Yet another anti-gun editorial from the Post Gazette

[D-FENS]

Well, it's that time of the week again. I'm not even sure there's a point to giving these scare tactics more viewership anymore. I'm surprised they haven't taken a page out of Bush's book and started a Handgun Violence Threat Level, color-coded and all so they can arbitrarily adjust it for inflated threats.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08347/934642-192.stm

Whatever else it was about, the presidential election last month was a thorough repudiation of the Bush administration. But don't think the public rebuke means anything to those who still have the power and intend to use it -- and the public be damned.
The latest example of the administration's late-hour mischief concerns guns in national parks. For 25 years, a Reagan-era regulation has restricted loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Visitors were generally permitted to bring firearms into parks, but they had to be kept unloaded and stowed away, such as in car trunks.
It was a good compromise and it worked, as evidenced by the fact that national parks have not been notorious for incidents of gun carnage. Unfortunately, this peaceful reality means little to those for whom guns are the answer to all societal problems, real or imagined. Last Friday, the Interior Department announced a new regulation that will allow visitors to bring in loaded, concealed firearms, a move supported by the National Rifle Association and the politicians who serve its interests.
True, the privilege will apply only to those with a permit to have a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located allows concealed firearms. Among the many that will be affected is Pennsylvania, where Gov. Ed Rendell before the election signed a bill (HB 1845) that, while mandating tougher penalties for gun-related crimes, also allowed concealed guns in state parks. It goes into force Dec. 16.
Far from fostering safety, the practical effect of the new regulation will be to put park rangers and visitors at risk. With firearms so readily at hand, one can easily imagine simple disputes escalating into gunplay, especially if alcohol is involved. Because of the increased risks and the tougher challenge for rangers in combating poaching, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees has opposed the abandonment of the old common-sense rule.
This is one more thing for the incoming Obama administration to correct. Unfortunately, the process of rule-making could take a long time. While that happens, visitors to national parks and refuges in places in Pennsylvania will have one more thing to worry about. The nation's gun culture is a bear -- but potentially much more dangerous.

Of course, they no longer include an authors name since Dan Simpson's Anti-Constitution Editorial a year ago. "Foster safety" what a fucking pussy.

[jerkin]

That's why I quit reading the paper.

[RCN]

Wow, that is really poor journalism. That is on par with the quality I have seen in a high school newspaper discussing dress codes. Even as an opinion or editorial it lacks any real factual basis other than the law changing.

[D-FENS]

it lacks any real factual basis other than the law changing.

as evidenced by the fact that national parks have not been notorious for incidents of gun carnage.

Looks like they use derivative facts of some sort.

[GlockedAndLoaded]

The national parks that are sites of great carnage... you mean during the revolutionary and civil war right? Idiots. All of these arguments are easily refutable by statistics on legal gun owners and their propensity to commit crime or even escalate altercations, and the fact that gun control laws only limit law abiding citizens. I still can't believe the people who write this crap can actually read the letters on their keyboard, much less string together a host of sentences.

[Bib]

"Let's all go get tanked and shoot some park rangers!!!!"


I wouldn't wipe my ass in the woods with the Post-Gazette, let alone BUY it, or even pick one up and read it!

[Lazylaser]

especially if alcohol is involved

Well, Pennsylvania law says Alcoholic beverages are prohibited on land and water at all state parks.

Again, Alcoholic beverages are prohibited in all Pennsylvania State Parks.

(nice flawed argument stupid c*nt)

[T34418L31]

I have a letter written up that is going to several papers in the area.

You'll know it's me

[kevindsingleton]

This is the operative clause, and tells all you need to know about the author, "one can easily imagine simple disputes escalating into gunplay".

"One can easily imagine". That's all it takes for an idiot to find cause to trample Constitutionally-protected rights.

Why can't one "easily imagine" peaceful citizens protecting themselves and loved ones from criminals and aggressive wildlife with their lawfully carried firearms? Why can't one "easily imagine" a hike through a national park without a "simple dispute" arising? Because "one" is a moron, with a very limited, single-issue imagination. Pathetic.