Recent comments

  • Interior Department To Be Sued Over Cape Hatteras National Seashore Plover Habitat Decisions   6 years 2 weeks ago

    We are talking about the same vehicles, as they are at Hatteras. Where I am from, we call them ATVs. Although it is true, if what you are saying is that all Off Road Vehicles are not All Terrain Vehicles, and vice versa.

    The point is no vehicles, 2 cycle or 4 cycle, should be allowed to impair the habitat and the resource.

  • Comment Now: General Gun Regulations for Areas Administered By the National Park Service   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Now I see that my comments may be moderated or disallowed. Nothing like asking for comments and then disregarding freedom of speech.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    The media is typically liberal and there is a good reason for it. Has to do with learning styles and the type of person that gravitates towards a job in journalism. Plain and simple and I wont' take the time to explain it now.

    Kurt wrote"Will park visitation drop off if the gun regulations are rewritten to make weapons more available in the parks?" It probably won't. Most likely it won't affect it at all. And remember if there comes a time when there is a gun problem the law will be reversed almost immediately. So this is an question that is addressing the extreme. After all there will be people there with concealed guns anyway and highly likely they are career criminals just visiting and they too seldom use their guns but they have them just the same. And they truly are more apt to use them if the opportunity might arise. If we all can carry the guns, those opportunities to the criminal will become less because he's not going to know if the person he's interested in attacking is armed or not.

    Kurt wrote:""That's a good question, one that needs to be thought through extremely carefully by the folks at Interior. But I fear they are driven too much by politics to think clearly. Personally, I don't worry too greatly about it because I head to the backcountry where relatively few others do. But if I was heading to a campground, where folks sit around campfires and drink, where kids get into things when their parents aren't watching, yeah, I'd probably think twice about it."""
    You focus on the extreme and irresponsible scenario. This truly is rare. Gun owners that I know are so darned diligent about guns and the education of their children. I"m 61 and I remember in Wisconsin living on the farm that every one of our neighbors had a gun cabinet usually in the living room with all the guns and ammunition right there. We knew and we never touched them!!!! Because we knew!!!! We knew the dangers and we were responsible. And not once did I or any of my friends or did I ever hear of anyone of them suggesting we take a gun without permission and go out and shoot it. Not once!!! Because we knew and even as kids has a strong sense of responsibility about it. I detect you deal in fear mongering and your opinion of gun owners is completely wrong.

    Kurt wrote: ""Too, if you've read many of the comments that have been directed at me over this issue the past 2-plus years, you'd be rightfully concerned about the stability and focus of quite a few of the so-called good and law-abiding gun owners."""
    This statement is a testimony of your perception of what a typical gun owner is. You are so wrong. I know you have never hung around gun owners or gone to a shooting range and become one of the members nor have you had a chance to mingle with them. I've had people come and visit that in some cases were against guns or some didn't know. And I would take them out to shoot and in some cases take them to a competition. It without exception changes their mind. The point is their source of education about guns has been the the news media and the perceived power of the guns on in the entertainment industry. Guns are now where as powerful as seen on TV.

    Kuet wrote:"""And what about the young adults who might have just obtained their CCW permit and head everywhere they go with their firearm? """

    This tells me that you have a low opinion of young adults and believe they are irresponsible. Put yourself in the shoes of a young adult interested enough to get a concealed carry permit. I'm afraid you are driven by prejudice. That's a sad commentary on your thought process and what makes it worse is that you sent this message to others when you were in the media business and you are wrong. Shame on you.

    Kurt wrote:"""What if they're hiking down a trail, figure they're far away from civilization and rangers, and decide to take some target practice? What if they miss their target and hit a hiker coming the other way that they didn't see?"""

