|
From Magic City Morning Star Doug Wrenn
As per a recent nationally publicized article by Anna Tinsley of the McClatchy Newspapers, Interior Secretary, and former US Senator and Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne is taking another look at possibly seeking to change a current and long standing law banning the carrying of firearms in National Parks. And as usual, no good deed goes unpunished. The usual suspects of naive liberal bubble dwellers, gun grabbers, the predominantly leftist members of the 4th estate, and even various officials from within the National Park Service are already opposing the idea. And of course, they're all right, and our savvy forefathers who articulated our God-given right to protect ourselves in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution were all wrong. After all, when in trouble, just climb a Sequoia and dial 911, right? And then a nice ranger will swoop down to your rescue within mere seconds, right? OK, having finished our frolic with folly, we are now departing Fantasy Island and heading back to the real world. Please fasten your seat belts, and observe the "No Guns" sign. Turbulence is expected. I don't really mind naive, misinformed cowards. In the present day vernacular, I think they give us what some call "diversity." But I'm a firm believer in the sage adage, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose." So I get mad as all Hell when one of these professional victims tries to tell me that I have to be one too. I'm not advocating that everyone should carry a gun whether they want to or not, but I'm sick and tired of these clueless, fairy tale-buying do-gooders trying to tell me that I can't carry one. I have no doubt that the Good Lord will take me when He's good and ready. Far be it from me to infringe on His time schedule by pushing the "deadline" back a little earlier. But if the rest of gun-grabbing sheep are in such a hurry to get corralled, fleeced, and slaughtered, well then by all means, don't let me stop you, go right ahead and be my guest! Posting a sign saying, "Gun Free Zone" is the equivalent to posting one saying, "Predators Wanted." Of the several recent shooting rampages that have occurred in shopping malls in various states, as well as the most recent university campus shootings in Illinois and Virginia, all of them were "gun free zones," and we all know how those stories ended. The last I heard, the notorious, bloodthirsty and rapidly growing Salvadorian gang, MS-13, has spread to 33 states and is most likely coming soon to a neighborhood near you, thanks to our abysmal immigration policy, which is only due to get worse, considering the three worthless, globalist, open-border goons we have for Presidential choices this year. MS-13 is now doing many more initiations of new gang members that involve preying on vulnerable individuals, beating, robbing, raping and killing them, with among other means, their trademark weapon, the machete. We have national parks in some of our large western states that are about as big as some of our smaller eastern states. In such wide open area, good luck getting a ranger to respond to an emergency, even if you have some means of communication, like a call box, or a cell phone that hopefully will have service. Of course, the Rangers oppose this idea. Naturally. It infringes upon their job security, and also in their minds, I'm sure, it threatens them. But they shouldn't feel threatened. Our 2nd Amendment was intended for the citizen to have the government outgunned. Somewhere after all these years and sordid traditions of abandoning personal responsibility and seeking socialist-like government entitlements for every whim and need, we lost sight of that principle. It's called a "check and balance," specifically, against government tyranny and oppression against the citizenry. According to a March 11th, 2008 on-line article entitled, "Easing Gun Ban Could Reduce Crime In National Parks," on the Alaskan web site, "The Voice Of The Times," the National Park Service (those nice, friendly folks in the green and brown uniforms and "Smoky Bear" cowboy hats who wish to keep us vulnerable) reported the following 2006 crime statistics from our national parks to the Los Angeles Times:
Is that a lot of crime? Well, considered that we allowed Bill Clinton to pontificate and spin ad nauseum as to the real definition of the word, "is," let me take a simpler tack; what if you were one of those 11 murder victims, 35 rape victims, 61 robbery victims, etc? In all fairness, for reasons I do not understand, Tinsley offers different numbers in her piece, citing that in the same year, 2006, 270 million people visited 291 national parks, yet crimes were down to 4,485, a rapid drop from 6,009 crimes in 1995. Assuming Tinsley's numbers are correct, they are limited in scope. The current gun ban has been in force since the 1930's, and as Tinsley reports, was renewed during the Reagan administration to thwart poaching. When I see statistics such as these, I often like to ask, "As opposed to what?" Currently, we have no "what" to compare these numbers to, at least, not in the past 70 or so years, so we don't know how much lower the numbers could be, and probably would be, if John & Jane Q. Public were allowed