier this year.

A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure, which essentially restores a Bush administration policy that briefly allowed loaded guns in national parks earlier this year. The measure, which is included in a bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies, allows licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law.

"The NRA is basically taking over the House and Senate," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun-control supporter. "If the NRA wins, the American people are going to be the ones who lose."

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., disputed that.

"The fact is American gun owners are simply citizens who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights without running into confusing red tape," Hastings said.

Hastings and other Republicans said the bill merely aligns national parks and wildlife refuges with regulations governing the national forests and property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

GOP says current policy outdated
The GOP called the current policy outdated and confusing to those who visit public lands, noting that merely traveling from state-owned parks to national parks meant some visitors were violating the law.

A majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate opposed the gun measure, but enough Democrats voted for the bill that the final tally in both chambers was not close.

Democratic leaders decided not to remove the gun provision after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was able to insert it into a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Lawmakers and aides said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee — where it could be removed without a vote — and still get it to President Barack Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.

"There's a lot of momentum to get this done," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, R-Ariz.

Grijalva, chairman of national parks subcommittee, opposed the gun measure, but said the "sense of urgency from the White House" to get the credit card bill approved, combined with the NRA's clout, were impossible to overcome.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which has fought the gun rule in court, blamed Obama and Democratic leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

"If they wanted to stop this, it seems like they can," Faehner said before the House vote. "It comes down to whether or not they are willing to keep parks safe for the American people or kowtow to special interests like the gun groups."

NRA says nobody threatened over vote
Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, said the group pushed for the gun measure but did not threaten anyone over the vote.

"Obviously this is an issue that affects our membership," Cox said. But to claim the NRA sets the agenda in Congress "misrepresents the role that NRA plays in the process, he said.

Cox also disputed a claim by the Humane Society of the United States that the gun bill would lead to an increase in wildlife poaching in national parks.

"The NRA is opposed to poaching and always has been," he said. "We've supported enhanced penalties for illegal activities including poaching. The Humane Society has zero credibility when to comes to Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners."

So remember Americans, the rights that really matter are being protected.

Are shootings in national parks really a major issue?

weird that so many people thought it was "urgent" to change the law though

Originally posted by inimalist
Are shootings in national parks really a major issue?

Wh- Who cares?

Originally posted by inimalist
weird that so many people thought it was "urgent" to change the law though

That was the credit card bill it was attached to (which really highlights a problems that need fixing more than gun-control).

I was more amused that the NRA stated that "we didn't threaten anybody".

Yeah, I'm sure bullets will help vigilant citizens mitigate the invasive plant species that are threatening our national parks. Eat lead, Russian Olives!!!

hows comes all the animals just dont go to National parks? I mean, that's what id do if i were a deer.

america is getting stupider by the minute

Originally posted by leonheartmm
america is getting stupider by the minute

WHo so?

The 2nd ammendment allowed from the beginning.

Then someone thought of rules.

Then someone else complained and Bush made it a law to allow.

Then the libs revoked it.

Then congress reapproved it.

Looks like we are back at square one except, this time, it is explicitily allowed without an implied interpretation of the second ammendment. Sounds smarter, to me. 🙂

the second ammendment only makes sense in a near anarchist state. america was that in its foundation. but not so much the last century. the second ammendment has no role in today's america, nor should it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the second ammendment only makes sense in a near anarchist state. america was that in its foundation. but not so much the last century. the second ammendment has no role in today's america, nor should it.

This is where I disagree. Sure, the "original intent" is los slightly in its application today, but it is still useful.

I am in agreement with how it is run today.

There is not reason to go deer hunting with a RPG Launcher.

There's no reason to defend yourself with a gatling gun...unless you're in a gang.

But, certainly knowing that if pulling a gun on someone to take their money, which gun was obtained illegally, and getting your ass pumped full of lead, is certainly a better choice than getting a knife pulled on you...slashed...and then the perp runs away before other's get the opportunity to help you.

I'm all for as many rights as possible, within reason.

No matter what, guns will be obtained illegally. The whole idea of "it's safer without guns" has been proven wrong and right. Go with the liberal application of the law and stick with it.

When someone can show me that gun control has reduced the amount of violent crime, before and after...then I'll concede and side with "no guns". Until the, I'll err on the side of keeping guns in the hand of my people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is not reason to go deer hunting with a RPG Launcher.

No reason not, really.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where I disagree. Sure, the "original intent" is los slightly in its application today, but it is still useful.

I am in agreement with how it is run today.

There is not reason to go deer hunting with a RPG Launcher.

There's no reason to defend yourself with a gatling gun...unless you're in a gang.