    This is an extreme case. Can it happen, certainly. However it's much more likely to happen with a person that is carrying the gun illegally. They are the ones that don't care after all the gun laws don't pertain to them.. What you don't understand or feeled compelled to research and believe is that when people take on responsiblities they respond in a positive way. Just think of all the killing in this country, how many of them are committed by people with legally owned or carried guns? I'll bet that probably 99% or more are committed by people who have the weapon illegally and couldn't own one legally anyway! Think about LA, I've lived there! And it wrong to know that when you walk the streets that only the police and the criminals are carrying. And we have to walk the streets essentially completely vulnerable.

    Kurt wrote: """What about bluffing grizzlies? Many times they'll charge you to intimidate. Will a gun owner resort to pulling the trigger rather than taking more appropriate action and either wound or completely miss the bear and end up worse for it?"""

    I have to chuckle here. Being a gun owner and knowing my guns, the last resort would be to pull a gun and shoot. And it's so for the vast majority of gun owners because they know their guns and the power they have. If I carried to ward off a grizzly it would be to make a lot of noise with. I would not shoot the grizzly. However I suspect that if you have a gun, and you were threatened that you would. You essentially state that. You aren't a gun owner and know little about them and it shows! And again you are creating an extreme scenario which is what people like you do. It sad that people resort to that type of persuasion tactic.

    Kuet wrote: ""Why are ranger groups and police groups opposed to expansion of CCW regulations?""" Is it because they're macho organizations that want to consolidate firepower, or do they have legitimate concerns over the frightening array of loosely written CCW laws and the increasing availability of weapons?""" The heads of these organizations are frequently anti but the people within aren't. I know. The chief of police in a town is probably more than not an anti gun person. The reason being is that the politicians that promote these people will mostly likely only put into that position a person of the same conviction. The vast number of police or members though are pro gun. That's just plain the truth and comes from one that's been there. The head seldom reflects the opinion of his subordinates.

    Kurt wrote: """I don't question that the majority of gun owners no doubt are responsible and conscientious. It's the minority that worry me"""
    So what are we going to do, take away our rights because of the minority? And yes the minority scare me too and they aren't the ones that are going to go for concealed carry laws because they can't legally own a gun anwway!!!! Do you think for one second that any gang member in this country can get a concealed carry permit? Somewhere along the line you have to make a sincere differentation between the rights of law abiding citizens and the rights of criminals. It's not fair to take away our rights because of the behavior of criminals.

    Suppose we use your logic when it comes to cars. There are those people that insist on driving drunk and they kill people. Many of them can't and don't have a valid drivers license. But because people are killed by drunk drivers I know that we can eliminate the killing of innocent people by outlawing the use of cars. We will ban all cars. Then no one can kill them. In addition statistics show that the peak for safe drivers is around 55 years of age. So let's thing about taking away the right to drive for those older than 55. If this logic sound foolish, it's because it is. But this is essentiall what so many people do with guns.

    One more thought. If and I think it will probably happen that guns will be eventually outlawed. I will guarantee you that a new business will be established in the form of an illegal market for guns just like the drugs. The only problem will be that the only one dealing in guns will be the criminals. And as every business goes, this one would grow and eventually I'm confident that it would include military weapons. Weapons far more dangerous than what our criminals have now.

    Well that is my answer to you. If you ever took the time to be honestly involved in a gun club and get into organized competitive shooting you would come away with a completely different opinion of guns. And if you did and get good enough to compete at the Nationals in Camp Perry, you would be amazed at the people and their professionalism. And your image of the typical American gun owner would be forever changed. You typical view of an American gun owner would become one of them being the exception.

    thanks for the time you take to read this


  • Comment Now: General Gun Regulations for Areas Administered By the National Park Service   6 years 2 weeks ago

    The Second Amendment prohibits something as insignificant as an infringement on the right to keep and carry a weapon. Banning a weapon anywhere is a darn sight more than an infringement and therefore illegal. The fear of those who disregard the Second might as well disregard the entire Bill fo RIghts, rights being the operative word. The will of "the people", the parks retirees, Diane Feinstein and Schumer be damned. The original Bill of Rights is sacro-sanct. It cannot be changed or altered or cancelled. The fear of guns is based on ignorance. The fearsome think that if the honest people can't carry then all is safe. They think that the bad guys always follow the law. They think that a person who has gone through the effort of obtaining a concealed weapons permit(itself and infringement)is somehow going to go crazy and shoot them. If this isn't crazy, stupid, ignorant and closed minded then nothing is. Grow up people. If you don't want to defend yourself, so be it. You don't have to have a weapon. But yoiu have no right to subject me to danger because of your lack of common sense.

  • Memorial Ceremony for Pearl Harbor Day   6 years 2 weeks ago

    America's oldest living Medal of Honor recipient, living his 100th year is former enlisted Chief Petty Officer, Aviation Chief Ordnanceman (ACOM), later wartime commissioned Lieutenant John W. Finn, USN (Ret.). He is also the last surviving Medal of Honor, "The Day of Infamy", Japanese Attack on the Hawaiian Islands, Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii, 7 December 1941.

    Visit my photo album tribute:

    San Diego, California

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago


  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Hello all

    So very few people understand the issues guns and safety. We have those that are totally opposed and only have or use certain data to back up their beliefs and we have those for that do exactly the same. Well I look at it completely objectively.

    First it's sad that we need to carry guns to begin with. But there is a climate in this country that makes is so that some of us feel safer if we have it.

    When I go out in the wild I carry one but never with the intent of killing anything but rather just protection in case some situation comes up. That's all. I also am far more apt to carry one if I have my family or friends with me. You simply never know what might happen. It can be looked at as an insurance policy if you like.

    Now about concealed guns in our national parks. Let's face it, they are being carried today and have been for years. There is that segment of our society and it's much larger than you think that carry concealed guns where ever they go. Whether you walk the streets of LA or are out in some park makes no difference, the ones who have them now are the ones that are truly dangerous and have a superior feeling or power knowing that it's highly unlikely that an ordinary citizen has one because the law says they can't. So the criminal has the advantage and knows it.

    Now something that few people know is the fact that criminals are afraid of people that carry guns or have them in their homes. A prison psychologist once told me the reason that home invasions are rare is because they are afraid of being shot by the homeowner. The point is that when law abiding citizens can carry concealed guns the criminals become hesitant about randomly targeting people. Florida is a prime example of that. They adopted the concealed carry law, people against it predicted dire consequences which didn't happened and in fact just the opposite happened. Shooting went down.

    The truth is that all people whether they carry or not will be safer in parks and the streets. Law abiding citizens are just that, they will always be law abiding, carrying a gun doesn't make them stupid. That concept is relegated to the movies. This is only one point of many I want to make about carrying guns, owning guns, etc. Learn about the issue OBJECTIVELY and HONESTLY and keep your emotions out of it and stop making these statements that invoke fear, you aren't selling life insurance. BE HONEST about it and we'll do just fine.

    Side note here: Now do you want to honestly do something about violence then get rid of the violence in the entertainment media, TV, movies, games! Stop teaching our children, young people and adults to be violent. The violence in this country comes as no surprise certainly not at the levels we have now. I'll add one more thought. Gun violence in this country and the globe for that matter is truly at this point a cultural and ethnic problem. I'm yes I don't believe in political correctness. Political correctness is nothing more than avoiding the truth.

    nuff said and it probably doesn't matter a bit anyway. This country over all is getting to darn dumb on all issues.


  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Anonymous: Excellent quotes selected! That's exactly what the NRA platform is built on--plain FEAR with a touch of PARANOIA to blend!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I think the following quotations on fear are appropriate, because in strongly felt beliefs, such as those that this issue is based in, are often based in fear.

    "In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly."
    ---- Coleridge

    "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear."
    --- H.P. Lovecraft

    "One of the things which danger does to you after a time is -, well, to kill emotion. I don't think I shall ever feel anything again except fear. None of us can hate anymore - or love."
    ---- Graham Greene - The Confidential Agent (1939)

    "What we fear comes to pass more speedily than what we hope."
    ---- Publilius Syrus - Moral Sayings (1st C B.C.

    Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
    ---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)

    "Fear makes the wolf bigger than he is."
    ---- German Proverb

    "Fear is a tyrant and a despot, more terrible than the rack, more potent than the snake."
    ---- Edgar Wallace - The Clue of the Twisted Candle (1916)

    "Fear - jealousy - money - revenge - and protecting someone you love."
    ---- Frederick Knott - Max Halliday, listing the five important motives for murder, Dial M for Murder (1952)

    "What are fears but voices airy?
    Whispering harm where harm is not.
    And deluding the unwary
    Till the fatal bolt is shot!"
    ---- Wordsworth

    "The only thing we have to fear is fear it'self - "
    ---- FDR - First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I am so sorry to see this ruling come about. I have hiked and backpacked in parks for years and felt safe. This is a most unfortunate turn of events and to be expected from an outgoing president. Carrying a firearme does not mean you won't be overpowered by two legged predators. It may mean the gain access and use it on you. I do not look forward to seeing bullet holes in signs and structures all over the park.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I live on the olympic penninsula in the state of Washington if you look at a map this is 80% national park, all mountains. We hike and camp this park all the time, over 1 million acres. I also have a carry permet for the state of Washington and I am very happy about the new ruleing to allow me to protect my family and myself. In the past, Washington state has had some trouble in our parks by NONE law abiding people, I will feel much more at ease when I meet someone or something on the trail 20 miles in the back country now. I think that this is one for the law abiding citizens. I would just like to thank President Bush for opening his eyes to this. I use to only carry70% of the time, now I can carry 100% of the time, it's like a cell phone or wrist watch I'll never leave home without it!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    "Despite the potential affect on national park wildlife and resources, the administration did not conduct an environmental review as required by law..."

    I find it shameful but VERY typical of the Bush administration that officials at the DOI could care so little about respecting it's own established processes of examination. (Scientific fact-based review? Bad. Reactionary paranoid legislative decisions? Good.)
    It's very clear why the administration has chosen this path yet again: to try and push a political agenda they clearly fear will have little support if the general public were to closely examine the issue. If it weren’t afraid of failing, why did it wait until now to put this law through? Once again the Bush administration blatantly ignores professional opinion (and for that matter the majority of public commentary) on an issue that effects us all in order to push a political agenda based on fear and paranoia. Absolutely shameful.

    As for readers of this blog, if everyone here is such a great fan of The Bill of Rights, The Constitution, and the FULL legislative processes that have made our country so great, why are they not questioning the administration's disregard for the very laws and processes that help protect our public lands? So far, the published commentary here in favor of this new radical gun decision seems NOT to mention the administration's continual blatant disregard for established legislative procedure. How come??

    The issue of environmental impact should be utmost in every legislative and procedural change that effects our public lands, especially our National Parks. Unfortunately, gun rights advocates conveniently have chosen to ignore this aspect of legal process so as to serve their own political agenda.
    Gun rights advocates need to question the administration's motives in ignoring this crucial part of the process, for the administration had to realize it would be appealed (and most likely overturned) BECAUSE it ignored this part of the process. So one could infer that the DOI, Secretary Kempthorne, and President Bush knowingly pushed through this lame-duck decision to purposely appease the NRA and it’s more vocal supporters. But you must all realize that the current administration really has no interest in any rule, law, or short-term decision that will not improve it’s own public approval rating, even if it only lasts for the next 4 weeks.

    Scientific logic dictates that more guns (or more of ANYTHING) in the National Parks will have an environmental impact which must be thoroughly examined before any final decisions are made. If you truly love these national treasures, why not fully support the laws and procedures created to protect them for us and for future generations?

    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?

