Anti-gun nuts going nuts – concealed carry in national parks

David Kopel who writes for Volokh Conspiracy has a great article in The New Ledger concerning the over-reaction of the anti-carry crowd who think national parks will soon be unsafe for humans. Earlier this week Congress passed, and President Obama signed, a law that would allow residents who have a valid pistol/carry permit for a state, to carry in national parks within that state.

Oh the horror.

Kopel digs into the psychology of the site visitors who have posted comments over at the New York Times Opinion area, Room for Debate. Some were a bit ticked off that the amendment was “hidden” [it wasn’t] within another “clearly popular” bill, but others are totally freaked out that they now have to worry if the person walking up the trail behind them is carrying a loaded pistol.

Hey idiot, as a reminder to you, that same person could be walking up the street behind you in the same state one mile outside of a national park can carrying a loaded pistol.

Did I just totally freak you out?

You really need to read Kopel’s piece, especially the part where he takes readers on a virtual tour of the northeast United States starting in New York City.

So starting in Manhattan, you can enjoy the entire Empire State, a large and interesting place. If you feel a desire to leave New York, be extremely careful about heading east. Going into Connecticut will immediately put you in a place where the government routinely issues carry permits to law-abiding, trained adults. In other words, Connecticut is just as dangerous as a National Park.

Vermont is even worse, with no permits even required for carrying concealed handguns. And everyone knows how dangerous Vermont is. New Hampshire and Maine are similar to Connecticut, and must be avoided.

Massachusetts is safe, as long as you cross directly into the state, without going through Connecticut. Rhode Island is good too, providing that you approach it via Massachusetts, or take a ferry from eastern Long Island. A trip through Connecticut would obviously be too risky.

yes-carry-concealedI was rolling on the floor laughing at that. Yes, I know it’s possible to get a License to Carry in Massachusetts, and Rhode Island is a shall issue state, but it really is funny.

Here are some selected comments from the New York Times’ Opinion page noted above…

Judy-in-TX
… There’s going to be a killing (probably a number of killings around the country) and I don’t want to see it. … Now, no place in the Preserve is safe.

Alan
… Am I going to feel safer knowing the guy coming toward me on the trail is explicitly allowed to carry a loaded gun? Absolutely not. Instead, I’m wondering if the prudent thing would be to carry a gun myself. …

MaineGrammy
… Whose role in the death of thousands upon thousands of US citizens every year is close to invisible? Weapons manufacturers. …

Nancy Litz
Many “law-abiding” citizens who own guns are one missed prescription away from becoming font page news. …

Jim Speck
… I would be happy today to see gun permits restricted to anyone who has been shot or shot at.

Adam
The Second Amendment was drafted in a time of war, when it was a crime to speak out against the Crown of England. Obviously, that is not the case now.

LetsBfairUSA
… I would hate to be visiting Yellowstone, with my only concern being an attack from a grisly bear, that some loco guy who just lost his job is seeking vengeance in the park. …

Are folks like LetsBfairUSA so disillusion to think someone who lost their job and was seeking vengence by shooting people in a national park would stop and think “oh, I can’t do this in a national park, it’s illegal to carry a loaded pistol in there”?

So, who’s missing their medication Nancy Litz?

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.

4 Comments

  1. PatRiot on May 29, 2009 at 11:12 am

    Where do I start?  

     —  Lawful gun owners live in most neighborhoods now.  The criminals (with or without illegal guns) have to think twice about which house to rob.  This is protecting those who don't exercize their 2nd amendment rights. 

    —  The 2nd amendment was for the people to be able, at any time, to take back the country if our government becomes a tyrrany – not limited to: 1. taking the rights from the people and the states.  2.  Defiling the Constitution.  3.  Not doing the will of the people. 

    3.  Whether you exersise your rights or not, NEVER give them up.

    4.  When thinking about preventing a crime at your own house, you must have an answer to the following question:  What will you do while you wait for the police?

    5.  When was the last time the local, state or Federal government took illegal guns from any gangs?  And why not? 



  2. Dimsdale on May 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Bottom line: liberals just don't trust regular people.  Even if guns are only involved in 0.2% of crimes, everyone must be distrusted.

    Of course, when your plan is to take away rights, freedoms and trample the American way, I guess you have to be afraid of people that can defend themselves and America. 

    Just like the Founding Fathers wanted it.



  3. SoundOffSister on May 30, 2009 at 11:53 am

    From the above quoted comments in the New York Times Opinion page, Adam writes, "The Second Amendment was drafted in a time of war, when it was a crime to speak out against the Crown of England.  Obviously, that is not the case now."

    Obviously, Adam hasn't a clue. 

    The Second Amendment was drafted in 1789, when, to the best of my knowledge, we were at war with no one, and, speaking out against the Crown of England was totally acceptable because we had already won the "war" of which Adam speaks.

    So, Adam, you are either very funny or very pathetic…you pick.



    • Dimsdale on May 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm

      I am going with pathetic in a very typical liberal Democrat manner.  This is the product of too much television and too few history classes (the average liberal arts major core curriculum!).



The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.