That is funny. It is just as funny that the give and take (robbery) that the Republicans are doing to force their agendas through, else threaten obstruction. What is worse, the Democrats taking the threat seriously. Realy shame that the politicians won't let their good bills stand by themselves. They have to add PORK.... YES, this is what I consider pork, else I would call them LEACH programs.

Or, support the right to Arm Bears!!!

LOL!

I guess the only "good" pork is served with potatos' onions and a little bit of garlic salt!

Tha'ts pork!

Hey CHRIS HARRIS, pardon my "DISLEXIA".. I could have sworn you posted; THE RIGHT TO "BEAR ARMS"!!!!

LOL, LOL(?)!!

Michelle's right to BARE ARMS?

In case there is any confusion, my full name is Christopher Bruce Deile. Sometimes I write under my middle name...Bruce. The bear attack story refers to me by my first name Chris.
________________________________________________

Anchorage Daily News; Letters to the editor (12/16/08)

Park officials use guns, so let us

Re: “Allowing Guns In Parks Doesn’t Seem to Bother Alaskans” (Craig Medred, Dec. 6):
It’s difficult to argue for more firearms given the horrific trauma people must experience due to gun violence, but as for allowing protection against bear attacks in national parks, this is a step in the right direction.

National park officials use firearms for bear defense but have been advising the general public to use pepper spray. This latest action by the Bush administration to allow firearms in national parks is right in that if government officials have the freedom of choice in a bear attack, citizens should too.

– Chris Deile
Bellingham, Wash.

______________________________________________________________

To the Editor: 5/9/09

[Western Front newspaper; Western Washington University]

Thank you very much for publishing my letter. However, the title--"Firearms Enhance Safety" (Western Front; 5/8/09)--is misleading in that it implies support of firearms in general. But my letter only supported firearms specifically for bear attacks. People are suffering far too much from the glorification and prevalence of guns in this culture (see 1970's YouTube video by Rita Pavone "My Name is Potato"). I think we'd be much better off like Canada and Europe, only that firearms should be allowed in Banff National Park, etc.

By the way, your editing involved a misprint....the abbreviation for Alaska is AK (not "Ala."). Also, and this was partially my mistake, a sentence should have read: "Similarly, as Glacier National Park has the most bear attacks in the contiguous U.S., GNP rangers respond with firearms."

Your revision showed that Glacier has "had" the most bear attacks, and as it followed the reference to Anchorage's numerous attacks last year, it read as though I were referring only to attacks last year in Glacier instead of over the past few decades. But a pattern of attacks has been established in GNP, and education involves not only taking precautionary measures to avoid an attack, but also, contrary to popular propaganda, that pepper spray may not be enough should one occur. Firearms should be considered as the best defense (except of course in GNP, etc., where unfortunately firearms are presently illegal).

Finally, the Anchorage Daily News article, 'A Can of Spray, A Lot of Luck' (9/29/96), describes Keith Benner and I being attacked by a brown bear along the Kenai River in Alaska and pepper spray not preventing the attack from involving a face to face encounter after the bear knocked me on my butt. It can be found in a Google search of my name, or I can write the story and submit it to the Western Front as a follow up.

-- Bruce Deile

______________________________________________

Firearms enhance safety 5/8/09

In the May 5 article, 'Former Professor Working to Preserve Local Bear Population': When asked "How do you keep yourself safe while working around bears?" Chris Morgan responded that he knows bear behavior intimately and is respectful. "I don't approach them; I allow them to make the moves," Morgan said. He also mentioned bear-proof containers and pepper spray for bear safety.

It would be helpful if those doing good work for bear preservation admitted that pepper spray may not be enough to stop a charging grizzly. When Anchorage, Ala., had numerous bear attacks last year, local government wildlife officials responded with firearms, not just pepper spray. Similarly, as Glacier National Park had the most bear attacks in the contiguous U.S., rangers responded with firearms. Yet, since firearms are prohibited at the park, the general public is advised to use pepper spray.
This double standard was a big reason why George Bush enacted a federal law allowing firearms in national parks before he left office.
After Barack Obama was elected, that law was immediately ruled unconstitutional purportedly because environmental concerns were not given proper scrutiny. Practically speaking, this means the issue most likely will be shelved indefinitely as people continue to be mauled at Glacier National Park.

