Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Liberal asking Obama to leave guns alone!

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Even liberals admit that Eric Holder is over the top anti-gun. The author of this article is asking BO to leave the National Park rule, and all gun issues alone so that there will not be enough opposition to get him voted out after "only" 4 years. :?

    TFred

    http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articl...un_rule_stand/


    Wild Bill (Bill Schneider)
    Let National Park Gun Rule Stand
    1-14-09

    In early December President George W. Bush kept his promise and came through for gun owners who supported him by loosening rules allowing loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

    Now, President-elect Barrack Obama needs to keep his promise and come through for gun owners who supported him by allowing this rule to stand as currently written.

    The new administrative rule went into effect on Jan. 9 and applies to all 48 states that issue concealed carry permits; only Illinois and Wisconsin don't. It replaces a regulation brought in during the Reagan administration that allowed guns in national parks, but only if they were unloaded and inaccessible.

    Back on Sept. 4, I devoted my column to trying to convince park advocacy groups that fighting this rule wasn't worth their time and money when they had much bigger fish to fry such as securing adequate funding for the National Park Service (NPS), various park expansion plans, many serious wildlife issues, curbing rampant fee increases and addressing the dramatic decline in park visitation, to name a few.

    But paranoia over the rule drowned out my little voice in the wilderness. The ink on the Federal Register publication of the rule had hardly dried before opponents, including the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees (CNPSR) started making plans to encourage the incoming administration to reverse the rule. A few days later, The New York Times joined the chorus, urging Obama to overturn the rule.

    On Dec. 30, the opposition got serious when the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the nation's largest anti-gun groups, sued the Department of the Interior to reverse the rule and asked for an injunction to keep the rule from going into effect. The Brady Campaign obviously sees the national park rule as a key symbolic battle in its war against guns.

    Then, a week later, the NPCA and CNPSR followed suit, so to speak, and filed their own lawsuit to reverse the rule. I didn't compare the suits word for word, but the basis of both sound similar. Interestingly, though, that the anti-gun group would get to the courthouse door before the pro-park groups.

    Regrettably, my little plea to concentrate on something important has definitely been drowned out by the voices of members of these groups who have been convinced the national parks are somehow less safe than they were last week.

    I say "regrettably," because the rule won't change much. People who feel strongly about having their guns for personal safety have been taking them into national parks for decades. Every park ranger knows it, and it has caused minimal if any crime or gun-related accidents. Think about it. Rangers at entrance stations don't even ask park visitors if they have guns –partly because they don't care, but mostly because Reagan's gun rule was impractical, if not impossible, to enforce.

    So, the impact of the Bush rule will be invisible. All that changes is the status quo becoming the legal status quo, and as far as I'm concerned, it should be legal. Why should taking a loaded, concealed handgun into a national park be any different than taking it into a national forest or a state park?

    So, since this rule is no big deal, I should write about something important, right?

    Not quite. I have a dog in this fight.

    I'm out there on the Internet with a big bet that our new President and the new, blue Congress won't pass any gun laws because they face too many global crises to worry about gun issues – and of course, they also hope to stay in power more than four years. Parting ways with some of my gun-toting readers, I'd like to keep this pro-planet administration in power long enough to institute some positive changes, so I don't want to let a shallow issue like this new rule distract our leaders away from solving global crises and then help defeat them in 2012.

    To date, President-elect Obama has managed to send out several signs that he isn't sincere about his promise to gun owners that they have nothing to fear from him. His transition team still asks applicants if they own guns and his Web site, Change.Gov, still has a strong, anti-gun policy statement on it, and his attorney general appointee, Eric Holder, has a worrisome track record on guns. [you know it's bad when the liberals tell you their guy is bad. -- tfred]

    Perhaps those signs are nit picking, but they sure have the shorts of hardcore gun owners in a knot and have given firearms manufacturers a major economic stimulus at no expense to the taxpayers. Let's balance these negatives out with a positive and give the gun guys some relief. An easy, quick way to do this would be refusing to reverse the new national park gun rule and putting up a good defense in the upcoming court battles. The new administration has a lot to do, but here's something big that can be done without doing anything.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Might want to keep an eye on this one. Schnieder posted this same article on another site and the anti's came out to roast him. Some of us Pro 2A folks got in there and roasted them. Theystarted out crying that the bears would be poached and yada yada. I ended that crap when I pointed out that handguns commonly CC'd lacked the power to bring down a grizzly or large black bear.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    Yeah, a few magazines of 9mm might tickle a bear. I seriously doubt it'll slow one down.

    But hey, you weren't following the rules of arguing. You aren't supposed to bring logic into an emotional fight.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    darthmord wrote:
    Yeah, a few magazines of 9mm might tickle a bear. I seriously doubt it'll slow one down.

    But hey, you weren't following the rules of arguing. You aren't supposed to bring logic into an emotional fight.
    eh, I'm a cold blooded, unfeeling SOB, what can I say?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    darthmord wrote:
    Yeah, a few magazines of 9mm might tickle a bear. I seriously doubt it'll slow one down.

    But hey, you weren't following the rules of arguing. You aren't supposed to bring logic into an emotional fight.
    eh, I'm a cold blooded, unfeeling SOB, what can I say?
    Hey, those 9mm bullets could cause a nasty infection in that poor bear.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    darthmord wrote:
    Yeah, a few magazines of 9mm might tickle a bear. I seriously doubt it'll slow one down.

    But hey, you weren't following the rules of arguing. You aren't supposed to bring logic into an emotional fight.
    eh, I'm a cold blooded, unfeeling SOB, what can I say?
    Hey, those 9mm bullets could cause a nasty infection in that poor bear.
    9mm's stand a better chance at penetration than a .45 would in a bear.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I always sort of figured if it's me, a big bear, and a .357, about my only hope is to shove the thing in its mouth and get as many shots off as I can before my hand is crushed!

    Of course, I'm not a bear expert...

    TFred


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Well there is at least one 3 legged bear wondering around here. Of
    course it took a couple of days to realize it wasn't a childs foot,
    and called off the search.
    So I guess bears are just cute cuddely things like your kids....
    At least from the knee down.

    And don't forget,
    You only need to run faster than the other guy with bears.
    So a 9mm in his leg will slow him down for the bear to catch.
    Of course his .45 isn't going to help you much either.

    But I think the real fear is thier favorite pot farmer will get shot.
    How will they stand sitting around hugging trees if the brain is working.
    How can the medicine be protected if the farmer can't gun down witnesses.

    I am shure the parks can still regulate dischaging of a firearm, just like cities do now.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Farmington,Port Huron,Waterford MICHIGAN, , USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    Well a little off topic. In 99% of the time a 9mm would do no damage to a bear. But trust me there are 9mm 40mm 45acp that will but down a bear. The only problem is most people can buy or just haven't used them.

    Here is a less powerfull one that the public can by.

    http://www.extremeshockusa.com/cgist...ml&setup=1

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Not all "liberals" are anti-gun. Not all "conservatives" are pro-gun.

    This is obvious, of course, but it bears repeating. Enemies of my enemies, etc.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    M16a2 wrote:
    Well a little off topic. In 99% of the time a 9mm would do no damage to a bear. But trust me there are 9mm 40mm 45acp that will but down a bear. The only problem is most people can buy or just haven't used them.
    When Handguns are Better than Long Guns

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •