U.S. parks at center of gun debate

more b.s. from BUREAUCRATS TAKING OUR RIGHTS... CRIMINALS WILL NEVER OBEY ANY LAWS ANYWAY AND WITH MORE THAN 200 MILLION GUNS OWNED PRIVATELY THE SUPPOSED NUMBERS AND ARGUMENTS JUST DO NOT STAND UP... THE DEBATE ITSELF IS FOOLISH AND DANGEROUS TO ALL PEOPLE VISITING THE PARKS... IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN CHOICE... NOT YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE FOR OTHERS...

"Opponents of the upcoming rules say Americans are more likely to get hit by lightning than they are to be victimized by a gun crime on federal lands."

But people DO get struck by lightning, don't they?

National Parks aren't some magical place where crime never happens, and the Constitution applies in the Parks just the same as it does in every other corner of our nation.

If someone illegally shoots an animal or another person PUNISH HIM. Do not try and infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

Does anyone remember the two women killed by the psycho in Yosemite Park a few years ago. Opponents of guns in the parks try to tell us that the chances of becoming a crime victim in parks are minimal. Well, it does happen, and criminals ain't gonna abide by the gun prohibition anyhow.
Changing the rule will encourage poaching? Get outa town! That's just another excuse gun opponents have cooked up. Remember the dire predictions about right-to-carry in Florida when that state liberalized it's carry laws? Old West-style shootouts were predicted over parking spaces and other disputes. It never happened!

Thomas wrote:

Does anyone remember the two women killed by the psycho in Yosemite Park a few years ago. Opponents of guns in the parks try to tell us that the chances of becoming a crime victim in parks are minimal. Well, it does happen, and criminals ain't gonna abide by the gun prohibition anyhow.
Changing the rule will encourage poaching? Get outa town! That's just another excuse gun opponents have cooked up. Remember the dire predictions about right-to-carry in Florida when that state liberalized it's carry laws? Old West-style shootouts were predicted over parking spaces and other disputes. It never happened!

You finished your comment with, "Remember the dire predictions about right-to-carry in Florida when that state liberalized it's carry laws? Old West-style shootouts were predicted over parking spaces and other disputes. It never happened!"

EXACTLY, funny thing how this is NEVER brought up by the media when some anti gun nut starts whineing about some new issue that has been dummied up by the gun control crowd or some anti gun politician (pronounced bottom feeder).

Here's the reason you need to be able to carry weapons in national parks and forests.

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...

[Largo man charged in forest double slaying
Authorities have no motive for shootings

Detectives with the Marion County Sheriff's Office said Leo Lancing Boatman, 19, was not a camper or hiker, but simply concocted a plan to kill someone in the forest.

He reportedly purchased camping equipment at a Silver Springs store on Jan. 3 and headed into the woods, the same day Amber Marie Peck and John Parker, two 26-year-old Sante Fe Community College students, arrived for an overnight camping trip.

Detectives said they believed the students were killed the next day around noon, a time witnesses said they heard gunshots in the area where the bodies were later discovered. They were shot multiple times at the edge of Hidden Pond.

Boatman was being held in the Pinellas County Jail on Tuesday on a grand theft charge of stealing the murder weapon, an AK-47, from the friend of an uncle. Ballistics tied the weapon to the murders.

“I went to the woods and killed someone,” Boatman told a friend in secrecy, according to the arrest affidavit.

“I wouldn't kill a bum because they would have nothing to lose.... I went out there and came across two preppie kids and killed them.”

He also told friends he had tried unsuccessfully to sink the bodies.

Detectives said Boatman stole the unloaded weapon from a friend of his uncle and left Clearwater on Jan. 2 on a Greyhound bus and arrived just after midnight Tuesday in Ocala. He picked up some camping gear at a Wal-Mart in Silver Springs and went into the forest.]

The Truth Matters wrote:

Here's the reason you need to be able to carry weapons in national parks and forests.
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...
[Largo man charged in forest double slaying

That story proves a few points.

[1] Malum Prohibitum laws don't stop anything from happening

[2] If anything, all malum prohibitum laws do is:

.....[a] Make criminals out of people who've done nothing bad
.....[b] Allow REAL criminals to take advantage of others
—————
MALUM PROHIBITUM. A wrong prohibited; a thing which is wrong because
prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral, but becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law; an act involving an illegality resulting from positive law. Contrasted with malum in se.
Story, Ag.§ 346.
—————
MALUM IN SE. A wrong in itself; an act or case involving illegality from the very nature of the transaction, upon principles of natural, moral, and public law. Story, Ag.§346.

An act is said to be malum in se when it is inherently and essentially evil, that is, immoral in its nature and injurious in its consequences, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or punished by the law of the state.

Such are most or all of the offenses cognizable at common law,(without the denouncement of a statute;) as murder, larceny, etc.

An act is said to be malum prohibitum when it is wrong only because prohibited; that is, it is not inherently immoral, but becomes illegal because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law. Many acts contrary to excise or revenue laws are considered by moralists to be of this character.
—————
POSITIVE LAW. Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority
for the government of an organized jural society.
—————

yep, but the bleading heart types are gonna say , but if everyone didnt have a gun then no one would get shot.

and if elephants fly I could sell more umbrellas, but that aint happening either.

Marc wrote:

yep, but the bleading heart types are gonna say , but if everyone didnt have a gun then no one would get shot.
and if elephants fly I could sell more umbrellas, but that aint happening either.

Then their argument would fall for a number of reasons:
.
If women didn't have their particular anatomy, then they would get raped;
.
If men didn't have their particular anatomy, then they wouldn't be able to rape anyone.
.
If people didn't have brains, then nobody would have the ability to cogitate at length over the matter of rendering harm unto another.
.
Ultimately then, it matters not at all whether firearms exist, because harm at the hands of another human —or whatever animal— will still exist. This much we know.
.
AND OH: THANK HEAVEN pigs don't fly!!!!
.
:o)
.