As difficult as it is to argue for firearms given the horrific trauma caused by gun violence, allowing firearms in national parks, specifically in this instance for bear defense, was a step in the right direction.
Remember world famous bear photographer Michio Hoshino? A grizzly killed and ate him in his tent on the Kamchtka Peninsula in Russia. And like Chris Morgan, Hoshino loved, respected and knew bears intimately. Yet his tragic death showed bears will, at times, kill indiscriminately. Hopefully, Chris Morgan will include in his talk this Friday the warning that pepper spray may not be enough to stop a charging grizzly.

Bruce Deile
Bellingham homeless resident

I think that there are certain US National Parks where it makes sense to be able to carry weapons. The vast Alaskan wilderness would be some of them. But if you all are going to try to convince me that people should be able to carry guns in Rock Creek Park in downtown DC, going by the Washingtion National Zoo. you are out of your mind. This should be left up to individual States. Come on Repubs, you always say this about other laws, what is wrong with it now. Are you in the NRAs back pocket?

There are a lot of ranches who rent pasture land from the BLM and they need to have the right to have guns to protect their livestock. It is not even remotely possible for some hiker to have to face down someone with an AK-47. That's a total exaggeration if there if ever was one.

No doubt if you were faced with a bear coming at you snarling, you'd want a gun too! I doubt hiding in a tent would do you a lot of good. People need to have the right to protect themselves from wild animals who consider them as their next meal.

Michelle's right to BARE ARMS? Well, I hate to tell you this but many foreign countries consider women who show off bare limbs as amoral and it is bad taste.

Well, the Taliban thinks that women should wear burkas, but that does not make it in bad taste or amoral. And, that also does not make the opposite attire worn in strip clubs tasteful or moral.

The only thing that would be worse is for the Republicans to try and attach this to a military funding bill and refuse to pass it unless that was part of it, oh wait, that is what the Democrats did. Or even refusing to fund the troops unless there was a withdrawl date attached to the funding. Lord knows the democrats are not in any of the lobbyists pockets.

Despite vowing to rein in spending, cut the budget deficit, and implement pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, the Democratic Congress recently voted to cast these promises aside. Rather than making the success and safety of American troops a top legislative priority, both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the Iraq war spending bill (H.R. 2642, now in conference committee to reconcile the two versions) focus on adding tens of billions of dollars in new spending unrelated to the war on terrorism. This new spending, among other things, would:

• Create a new $52 billion entitlement for veterans, which the House pays for with new taxes and the Senate does not pay for at all;
• Prevent the Department of Heath and Human Services from eliminating as much as $42 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse;
• Spend $15 billion to extend unemployment benefit eligibility up to 52 weeks even though the economy is near full employment; and
• In the Senate, add $10 billion more for programs that should be funded in the regular appropriations bills.

Amazingly, the House of Representatives also voted down the funding for the troops that was the very purpose of the Iraq war bill. In a revealing display of congressional priorities, the House defunded the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to fund $100 billion in new domestic spending. The Senate version restores this troop funding.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1953.cfm

Anna,

I would have to say there are fewer rabid animals in Alaskan national parks than what you will find in Washington D.C. I would feel safer in the great outdoors than in a Washington D.C. park unarmed!

Read these posts and you can see the low educated people who elected Odumbo. It's not that funny...

That is funny. It is just as funny that the give and take (robbery) that the Republicans are doing to force their agendas through, else threaten obstruction.

You need to know who exactly is the 'gun lobby'...its more than Pugs.

The Republicans can't stop anything, the Dems are running the show. Denying any amendments and taking no input from them and then calling them 'obstructionists' is the tactic of an 11 year old.

