Gun Websites Network

Friday, March 20, 2009

National Park CCW carry on hold

Click here for the whole story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29781541


A few of my favorite parts of this one..

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of two groups that sued to block the rule, called the judge's ruling a victory for the people.

"We're happy that this headlong rush to push more guns into more places has been slowed," he said.


Headlong rush.. to push guns Rolling Eyes

That's not emotional language right? They must be correct in their position if they can depend on such logic


Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, which also brought suit, said he was extremely pleased.

"We're especially glad to hear that the court is agreeing with the park rangers and the public who are concerned that there will be negative impacts from the (now-overturned) regulation and increased likelihood for opportunistic poaching of wildlife and increased risk of violence to the public."


Bryan F. must have some evidence to back up this claim.
Of course I am not familiar with ANY case of a licensed CCW holder 'poaching' with their concealed pistol.. park or not

The remark about "increased risk of violence to the public".. again where is there ANY case of a CCW holder using violence against anyone but a criminal

No reference to any case to justify their stance, no research on the issue, only repetition of their emotional language and their irrational anti-gun stance

Facts are not important these days however.. if you 'feel' threatened you are justified it seems


A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations protested the Bush rule change, complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

So what group? The NRA is called out by name but not this organization.
anyway..
"complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors" = what? where? what confusion.. was there confusion? or was there a perceived risk that there MIGHT be some confusion?
Now we don't need actual issues, just perceived risk of issues to justify our agendas ??

Lastly.. "complaining that it could lead to confusion and increased danger for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies."
WTH, in what way does a registered CCW holder create any potential or real risk to Law Enforcement? Licenses CCW holders are typically the only part of the population that has studied the actual laws about citizens role in assisting law enforcement

What garbage in my opinion
There was no issue here, simply a pissing match, fear and ignorance

The lobby against guns simply wanted to 'push' their agenda and saw this as a possible angle
Bias reporting like this story only perpetrate the ignorance and fear of inanimate objects

After reading this commentary, please take a moment and think about what they will be afraid of next, after they have stripped all rights away from gun owners.

No comments:

Like our website?
Help keep it free of ads
Please donate a dollar
or two, Thanks

Other Blogs We Read