to carry the family pistola into the parks while on vacation, and then study the results of that pattern over a specified period of time. Studies by Professor John Lott, author of several books, including one of his more famous works, appropriately entitled, "More Guns, Less Crime," have documented that both nationally and internationally, areas with strict gun control measures are more prone to gun violence, and those areas with a well armed citizenry enjoy lower stats of such crimes. There is a reason why Washington DC, where gun ownership and carry is banned, has one of the top homicide rates in the country, and the citizens there now are petitioning Congress for a right to carry law. The term "gun free zone" is as incomplete as that other often unfinished liberal catch phrase, "pro-choice." "Choice," to do what exactly, and who gets that choice" Likewise, when reading a sign that portends a supposedly "gun free zone," the savvy citizen must ask himself, "Gun Free" ....For Whom? In large part to poor enforcement, the nation's 20,000 gun laws have done far more to disarm law-abiding citizens than they have to disarm the bad guys. In short, about all they are useful for is keeping honest people honest...and endangered. The bad guys will always get guns, and no, not at all necessarily with their Visa or MasterCard, either. Case in point: in an area in which we used to live, my wife and I often hiked with our dogs in a nearby state forest that was supposedly a "gun free zone." In a violent domestic dispute, in which a deranged young man, well learned in survival skills attempted to kill his mother, he escaped and was last seen running barefoot and with a knife in this state forest because the State Police lost him. They continued searching for him for several days, convinced he was still in the forest, but to my knowledge, they never did find him again. Now, what exactly am I to do on those Sunday afternoon hikes, way out in the middle of this forest with my wife and two goofy Black Labrador Retrievers if I happen to encounter "Rambo, Jr."? And by the way, on at least a couple occasions, we heard gunshots in the woods as we hiked, and in Connecticut, hunting is not allowed on Sundays as far as I know! Gun free zones are an armed criminal's best friend. On the flip side to that coin, they also pose three less than welcome options for the otherwise law-abiding citizen who desires some semblance of safety and security:
Do you see a pattern in those three options? The common denominator to all three of them is that every one of them restricts our God-given, and Constitutionally approved liberties. Yet the gun-grabbing do-gooders tell us they are trying to make us all safe. Really? These birds sound like the bureaucrats at Homeland Security, or the former French fry flippers from McDonalds, who have now moved up to being on the government dole as so-called airport screeners. As for me, I'm a big boy, now. Legally, I can now vote, drink, drive a car, get drafted, sign legal and binding contracts, and on a good day, even go to the bathroom and actually finish all the necessary paperwork, and all by myself. Hey, I don't need some dim-witted, liberal-nanny, do-gooder, bubble dweller or bureaucrat to protect me, I have rather effective body guards, who go by such familiar names as Colt, Ruger, and Smith, & Wesson, to name a few. I don't need "protection" from liberals...I prefer to live! Perhaps now we know what old Ben Franklin meant when he sagely admonished us that anyone who would trade essential liberty for a little safety deserves neither. I believe there is also another version of that quote, in which Franklin also supposedly adds, "..and gets neither." Perhaps if the wise Mr. Franklin were alive today he might well be advocating for our cherished but endangered 2nd Amendment rights while suggesting to these National Park nanny-pansies that maybe they should go fly a kite! The opponents of this proposal within the NPS cite potential animal deaths due to either accidental shootings or poaching. OK, probably a valid argument, but even in our tree-hugging, Spotted Owl obsessed "green" world of today, which is worse, a dead animal, or a dead tourist? Did I somehow miss the memo that apparently relegated people to a lower shelf on the food chain? I would advise the NPS that if they wish to be considered cops, then they can start by acting like cops; concentrate on how to better enforce the laws and protect both the tourists and the animals within your charge, rather than disarming lawful citizens to give the bad guys that you will likely never even see, let alone actually catch, a head start. Lisa Siemers, the gun-grabbing, bubble-dwelling, Head Do-Gooder In Charge of the group, "Texans For Gun Safety" (I'm sure Davy Crockett, Bill Travis, Jim Bowie and Sam Houston are rolling in their graves over this one!) recommends following park suggestions of carrying an air horn to ward off predators. (She did not elaborate if she meant the two-legged, or the four-legged kind of predators!) Air horn, huh? OK, great. And then what if that doesn't work? If you libs can come up with a "Plan B" for abortive contraception, is it really too much to ask for you to dream up another "Plan B" up for the safety of my family and I