Not to mention that a common theme on conservative TV, radio and websites was what would happen if the Dums gained a fillibuster proof majority AND the Presidency. Anybody who can see past thier well intentioned nose knew this tactic was on the horizon.

Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn't the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said "no," adding, "I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now." Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that "Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future."

Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said "The Attorney General's recent comments about reinstating the 'assault weapons' ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms." Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, "The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens' right to keep and bear arms." Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would "oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4509

This is a quote from an article posted on the NRAs website. It is referencing the ban on assault weapons, and what do you know, they are saying that a large number of Democrats in Congress, approximately 65, are opposed to it. So before you lefties begin to start running your little pie holes about the Republicans being in the pocket of the pro-gun lobby you may want to check your own parties stats.

This means you Anna!

Deile, you say

"It’s difficult to argue for more firearms given the horrific trauma people must experience due to gun violence, but as for allowing protection against bear attacks in national parks, this is a step in the right direction.

National park officials use firearms for bear defense but have been advising the general public to use pepper spray. This latest action by the Bush administration to allow firearms in national parks is right in that if government officials have the freedom of choice in a bear attack, citizens should too."

But your argument applies even more to being able to carry firearms as a protection against criminals and illegal government acts. Both of these are responsible for far more deaths than bears, and affect far more people.

Lets do a little re-writing to make your statement more accurate.

It’s difficult to argue for fewer firearms given the horrific trauma people must experience due to criminal violence, but as for preventing protection against criminal attacks in America, this is a step in the wrong direction.

Police officials use firearms for criminal defense but have been advising the general public to use pepper spray. This latest action by the Bush administration to allow firearms in responsible hands is right in that if government officials have the freedom of choice in a criminal attack, citizens should too.

There, now it is a logical, consistent argument.

I wonder what rider was on that bill. More payraises for Congress? More handouts for the deserving? Can't believe that this Congress would support anything Bush did without something in it for themselves.

The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.

RIDICULOUS !! So, if a nutcase comes into a group of people to shoot them, do you think he will give them the time to go get their guns so they can defend themselves ??

motorcityrick. Now that's funny! And yes this is a good thing. I walk my dogs in the parks in Florida and they're are some scary places and unsavory characters in some of them. I feel I should be able to protect myself if threatened. If a nut is going to shoot you he probably isn't going to be concerned with gun rules in national parks.

Replying to "I'm Ringo" comment (#1.15):

Ringo, specifying firearms for bear attacks is not inconsistent. What's inconsistent is citing freedom and liberty and the second amendment to rationalize away children being shot to death on the streets of America.

Canada and European countries do just fine without relying on firearms for protection (except now the U.S. insanity is spilling over into Canada--gang wars, drug running, gun violence...now they'll be compelled to arm themselves to keep up with the arms race...it never ends.)

And what about homeless people? A Union Gospel Mission director gave a presentation before the Bellingham (WA) city council a few months ago. They categorized the majority of homeless people as mentally ill. With medication as the solution to this countries deliberate lack of housing (they closed the Section 8 housing list here in Bellingham August 1, 2008...it had a three year waiting list. Now you can no longer even get on that three year waiting list for housing. Meanwhile, Obama recently gave Bellingham/Whatcom County millions for homelessness. Yet I, and many others, continue to sleep on the pavement [I use public library computers]). Where did that money go? Trickle down theory applies here in the U.S. more than most other places as we have the most homelessnes of any industrialized country.

Specific point being that when "the majority" of homeless people are labeled mentally ill, that means the majority of homeless people are disqualified from owning a firearm.

The plutocrats will have access though. A little seven year old girl was shot in the head last week for stepping onto someones property in Texas. Her family was out on recreational vehicles, the children had to urinate, they stopped out in a remote area. Apaarently they didn't know they were under property owner surveillance. Shot the child in the head. Dead. In England they have public rights of way across farms, bridleways. Public footpaths that cross farmers lands. And that's worked ever so well for centuries. Here? Shoot a child in the head if they step on my property! Selfish insanity in the name of freedom and liberty.

