Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Friday, February 15, 2008

New York Times Says Northern Illinois Shooting Is Argument Against Guns In National Parks

Take a moment to bask in the cognitive dissonance.

The Interior Department was expected to announce today that it would begin re-evaluating regulations that currently prohibit visitors from carrying loaded weapons in America’s national parks.

The agency’s plans were preempted, however, by yesterday’s news that a gunman in Illinois had killed five students and wounded 16 others before killing himself.

And so, out of respect for the dead and injured, who were killed by a handgun and a shotgun, the Interior Department has —what? Changed its mind? Thought better of its plans? No. It has merely postponed its announcement until next week.

Stop and think about this for a moment.  The Times is suggesting that the Interior Department rethink its decision to perhaps change regulations on guns in national parks because of the shooting in Illinois.  But just the opposite is true.  The shooting in Illinois should serve as evidence to hasten the Interior Department’s move toward allowing guns in national parks.

Why?  Because much like current gun policies in national parks, the Northern Illinois campus was a gun-free zone.  The shooting in Illinois didn’t happen because guns were allowed on campus.  The shooting happened because some loony decided to go there and start shooting.  If anything, the situation was made worse by the fact that none of the people in the area of the shooting when it broke out happened to be armed.

Had guns been allowed on that campus there would probably have been a smaller body count.

Of course, the editorial board of the New York Times doesn’t let things like “logic” and “reason” get in the way of its anti-gun agenda.

Comments

Yes, guns kill people… and my keybaord can’t spell correctly.


"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Spartacus on February 15, 2008 at 04:23 pm

This guy paused to reload his shotgun—well, not really paused, drew his handgun to try and take out the grad student lecturer (who survived), then reloaded the shotgun.

Knowing that, how can someone seriously claim a licensed armed student or instructor wouldn’t have at least have helped give time for people to escape.

It is a crime that society is willing to remain unprotected.

The shock is the that after decades of being cowed into giving up the right to defend ourselves we realize that we can’t stop everyone before they do this. However we might at least be able to fight back and stop them while they are targeting us like sitting ducks.
DKK

LifeTrek on February 15, 2008 at 04:47 pm

LifeTrack, the odd part is that every time something like this occurs the shooter never is someone who earned a concealed carry or personal protection permit, if the shooter had such a permit the media and the Sarah Brady bunch would be have multiple orgasms pointing out that fact. So until that one event happens the story will be the same, guns kill people, not people kill people.


"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Spartacus on February 15, 2008 at 05:16 pm

I drove through Yellowstone NAtional Park last night (West Yellowstone near Big Sky since the main roads are closed due to winter).  Posted clearly are the prohibitions against carrying a weapon.

And I think about being out in the woods enjoying a nice hike when a deranged SOB like the one in Georgia that killed that hiker decides to attack you.  I am lucky.  I am 6’2” and 230lbs.  I can handle myself.  But imagine my 5’8” 115 lb wife.  Like a twig.  Someone wants to rape her or kill her and unless he is a 12 year old, he is gonna win.  And in the backcountry, other folks that have bad intentions, surely will ignore prohibitions on weapons.  Or better, imagine being attacked by a bear and not having something to frighten or possibly kill an attacker or draw attention of rangers or other nearby folks.

National Parks are the frontier.  They are areas where people must be the most self sufficient.  Where life and death decisions occur and where people routinely die when they find themselves unprepared.  Three short shots into the air---BANG.BANG.BANG.  Universal distress signal.  Last I checked, my cell phone didn’t get reception in Yellowstone.

Justin B. on February 15, 2008 at 05:44 pm

Someone please tell me where in the 2nd Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits Congress from infringing, does it permit the federal government via the Department of Interior or anyone else to prohibit a citizen’s right to own and carry a firearm inside our national parks or anywhere else for that matter.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nope, I cannot find it, in matter of fact, I see words that indicate it is unconstitutional for the federal government in any manner to infringe upon our rights to keep (personal possession) and bear (wear/hold/carry) arms (L. arma “weapons,” lit. “tools, implements (of war)

It doesn’t really matter, if McCain and Feingold can amend the Constitutional legislatively to infringe upon my free political speech rights, the government can even absent legislation violate the Second Amendment at will and no one will protest.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 15, 2008 at 06:03 pm

Guys, you haven’t seen anything yet. Wait until about three years from now, when President Obama, with the consent of a majority liberal congress and the approval of a restored liberal Supreme Court takes on gun control.

You can drag out McCain/Feingold all you want, but John McCain is not going to nominate activist judges to the court or seek to undo the 2nd Amendment.


"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The stakes are high. Whether the issue is the economy, or energy, or the federal courts or national security, the right answers are coming not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans. The surge of operations that began a year ago is succeeding. The only way to lose this fight is to quit. Richard M. Cheney, Vice President, 30 May, 2008

pparets on February 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm

As usual, the only thing unusual about this guy was the mind altering medication that he had been put on.

ews48 on February 15, 2008 at 11:17 pm

That was a particularly desperate editorial from The New York Times.

likwidshoe on February 16, 2008 at 10:23 am
Avatar for danny

It is tragic irony but have you noticed that most of these mass killings seem to happening in “Gun Free Zones” and 20 years of a hand gun ban in DC has not reduced the violence. It is time that the we the citizens of the US realize that we are responsible to protect themselves and that the US government cannot. The government cannot protect you from a person with a meat cleaver, a baseball bat or a gun. When seconds count minutes do not matter!

Do you suppopse that the wack jobs that commit these crimes are purposely targeting our “gun free zones” because they know there will be no one there that can protect themselves?

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

danny on February 17, 2008 at 10:36 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.