while on vacation on federally subsidized and (supposedly) controlled property, courtesy of my toil, sweat, sacrifice, and tax dime? It should be noted however, that National Parks actually do allow for the carry of firearms within their jurisdictions, so long as the weapon is unloaded, disassembled, and secured in a locked trunk of the owner's vehicle. Hey folks, I'm the kind of guy who needs a day and half to assemble a barbecue grill or a lawn mower, and I still wind up with some unidentifiable, non-functioning contraption with all kinds of extra parts left over when I'm done, and that's without the added pressure of looking down the barrel of a gun (or the blade of a few machetes) pointed at me! So, this little gracious perk protects me.... exactly how, again? A supposedly admitted "hunter," and I have my doubts as to that status, was quoted in Tinsley's piece as saying that he doesn't understand why anyone would need a gun in one of the parks. These are the folks who bear watching. But it's OK; fortunately, I speak fluent Liberal. When a liberal says he wants to "limit the number of abortions and keep them safe," that means he favors abortion, period. When a liberal starts spouting off how he is for gun control, but "respects hunters' rights," the bells and whistles should be going off in your head like in a firehouse during a 3-alarmer. More liberal-speak. Where, exactly, are even hunters mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? Despite the necessity to forage and hunt for food to provide for their families, hunting was conspicuously hardly on the short list of priorities when our more plainly speaking forefathers wrote that amendment. Paul Revere called the patriots of his day to pick up their "arms." If we want to protect our "arms," my fellow patriots, then we best start picking up our telephones and pens, and starting banging away on our computer keyboards and fax machines. In the United States Senate, S. 2483 is a bill currently being considered that pertains to various programs within Department of the Interior, which oversees the National Park Service. Senator Tom Coburn (I love this guy!) (R-OK) has proposed Amendment # 3967 to this bill. Senator Coburn's amendment allows for the carry of firearms for personal protection into national parks as long as the person carrying the gun is someone who may already legally carry a firearm, and as long as the laws of the state in which the national park is located are still simultaneously being complied with. Currently, Senator Coburn has 23 cosponsors to his amendment. Give your Senator a call, fax, letter, or email and tell him or her to support, and preferably co-sponsor Sen. Coburn's amendment if he or she is not doing so already. And while you're at it, drop Secretary Kempthorne a line. He's taking a lot of heat right now, and he needs our support. Make sure to thank him for his patriotism, and for having the guts, vision, and integrity to still defend our liberties that far too many "Americans" either don't understand, are apathetic to, or abjectly resent. Secretary Kempthorne can be reached by telephone at: (202) 208-3100, or by email at: webteam@ios.doi.gov. While you're at it, drop Senator Coburn a line, and thank him as well at (202) 224-5754, or go to the US Senate web site at www.senate.gov to find the links to Senator Coburn's web form email. Paul Revere also warned us that "The British are coming." There isn't much danger of that anymore. Our foes of three centuries before from across the pond have now become our closest allies and friends today. The danger today is not the British coming, but our liberties going. Remember, my fellow patriots, the 2nd Amendment protects all our other articulated rights. As a bumper sticker I once read aptly warned, "When the 2nd Amendment ends, the 2nd Revolution begins!" Hurricane Katrina is still recent history. Recall how the obedient citizens of New Orleans rendered their weapons upon demand. Then the cops took the guns and left, and the unchecked, marauding gangs moved in to finish off their conveniently disarmed prey. And when the citizens went back to retrieve their "temporarily" commandeered weapons, they were told that the guns were misplaced to unknown whereabouts. Even the United States Supreme Court has ruled that police (and yes, that means the law enforcement branch of the NPS as well), as an institution, is not intended to protect individuals, but society, collectively. This is also simply a realistic fact. Police cannot be everywhere at once, and especially in a vast, desolate national park with its varying rough terrain and isolated areas. Thus, the right to protect one's self and one's family is more than just a right; it is a duty as well, and for that matter, probably even more so in the national parks, due to the circumstances. Remember, when all else fails, as another old saying wisely reminds us, "It is still better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6." By all means, enjoy our beautiful, God-given national treasures, known as our national parks, but be safe, and be smart. And while there, be sure to say hi to Yogi and Boo-Boo for me, oh yeah, and to the Ranger, too.... if you can find him. Doug Wrenn © Copyright 2002-2008 by Magic City Morning Star |