It is inconsistent to say that firearms for defense against one predator is a good idea, while firearms for defense against a far more deadly predator is too dangerous.

"Canada and European countries do just fine without relying on firearms for protection"

Ah yes, that explains the extremely high rate of stabbings in England.....because they are doing just fine. That's what we can explain to the family members of those killed by criminals in Europe....'Don't worry, at least your sister/father/spouse/etc couldn't defend themself, that would've been REALLY bad.' Those tens of millions of civilians killed by their own governments in Europe over the past century don't seem to mind, do they?

You want to talk about selfish insanity? That is a very valid subject when we are talking about people that would take away the rights of others, just because they don't like them.

My basic human right to defend myself and my family is in no way predicated on your approval.

Canada and European countries do just fine without relying on firearms for protection

Wit a tick, Canadians love guns!

Democrats have long been for the rights of people as opposed to the wants of the state. Especially in the red states, you will see the Dems vote against the big city thugs even in their own parties on this issue, anyway.

The thing about guns in rural areas as opposed to guns in urban areas is that rural areas by and large are homogeneous societys and urban areas by and large are not. People who share values, work, churches, schools rarely kill one another. The opposite of course is why people in the cities seem to always kill one another.

It answers the often asked question, what is there about people in Laramie that makes them able to manage guns where the big shot Dem politicos in Chicago, new York, etc., don't trust their citizens with guns.

"Democrats have long been for the rights of people as opposed to the wants of the state."

You must be thinking of the Libertarians or the Constitutionalists. In the United States, the Democrats and Republicans share the crown for authoritarian government control.

You are right, Mr. Ringo. We pay these people far too much, and we allow the job to become far too attractive. Once these folk win, and move into either the Watergate or some Manse in Hoya-ville (Georgetown) , we poor saps are sunk!

Replying to "I'm Ringo" comment #1.21:

Ringo, you neatly evaded the critical point (granted, I was verbose in stating it). That is how homeless people, the majority of whom are categorized mentally ill by the ruling class, are thereby denied the right to legal gun ownership. Thus the *plutocrat* minority are the only ones able to excercise their second amendment rights. Meanwhile, children are being shot in the head for stepping onto someone's private property in Texas, etc. All so that the privileged few can enjoy their security while possessing the best arsenal. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Freedom and liberty? For who, Ringo? Besides, homeless people could never compete in a nuclear arms race. See my opinion piece--'American Roadkill'. It's found through Google search of "Bruce Diele" (a misspelling of my last name).

Freedom and liberty for everyone. What do homeless people have to do with the situation? I support their rights to purchase a firearm just as much as I support YOUR rights to purchase a firearm.

chris deile, get your facts strait about the little boy who was shot along with five other people in the suv, it was on public land along trinity river, they were driving and stopped to take a leak.

An AP news article online reported they were on private property. I'll try and find it through a search; should have kept it for reference. Nevertheless, a 7-year-old shot in the head while trying to take a leak.

Replying to "I'm Ringo" comment at #1.27:

Ringo, while you may support everyone's right to gun ownership, the reality is not everyone will have that right. Again, homeless people are increasingly being categorized as mentally ill. That disqualifies us from gun ownership.

"Ringo, while you may support everyone's right to gun ownership, the reality is not everyone will have that right. "

Everyone does have the right. That's what makes it a human right instead of a right for the rich, or the asians, or the left-handed. Human rights exist, whether a government respects those rights is a different matter. Rights advocates don't fight for the existance of a right, they already exist. Rights advocates fight to prevent the government from violating those rights.

Boy dies after Liberty County shooting

Charges against couple accused of firing at passers-by may upgrade

By PAIGE HEWITT, CINDY HORSWELL and CINDY GEORGE
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

May 9, 2009, 8:00PM

Mayra Beltran Chronicle

The four victims were shot Thursday night as they passed this house near Dayton. Despite the warnings posted in Gale and Sheila Muhs' front yard, authorities say, the road and the nearby levee are accessible to the public.