    Gun rights advocates also continually ignore the secret undercurrents of this issue that the Bush administration is certainly well aware of: The roots of contemporary gun rights arguments that are based in 18th and 19th century ideas of classism, oppression, and racism.
    As a society, let’s finally put these aspects of this issue on the table and have a REAL debate about gun rights that truthfully examine why the dialectic of fear is still so prevalent in personal gun rights issues.
    But please, keep your guns locked up in your safe at home while we bring this debate to light, and please please please keep them out of public parks.
    They just don’t belong there.

    The need to keep a loaded gun on your person at all times in order to feel like a righteous citizen is an issue for yourself to examine and decide on, but do you need to force that personal ideal on me while I’m trying to look at birds in the forest??

  • Memorial Ceremony for Pearl Harbor Day   6 years 2 weeks ago

    How ironic that on this date I should read this story. A story about a soldier asking for asylum in Germany because he didn’t want to fight, didn’t believe in the war in the middle east. Here is a volunteer who took an oath to serve and wouldn’t and the comments were mostly praising him for his decision. Thank God he and those who support him are the minority. Where would this country be if they were the majority? They disgrace the memory of the self-sacrifice and bravery of those who gave their lives in defense of our country. He and anyone like him should be shot for desertion. I, like many others was drafted, didn’t want to go but did what we had to do. Fly the flag tomorrow to honor all who made the supreme sacrifice.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Yeeeeee haw! Ride 'em, cowboy, ride 'em! Was there ever any doubt but that this rule would be made by Bush & Co.? We will all remember Bush for many years to come. At least, I hope we all remember what he has done to this country!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I will definitely feel much safer now in the backcountry from predators...the 2-legged kind!
    Thank you, President Bush for allowing us women more security and freedom to enjoy the parks...I never felt safe in campgrounds alone (a lot of weird people out there), let alone the backcountry! A tiny lady like myself could be so easily overpowered by some of the big guys I see on the trail. Now they will think twice, not knowing whether I am armed!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    YES!!! It's about time that our citizenry's right to protect themselves doesn't end at the park gate!

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I have been a gun owner and licensed carrier since I was 18, when I turned 21 I became a police officer. I have visited many parks across our country over the years with my wife and kids. One comment I have shared with my wife was that I would like to have my gun with me when we are out on walks and just driving around the parks. I am away of the different issues that officals will face, but if I had my choice I would prefer to have my own protection with me at all times. If people are going to do illegal acts, a law will not prevent this action from happening wether it's one way or the other. As I have visited many parks, I have never seen a ranger on any of the trails and very few, probably no more than 3 the entire time I have been in the diffrent parks I have visited. I believe everyone should be able to protect themselves if the are responsible to due so. As with any firearm, I believe you shold be responsible in order to carry and follow all laws and regulations for the area you are in. If people want to poach they will, and if people want to carry in the parks, they will which I'm sure they have been already. We just need to be very responsible and punish the illegal actions of the criminals that shouldn't be carrying in the first place.

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Wow, the comments of many in here are downright scary at times and simply retarded at others. The simple fact is that someone who goes to the trouble, training and expense of obtaining a CCW is 99.99% of the time a person I, and my family, are not in any way shape or form concerned about having a firearm on their person. The simple fact is there have been many instances of people being prayed on in a national park, not only by criminals, but yes, wild animals. You people do realize that wild animals do exist in a National Park don't you? How would you like to come across a bear with your young children and realize you have no way of protecting that child should a wild animal decide to attack? This does not mean that any gun owner wants to have to shoot an animal, or a person for that matter, ever! It means last resort, me, my child, or a bear I'm going to protect my child and my family. If you want to be a victim, if you want to be forced to stand by while you or your family are attacked, you go right ahead, however, the Constitution of this country states that I have an implicit right to self protection and an implicit right to a firearm for that protection. If you don't like it then that same Constitution has a mechanism to change that Constitution and you are free to try and do so. Until that day, tough beans. And for the record, I am a gun owner, I don't have a CCW and I have never felt the need to have one nor carry my gun, but that doesn't mean I, or anyone else doesn't have that right. If you can't handle that, then as I said, change it or go somewhere where you don't have those rights. If you're a Park Ranger and you don't like, retire, go do something else, but don't you dare for a second think you have the right to take away my rights. We employ you, not the other way around.

