New rule eases ban on firearms in national parks - Yahoo! News
Mr. Bill Wade's remarks in the article bugged me enough to send him the following email:
Dear Mr. Wade,
In response to your published statements regarding the recent easing of the ban on firearms in national parks:
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association,"
I fail to see how this goes against the "preferences of the American public" since park visitors will only be allowed to carry in accordance with applicable state laws, which are a more accurate representation of the "preferences of the American public" living in that area. That being said, I don't really care what the majority (and that's debatable as well) of people think. Some rights are simply inherent, and the right to protect one's self is one of them. It's the "life" part of that whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing. Saying something must be right just because more people voted for it is akin to jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades,"
This statement is silly for numerous reasons, so I won't list them all. For starters, there is no such thing as "commonsense", but I only think you used that word to paint your opponents as "crazy gun-nuts". Furthermore, most states have fairly stringent requirements for getting a concealed handgun license. In Texas for example, having a CHL means you have no felony convictions, no class A or B misdemeanors in the past five years, have passed both state and federal background checks, and are not chemically dependent or mentally incapable. How much do you know about other park visitors? Also, nobody needs a gun to "put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk".
The truth is, national parks belong to me and you and everyone else whose tax dollars pay for them. Therefore, we should be able to visit them freely. "Freely" means being able to exercise all rights there that one could exercise anywhere else they have a right to be.
Please respond.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Riddile
His email address is bill_wade@npsretirees.org if anyone else feels like doing the same.
Mr. Bill Wade's remarks in the article bugged me enough to send him the following email:
Dear Mr. Wade,
In response to your published statements regarding the recent easing of the ban on firearms in national parks:
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association,"
I fail to see how this goes against the "preferences of the American public" since park visitors will only be allowed to carry in accordance with applicable state laws, which are a more accurate representation of the "preferences of the American public" living in that area. That being said, I don't really care what the majority (and that's debatable as well) of people think. Some rights are simply inherent, and the right to protect one's self is one of them. It's the "life" part of that whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing. Saying something must be right just because more people voted for it is akin to jumping off a bridge because everyone else is doing it.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades,"
This statement is silly for numerous reasons, so I won't list them all. For starters, there is no such thing as "commonsense", but I only think you used that word to paint your opponents as "crazy gun-nuts". Furthermore, most states have fairly stringent requirements for getting a concealed handgun license. In Texas for example, having a CHL means you have no felony convictions, no class A or B misdemeanors in the past five years, have passed both state and federal background checks, and are not chemically dependent or mentally incapable. How much do you know about other park visitors? Also, nobody needs a gun to "put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk".
The truth is, national parks belong to me and you and everyone else whose tax dollars pay for them. Therefore, we should be able to visit them freely. "Freely" means being able to exercise all rights there that one could exercise anywhere else they have a right to be.
Please respond.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Riddile
His email address is bill_wade@npsretirees.org if anyone else feels like doing the same.