Resources

A 7-year-old boy who loved playing outdoors and riding on the back of his daddy’s Harley died Saturday morning after a Liberty County couple opened fire on him and three other alleged trespassers, Liberty County Sheriff’s Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.

“He was just a little country boy … who liked to kick off his shoes,” said Joseph Breland, a neighbor and close family friend.

Donald Coffey Jr., his father and friends were on their way back from joy riding near a levee and swimming in the Trinity River around 9 p.m. Thursday when homeowners Gale and Sheila Muhs fired at them with a 12-gauge shotgun, police say.

The Muhses, both 45, are charged with aggravated assault and are being held in the Liberty County Jail in lieu of $25,000 bail each. The couple is expected to appear in state district court in the coming week.

Authorities are considering upgrading the charge to murder or capital murder, Bishop said.

The boy, struck in the face, was among eight people, including four children, who had been on the river outing. Four people, including another child, were shot.

The boy’s 5-year-old sister, Destiny, and their father, Donald Coffey Sr., 36, were hit but have been treated by doctors and released.

The fourth shooting victim is family friend Patrick Cammack, 30, whose condition has improved since surgery. Doctors had to leave a bullet in his head, said his wife, Cindy Nelton, who was also there that night.

Nelton said the ordeal happened over two or three minutes in “pitch darkness.”

She said she was driving a sport utility vehicle with the boy’s mother, Becky Coffey. Two of the women’s children, including Destiny, were in the back.

Driving alongside them in a Jeep were Cammack, the elder Coffey, “Little Donald” and Cammack’s son.

The men stopped to use the bathroom and got out of the Jeep near the Muhses’ home in the Westlake subdivision south of Dayton when a woman’s voice boomed through the darkness, Nelton said.

In a message peppered with expletives, she said, the voice ordered the group to get their vehicles off the property.

“And then I heard a shot and our windows were blown out,” Nelton said.

Nelton, who never saw a shooter, said she immediately stomped on the gas and screamed, “We’ve got kids in this vehicle! Y’all need to stop shooting!”

A second shot, and possibly others, came in reply.

‘There was blood all over’

Nelton said she sped to safety near a bridge, unaware of the Jeep’s location.

Becky Coffey opened the door to the SUV to go look for her husband and son. When the inside light came on, a bloodied Destiny was in the back seat screaming.

“She said, ‘Mama, they shot me. Mommy, they shot me.’ There was blood all over her,” Nelton said.

Nelton rushed the girl to a nearby fire station while Becky Coffey frantically searched on foot for her other family members. The victims were taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital via air ambulance.

Meanwhile, Sheila Muhs — whose home is fronted by a sign warning: “Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will” — had called 911. Bishop said the woman told a dispatcher: “They’re running over our levee in big-wheel vehicles, and I shot them.” Officials have not released the 911 tape.

Nelton said justice, for her, is simple.

“They need to be dead,” she said of the Muhses.

On Saturday, authorities were trying to determine details, such as the visibility that night, distance between the victims and the shooters, and property lines in the rural area along the river.

“Little Donald” lived his entire life in the area, riding four-wheelers and running along the Trinity’s banks.

“You couldn’t ask for a better-spirited kid,” Breland, the neighbor, said.

Ringo wrote: "...Rights advocates fight to prevent the government from violating those rights." Prevent the government? A nuclear superpower? They make the laws. They enforce the laws. Arbitrarily. I wonder how many people are unjustly imprisoned wondering who is preventing the government from violating their rights (since, again, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate).

Maybe they should have done a little more to prevent an oppressive government. Most don't have any ground to stand on, as they voted for oppressive members of our government.

The right thing to do is still the right thing to do, whether the government approves it or not. Government said slavery was okay, it wasn't. Government said slaughtering the natives was the right thing to do, it wasn't. Government said it was best if only men could vote, it wasn't.