  • The Green Blood of the Coalition of NPS Retirees   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I always hear the mantra:
    LETS SAVE OUR PARKS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS... Sounds reasonable? Right now the Parks are trying to limit traffic and visitors to "Save" the park for future generations. Well let me explain the facts to you... The proper way is to allow the Public right now to take FULL advantage of the parks now because: In the future as population increases there will be NO Parks.. Go ahead and save Yellowstone and keep people from using it limit the traffic,, go broke because people quit coming and spending money funding the parks.. This goes for all National Parks. It takes only one body of Congress to sell off the parks, to allow condos to be built and allow very rich private individuals to build estates in them. There will be no parks for the future!!! Use the Park to its fullest now, develop it for the tourists now. A hundred years from now it will be a rich mans condo complex. Political winds change and so do the perception of the "right thing to do" Save the parks for future generations?? Develope the parks for the present, allow corporate sponsorship.. When the money is shunted of other projects, parks will be neglected, closed, and eventually with the federal drain and present fisical realities become apparant, the Feds will sell off the parks piecemeal... Open your eyes, look at the present and forget the future... Yellowstone probably will be a Chinese Amusement Park in 100 years!!!

  • The Green Blood of the Coalition of NPS Retirees   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I see the Coalition is against the Modificaton of the Firearms Ban in all National Parks. I am a ex Police Officer, and have EXTENSIVE experience working for the D.O.D. I have traveled the entire country and have spent many days in the National parks. What is so "Dangerous" about Law Abiding Permit holders posessing a weapon? The group claims some sort of confusion with the issue? What would be the source of the confusion? I have been in many states, including the one I live that that permits conceled weapons, there is no confusion here nor have I seen any... Wouldn't it be a perfect world if there were no two legged Preditors but unfortunately the ones carrying the ILLEGAL weapons are the ones accosting people in the parks!! I am a TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND A TRAINED SOLDIER.. I would rather know that a few people around me have LEGAL Permitted weapons on their person. The ones that are the danger are the Criminals that don't care what law they are breaking. If weapons are not permitted in the Park does that mean the Criimals will not bring weapons into the park? Is there a database that tells you how many people have been accosted by armed Thugs in National parks, harmed or Murdered? What about the murdered women found in the car trunk in Yosomite? I have heard all the arguements before even when my state passed a conceiled weapons possession bill.. They all swore it would be like Dodge City At High Noon.. Check the FBI stats.. Every EVERY STATE THAT HAS PASSED A WEAPONS PERMITTING LAW HAS HAD A DROP IN VIOLENT CRIME!! I could try to appeal to LOGIC but it is all the same ole Liberal Mantra.. Yada Yada..... The thing that scares me worse in a National Park than an honest legal permitted weapons holder, is one of the dozens and dozens 85 pound female Park rangers carrying a weapon five sizes too large for her size. Strap a weapon on a female that size and she instantly thinks she is SARGENT YORK! My opinion is most 85 pound female park rangers cannot be trained well enough not to be disarmed or even be able to take a 200 pound man into custody. As I say, I have been in some pretty bad and rank places.. I have NEVER seen a woman ever be able to protect themseves in a combat situation.. With the current stage of world events, Terrorism, and such.. perhaps we Americans need to go back to the days of John Wayne.... If you can figure a way to eliminate all weapons from a National Park including stones and wooden clubs, I would be happy to leave my handgun home. I welcome some "Licensed gun slinger to come to my rescue when the THUGS TRY TO ATTACK ME. Oh yea, I have been threatened in a National Park when hiking... an armed Ranger at the Main Gate ten miles away does not instill the feeling of safety for me. This is not the old days of Opie and Mayberry. The world has changed and with the influx of foreign cultures you need to learn that the person next to you will slit your throat just for looking at him the wrong way....