But, certainly knowing that if pulling a gun on someone to take their money, which gun was obtained illegally, and getting your ass pumped full of lead, is certainly a better choice than getting a knife pulled on you...slashed...and then the perp runs away before other's get the opportunity to help you.

I'm all for as many rights as possible, within reason.

No matter what, guns will be obtained illegally. The whole idea of "it's safer without guns" has been proven wrong and right. Go with the liberal application of the law and stick with it.

When someone can show me that gun control has reduced the amount of violent crime, before and after...then I'll concede and side with "no guns". Until the, I'll err on the side of keeping guns in the hand of my people.

the "whole idea" has never even been implemented much less allowed to give results. owing to just how many privately owned firearms there have always been in america.

when sum1 can show me that HAVING legals guns = protection of life and property from those who have illegal guns, then maybe ill think about considering the validity of the second ammendment, fact is, it hasnt been owing to {with the exclusion of all considerations} the rarity of having a gun at HAND at the exact moment sum1 with an illegal pulls it on you, then going on to you being able to HANDLE it effectively enough to incapacitate the attacker in enough time that he or she is not able to shoot and wound you, much less the entire idea of criminals being AFRAID of attacking people for the general fear of guns{which is compareable to "the death penalty scares criminals into avoiding such crimes" which has been proven wrog}

if it is for personal SENSE of security than non lethal air tasers and non lethal guns are just as if not more effective than an average handgun.

no justification for owning firearms.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the "whole idea" has never even been implemented much less allowed to give results. owing to just how many privately owned firearms there have always been in america.

That just shows your ignorance. There are militias in the U.S.

Nice try, though.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
when sum1 can show me that HAVING legals guns = protection of life and property from those who have illegal guns, then maybe ill think about considering the validity of the second ammendment, fact is, it hasnt been owing to {with the exclusion of all considerations} the rarity of having a gun at HAND at the exact moment sum1 with an illegal pulls it on you, then going on to you being able to HANDLE it effectively enough to incapacitate the attacker in enough time that he or she is not able to shoot and wound you, much less the entire idea of criminals being AFRAID of attacking people for the general fear of guns{which is compareable to "the death penalty scares criminals into avoiding such crimes" which has been proven wrog}

No, the burden of proof is on the people wanting to take the rights away. When taking rights away under the banner of "it will make us safer", you must prove, almost inexorably, that the loss of rights is warranted.

If nothing changes, on average, after guns are taken away, then they most certainly should be allowed to keep them as a "freer" society is a better society. Opressing rights with a false idea is not a good idea.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if it is for personal SENSE of security than non lethal air tasers and non lethal guns are just as if not more effective than an average handgun.

no justification for owning firearms.

No justification for owning fire arms is needed as it's a law that is allowed. There is no need to justify something that is rediculously legal. However, if you want to take away rights, you must demostrate why.

Again, prove your idea. I don't have to prove jack beause it's already a law. I already have the right.

"there are militias in the us." how does this disprove my point? it infact proves that gun control has never been implemented. silly

but things do change, for one all accidental deaths due to domestically owned firearms are avoided, this is a demonstrable fact. as well as all deaths of innocent civilians who were shot by a legally owned weapon. as well as most deaths due to tresspassing and excessive use of force. do you deny any of this?

i find it funny that you go from "trying" to justify gun rights with examples to claiming that they need no justification. atleat stick to one.

its a law, as is prop 8. doesnt make it right.

Well, I am a life member of the NRA. I support the right to own small arms with almost no restrictions. I have a conceal carry permit and own several assult rifles among several other firearms, I own 16 guns in all.

Having said that I am opposed to firearms being allowed in national parks and wildlife refuges. I am also opposed to private vehicles being allowed in many of the parks as well.
The amount of wilderness area left in the world is small and getting smaller by the day. We should protect what is left, even at the expense of individual freedoms.

Well said, TDC.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I have a conceal carry permit and own several assult rifles among several other firearms, I own 16 guns in all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No matter what, guns will be obtained illegally. The whole idea of "it's safer without guns" has been proven wrong and right.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So you're planning an invasion...or...?

If I knew how to invade a certain way of thinking I would

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Well, I am a life member of the NRA. I support the right to own small arms with almost no restrictions. I have a conceal carry permit and own several assult rifles among several other firearms, I own 16 guns in all.

Having said that I am opposed to firearms being allowed in national parks and wildlife refuges. I am also opposed to private vehicles being allowed in many of the parks as well.
The amount of wilderness area left in the world is small and getting smaller by the day. We should protect what is left, even at the expense of individual freedoms.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
why the HELL do you own 16 guns?

To gun down the cops when they try to bust down his door.