You seem to be under the impression that just because the government doesn't respect our rights, that it somehow magically becomes the correct thing.

keck: They were killed because the property owners believed they were trespassing on their property. So the point stands...people are shooting children in the head for *alleged* trespassing. That doesn't happen in England. They have coastal paths all along the coast. The SW coastal path of England is 600+ miles long, open to everyone. Here in the U.S. if you try and hike along the coast, CA for example, you have to dodge private property by going up on the highway amongst traffic, cars and exhaust. Ruins the experience. There it's coastal path, cliffs, and ocean day after day. You can even hike the entire coast of Britain now.

Click my name to find the story of the Texas couple who shot the seven year old boy in the head since they believed the boy and his family were trespassing on their property ("Texas boy, 7, dies after shot in mistaken trespass"). It's an MSNBC News Vine story (where you can comment), different from the article I've posted here. The one I posted here has more explicit detail; the MSNBC article has pictures of the couple who shot the child in the head with a 12-gauge. If you can't find it on my page, it should come up on a search of its title.

chris, thank you for your clarification. i work with someone who has a son in cub scouts with him, his funeral was last wednsday. the people who shot the suv, and killed donald, had a sign in their yard "tresspasers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" , they are killers, they took turn shooting at the parked suv, so they dont know which one had killed don jr.

no one in england has guns , not even the bobbies.

the park service actually has signs up in the southwest stating enter at your own risk due to illegal immigrants traveling through the area. more dangerous thatn bears. also more people killed by drunk drivers each year than firearm violence. the only reason the libs want gun control is to prevent a popular uprising against an over zealous socialist government. that was the reason the founding fathers write the second amendment, to pur some reigns on overly intrusive big government

That's probably Big Bend National Park, buffalo boob (ha ha--just teasing about your name--couldn't resist). The reason for people killed from drunken driving is due to not having stricter drunken driving laws. The alcohol industry won't allow it. So every day people are killed unnecessarily. In Arabia, they cut off the hand of those caught drunken driving. Guess what? They don't have a problem with drunken driving deaths. Too extreme? Consider automobile decapitations and horrifically burned survivors from victims of drunken drivers. I once asked a woman handing out MADD pamphlets in a strip mall why we don't have stricter drunk driving laws. She blamed the government (or lack thereof).

Granted, while cutting off hands may be going too far, the point is with effective enough laws acting as deterrents, the government could implement a no tolerance policy for drunken driving. But they won't, for the same reason they allow automobiles--weapons of mass destruction--to rule the universe. "Put some reigns on an overly intrusive government"? What arsenal or militia will reign in a nuclear superpower?

Btw, from article above:

"When the inside light came on, a bloodied Destiny was in the back seat screaming."

"bloodied Destiny". A person couldn't come up with that if they tried.

In the end, when the state, on the brink of ruin, can maintain itself only in an empty and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in every heart, when the meanest interest impudently flaunts the sacred name of the public good, then the general will is sileneced: everyone, animated by secret motives, ceases to speak as a citizen any more than as if the state had never existed: and people enact in the guise of laws iniquitous decrees which have private interests as their only end.

- Jean-Jaques Rousseau

Bigazonie,

Yes, I agree that it's important to have the ability to defend yourself at all times. Even more so when you're ederly. I'll be impressed when I'm able to walk into a Gun Store and walk out with a handgun no matter if it's my home state or not. I don't think the second amendment was meant to have state border restrictions. I used to sign out M-60 Machine Guns, M-16s and Armored Personnel Carriers as a soldier and as a civilian with an Honorable Discharge and CCW, I can't walk out of a Gun Store (outside of my home state) with a handgun. The only thing that has changed is my clothes. The Feds can kiss my *ss.