  • NPS Retirees Oppose Carrying Guns in National Parks   6 years 2 weeks ago

    I'm very glad to see this passed. As a law enforcement officer, I recongnize, unlike many others, that there are hundreds of tousands of folks just like myself who carry a concealed firearm while off-duty, solely for the protection of myself and others.

    Criminals don't care about laws. With the old law, the criminals would still carry their weapons onto the federal land, while the law abiding citizens would follow the law and not carry. That would create federal lands, with only criminals having firearms.

    With the passage of this law, you may still have the criminals carrying guns where they aren't suppose to, but at least you will also have people like myself there able to defend my own family, and maybe even yours.

    It is common sense, but unfortunately many people don't have that, it just can't be taught...

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Frustrating. But honestly, we saw it coming. The track record of this administration shows that it consistently pushes expert's views and the view of the public aside and yields to loud/powerful minorities.

    Where is this going to take the parks? First, I agree that this rule change will eventually be reversed (perhaps it will follow a path similar to that of the Yellowstone Snowmobile debacle). However, before that happens people will be confused, wildlife will be unnecessarily killed, and rangers/employees in parks will face questionable and dangerous situations.

  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    The U.S. is distinguished from the rest of the world in that its citizens have a lawful right to be armed in most places. We should value this privalege and freedom which so many under communism or oppressive governments and dictators do not have.

    However, criminal acts are never condoned and should always be punished. And, criminals will be armed whether the law forbids it or not. So I see absolutely no deterent to crime by denying law-abiding citizens the right to be armed and protect themselves if the need arises. Should someone attempt to rob or hurt you in a national park, do you think the park rangers are going to prevent it?

    Many citizens carry a firearm now when traveling, or camping. It only makes sense to take precautions when going out into sparsely populated and often desolate areas. Similar reasoning applies in not picking up hitchhikers, and locking your doors at night when at home. Why should one be defenseless when traveling? And, many who are vacationing stop in national parks along the way. Citizens certainly carry concealed weapons in their vehicles now, why not recognize their rights under the Constitution to do so in full light of the law?

    I applaud the right and recognition of a citizen to carry a firearm in national and state parks.


  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago
  • Interior Officials Release Rule Change to Allow National Park Visitors to Arm Themselves   6 years 2 weeks ago

    Kurt, I thank you for the privilege of commenting on this site and am glad to see you taking a stand on ad hominem attacks. (I again apologize for falling prey to this trap in my earlier comments here.)

    However, I don't believe that we should necessarily respect opinions. I've quoted Jonathan Rauch before, and here's a paragraph from Kindly Inquisitors that I have repeated for the last dozen years:

    . . . only after an idea has survived checking is it deserving of respect. Not long ago, I heard an activist say at a public meeting that her opinion deserved at least respect. The audience gave her a big round of applause. But she and they had it backwards. Respect was the most, not the least, that she could have demanded for her opinion. Except insofar as an opinion earns its stripes in the science game, it is entitled to no respect whatever. The point matters, because respectability is the coin in which liberal science rewards ideas that are duly put up for checking and pass the test. You may not get rich being show to be right, you may not even become famous, and you almost certainly will not be loved, but you will be paid in the specie of respectability. That is why it is so important that creationists and alien-watchers and radical Afrocrentrists and white supremacists be granted every entitlement to speak but no entitlement to have their opinions respected. They should expect, if for any reason (including minority status) they refuse to submit their ideas for checking by public criticism, that their opinions will be ignored or ridiculed—and rightly so. Respect is no opinion’s birthright. People, yes, are entitled to a certain degree of basic respect by dint of being human. But to grant any such claim to ideas is to raid the treasury of science and throw its capital to the winds.