Debate Rages Over National Parks Firearms Rule Change

Written by Daniel White

Tuesday, 06 January 2009 03:21

A microcosm of the debate over the Department of the Interior's rule change regarding firearms in national parks can be seen in two dueling articles on the Knox News website.

On Dec. 10, Dan Thomasson wrote an article (Firearms should not be allowed in national parks) in which he stated:

So much for finding a moments break from the threat someone might decide to shoot you over a triviality, a daily possibility in todays urban battlegrounds. The only hope one might have under the circumstance is that before the assailant could pull the trigger, he or she would be attacked and eaten by a bear.

I might take that irrational statement and turn it on its ear by pointing out that a criminal intent on breaking the law by assaulting you is not going to change his mind because there is another law he'd have to break first (if guns were banned), and that if the good guys aren't prohibited from being able to counter that attack with a firearm of their own then maybe they wouldn't have to rely on a bear coming to their aid. Or, I might just let the article in response (Park visitors have nothing to fear from new gun law) do it for me.

Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law, so no law is going to prevent them from carrying a weapon everywhere they go. The only thing these anti-Second Amendment laws do is prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting their wives, children, and selves.

You do what you'd like - for my part, I'll keep on wearing my seat belt; I'll keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen and beside my fireplace; and I'll keep on defending the Second Amendment.

I find the overall tone of both articles to be quite telling. On the one hand, you have the anti-gun hysteric throwing around phrases such as "commit mayhem", "firearms worshipers", "pistol-whipped" while lamenting that "the obvious aim of those who clearly must sleep with their 9 mms clutched tightly in their hands is to make no spot off limits to their Roscoes. Were talking about college campuses and stadiums and bars and wherever. Now they are one step closer to that goal, having secured the right to haul their pistol-packing butts into the last remaining enclaves of sanity."

How pleasant.

Contrast that with the more rational counter argument offered by the pro-gun writer, who quotes statistics, explains the licensing procedures, and offers sane rational for why some choose to take responsibility for their own safety.

Some might find the emotional rantings of the anti to be more entertaining, but I, for one, prefer the more intellectual approach. I guess if you don't have facts, you have to rely on hysteria to make your point.