Bigazonie, you have it correct. Those of us who have taken the trouble to get a concealed carry permit understand and honor our responsibility to act lawfully and peacefully. There is no disparity between public safety and concealed carry. I just wrote my representative (Gabrielle Giffords D-AZ) again on this issue and I think she is enough of an Arizonan to understand the issue and vote favorably on second amendment issues. Unfortunately, Mr Grijalva is in the neighboring congressional district and seems to be ignoring the facts as he makes his irresponsible comments regarding public safety. I can't believe he is representing his district on this issue.

Grijalva has described current immigration laws as "cruel" and "unjust."^[2] He supports legalization for illegal aliens already present in the country, as well as increasing legal immigration.^[2] He voted against H.R. 4437 and against the Secure Fence Act. He opposed Arizona Proposition 200 in 2004, and he does not support a National Guard presence on the border.

This is why Mr. Grijalva does not want guns in Arizona National parks since the parks (located in his district) are used by Illegal Immigrants to move across the border without the additional fear for their safety from some hiker/camper toting a gun.

With that said, I am sure glad that Coyotes and the Drug Smugglers never carry weapons themselves and prefer to talk things out in a civilized manner.

I absolutely hate it when someone's ulterior motive is so transparent.

Finally, some common sense gun legislation? The Brady Bunch's comment about getting stared down by AK-47's on a nature hike is ,as usual, total nonsense. They would disarm the law abiding citizenry to further their agenda. Take guns from criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

bigazonie. Great post. I think most people against it just haven't grown up being taught how to responsibly handle firearms, so they have this slightly irrational fear of guns (or biased idea of how a gun owner looks and acts). Surprisingly, we are not all barefoot, toothless hillbillies feuding with our neighbors down in the hollow. Or drug crazed killers on a rampage. Some of us are responsible Americans that simply want to be able to protect ourselves.

Sad to say but the rangers will venture outside the law and bust your b***s on this. Some police chiefs have already gone public on the right to carry, by pointedly telling their officers to put on the ground anyone these officers see with a gun, regardless of the law. Some badged individuals don't like situations where they feel they are out of the loop.

Around here (North Jersey) NPS service rangers patrol an area called the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area. Due to some vagary of history, hunting is allowed in this area. The rangers bring their own prejudices to work with them and make it as difficult as possible for the hunter. It is amazing to drive NY Route 97 and see huge billboards on the slivers of private property inside this area begging, "NPS Get Out of Town".

In 2002, my wife and I approached Yellowstone NP from Cody, WY. Lo and behold, a mandatory NPS bear education stop came into view. We stopped, of course, and the resident ranger went through her dog and pony show, and told us we'd be some sort of federal felons if we allowed the distance between us and a bear to get less than 100 or 50 or some arbitrary number of yards, feet, meters, whatever. I asked her how, if some bear came within Leavenworth distance, could I remove myself from this ecological bulls-eye. She then whipped out her handy spray can of cayenne pepper, and said "These pepper sprays make the bear turn tail 90% of the time!" Pointedly looking at her sidearm, I retorted, "Are you telling me that 10% of the bears just keep coming when you spray them?" She became officious and frosty after that, and wifey and I bid her adieu.

Proctologist, including your rather "compulsive" newsvine name, you are one that I would be afraid to run into in Rock Creek Park, gun or no gun. People bring their children to that park and loonies like you want to run around looking for boogy man to shoot? Do you know how far a stray bullet can travel in the woods?

I am more afraid of the two-legged kind of wild animal that a bear. I, too, have taken armed weapons into a park when I camped, just in case. I wouldn't shoot an animal unless it was to defend my life. But I have been in situations as a woman, camping alone with my dog, when it made me nervous to camp near a bunch of drunken hunters that loudly talk about 'going to town to get us some wimmen". Several times, I got in my car and left for the hotel.

I hope that some trigger-happy poachers don't feel that they can take advantage of the wide open spaces and the ability to carry arms to collect one haunch of a deer, or shoot a few chipmunks for fun. It seems to be the desire of a few hunters to prove their prowess by breaking laws that exist to protect and manage our wildlife resource.

