Welcome To The Straight Shooter Express
John McCain is fighting for loaded guns in national parks, and the dispute is holding up a bill that would extend wilderness protection and establish the Abraham National Wilderness area in Illinois and the Niagara Falls Heritage Area in upstate New York. Gun restrictions in national parks were put in place by Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior James Watt. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is sponsoring the bill which would overturn that, and his spokesman, Don Tatro, is worried that unless the amendement passes, your family will be raped.
Thirty-nine Republicans and eight Democrats signed the letter seeking to overturn the regulations, which were approved in the early 1980s by then-Interior Secretary James Watt.
Coburn’s amendment would take that a step further and write into law a requirement that guns cannot be restricted in national parks. “Unloaded and disassembled guns locked in your trunk are of no use when a rapist is attacking your family,” Tatro said.
But a coalition of park rangers and park service retirees say the amendment could jeopardize public safety and make it more difficult to stop poaching.
“There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting,” the groups said in a statement.
Scott Blakeman takes us aboard the Straight Shooter Express.
This is my favorite blog.
John McCain is a good man. If you vote for him you’ll get 8 more years of what I have given you for the last 8. Think about it.
Thank you for your support and Happy President Day!
I love my holiday! WHEEEEEEEEEE!!
February 18th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
They should call this Dick Cheney’s Law, since, you know, he’s a hunter, and so handy with guns.
And you know what I’m wondering? If they revoke your license to drive a motor vehicle after multiple DWI convictions, do they revoke your pistol permit?
February 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I can just image McCain ads:
“DO YOU THINK THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ IS AWESOME??
-showing shootings in iraq-
WELL THEN YOUR GOING TO LOVE JOHN MCCAIN!
JUST A NORMAL GUN LOVING GUY WHO WANTS TO BRING
THE ACTION FROM IRAQ TO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!!!
SHOOTINGS, BOMBINGS, USE YOUR GUN AGAINST YOUR
NEIGHBORS YOU DON’T LIKE!!
IF YOU HATE CERTAIN PEOPLE OR RACES??
NO PROBLEM! VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN AND HE WILL MAKE IT
LEGAL TO SHOOT ANYONE AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER!!!
KILL KILL KILL!!!
but John Mccain cares for children. he will stop
those abortions across the nation…
-show john mccain hugging a baby-
SO.. ON NOVEMBER 4TH 2008, GO VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN
AND REMEMBER…..YOU CAN BRING YOUR GUN TO YOUR
VOTING BOOTH IN SUPPORT OF JOHN MCCAIN!!!’
-i am john mccain and i support this ad
=============================
i can just see it now…
February 18th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Makes me happy to live in a country where guns are for hunting season only!
February 18th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Ye Gods!! I’m in Oklahoma – we have one Senator who thinks global warming is a hoax (Inhofe) and one who thinks we’re still in the Wild West (Coburn). What in the world were the good people of this state thinking of to vote in two such specimens?
February 18th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I think it would depend on how confined some areas are. The larger and less densely populated a park is, the less cause to restrict gun access, since you would basically just be outside, and laws that restrict guns that much are blatantly unconstitutional. Other than the risk of animals being hit mistakenly, assuming the shooter was acting in self defense against another human, or on purpose, if the animal was a viable threat, there doesn’t seem to be any especial danger here. It’s not as if parks are perfectly analogous to banks.
Arguments of need don’t hold merit in trying to deny ready gun access. A. Need can’t be predicted in all areas of self defense, b. the situations in which it’s argued guns are, or could be, needed, exist. Complying with the need argument exceeds rational demand, as it’s a hypothetical which actually occurs, but randomly, but what’s expected is the ability to predict the time, place, and situation where a gun is needed, which might just be, well, absurd.
Other than complacency about where the amendment was made, there doesn’t seem to be a decent argument against it, though my idea of decent might be different from yours.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I should note that complacency isn’t a good argument either. Well, the risk to protected species isn’t a bad one, though a person comes first.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Well, personally, I’ll exercise my right to stay away from any parks where there’s bunches of people running around with guns and shooting things.
Do people even have to pass an eye exam to get a hunting license?
February 18th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I guess I need a gun in a national park to protect me from GAY BEARS ! [ bang,bang ]
February 19th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Alan, we have to fight the crime war. I don’t know what the answer is but loaded guns in national parks don’t seem to be the answer.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Maybe we should arm the quail to protect themselves from Cheney
February 19th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Right to arm bears and quails? Sounds fair.
February 19th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting,” the groups said in a statement.
When National Parks permit hunting rapists, murders, gang bangers, thieves and all other criminals that may cause a visitor harm, then I’ll agree with the statement. I guess this group believes parks are 100% safe and the right to self defense isn’t legitimate. Of course we all have the right not to visit them at all.
February 19th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Carrying firearms is a nice substitute for coming up “short” in other areas.
The gun nuts always seem to be worried about rapists and robbers and gangbangers. Around here, a recent excuse for expanding concealed carry laws was the needed protection from terrorists. Here in the middle of the Bible belt, I doubt there’s a single genuine terrorist within a thousand miles.
Take a walk through a gun [nut] show and the most obvious danger most of the attendees face is from excessive caloric intake.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
If people were genuinely interested in “self defense”, a better investment than firearms might be getting fit and martial arts training.
It’s probably way too hard for the gun nuts to turn the TV off and put the potato chips down long enough to train up in Jujutsu/Defendu.
The gun nuts are only compensating for their “shortcomings”.
Too bad, for all of us.
February 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Your argument against the effectiveness and sense of personal gun possession is to call anyone that owns, or would, one a wussy with a small pecker and low self esteem? Assuming both are true, what is your point, you know, one relevant to the issues of need and effectiveness? And, yes, learning martial arts is extremely difficult for some people. Now, either you know of your alternative’s impracticality for many people, or once shot yourself through the head, and have lost a lot of good sense up there. I don’t know which, but I pity you that you think trying to diminish people with childish comments about them is persuasive.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:38 pm