So, while I know that I won't harm the wildlife or disturb others, it worries me that other people will-- and that it won't be safe to enjoy our park system for fear of being harmed by some trigger-happy nutso. Perhaps individual parks could require a special permit to carry a weapon into the park, so they can keep up with them.

Anna you typify the confused Brady Bunch Liberal position. This bill will not allow guns in a park in Washington D.C., though it damn well should. D.C. has scarier animals than most zoo's. I would label D.C. as one big wildlife preserve or jungle. This bill only aligns state law with local parks. Since D.C. has such draconian gun laws that do absolutely nothing to curb crime in that P.O.S. city this changes nothing. This bill will however have a huge impact in our many "FREE" states in America. Stop falling for the Brady propaganda that they spew 24/7.

As for the Brady Bunch anti-gun groups; BOOYAH!!! Your Liberal Anti-gun agenda will continue to fail. The 2010 elections will make it even worse for you.

It's nice to win this one, but I'm with DisabledVeteran on the amendments to bills. Think of how many other things have been passed this way - many of them useless and expensive pork projects that passed because fighting them off would have killed an important bill.

Like ever other bill they pass they put stuff in it that they think will fail if brought up alone so they bundle them. Probably figured Obama would veto it. Well, if he line-item vetos it he will definitely be hearing about it from the taxpayers.

Wasn't it Montana that told the Government to go jump with their restrictions on gun purchases? Was one of the western states. Told they did not have those laws and they weren't doing it.

I find it ironic that people are complaining about an add on from a republican that won't cost the taxpayer one cent but they never complained when Bush signed bills providing money to fund our troops that were inflated 20-25% buy the democrats with pork add ons. The only way bush could get them to sign the funding bills was to let the dems stick whatever they wanted into those bills.

Teu and Vet, you are right. Finally some commen sense gun legislation, but what does it have to do with credit cards. That is how many bills get passed, by the pork attached. Wonderful system.

Last----There is no such thing as a line item veto. That was trying to be pushed through when Billy Bob Oval office oral adventures was running the country. It did not pass.

They'll probably modify it by stating you have to keep the ammo separate from the firearm. It still doesn't make much sense to require an individual with a CCW to keep the firearm separate from the ammo when traveling the interstate.

Because "Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke.

Paul Helmke's mom still changes his diapers. He really showed his immaturity and undeveloped mind with that statement.

JWallace, that was almost the exact post I intended about Mr. Helmke's quote.

How absurd to make a comment like that to try and stir negative sentiment by bantering about AK-47s instead of really talking about concealable weapons.

What a weak attempt to scare people. He it truly pathetic.

The Brady Campaign is basically full of @!$%#. I seriously doubt it's possible to carry an AK-47 concealed. Maybe Rosie O'Donnell could do it, if she hid it in her butt crack, but other than that? Nah.

I have always carried a .45 automatic with me in National Parks. No-one knows when a Commie or atheist might be coming down the trail. You need the holy power of JESUS in the form of a firearm to send the Godless down to hell.

Death and blood to those who would attempt to destroy our Constitutional rights against the demons of hell who wish to eat our flesh! We have the right to bear arms in the name of peace and love and the holy love of JESUS! I am NOT crazy,. I have a Constitutional right to protect myself against the evil bears and Commies who would kill me.

I always keep my gun at the ready in a park because one false move and I will make you die you evil monkey of Satan! You lover of evil and death shall eat the holy lead of God!

They said I was crazy! I am NOT CRAZY!!!!

I like carrots.

Stop Me, Good Choice of Weapons.

StoneCold-363654

The Brady Campaign is basically full of @!$%#. I seriously doubt it's possible to carry an AK-47 concealed. Maybe Rosie O'Donnell could do it, if she hid it in her butt crack, but other than that? Nah.

So we meet again... This time you made me spit soda on my keyboard, too funny... ;)

And... by the way, there was a discussion somewhere, forget where, where someone actually did "try" to hide an AKM in their pants. Didn't work, go figure...

Have fun

John

I love you Terry. It makes my bum hurt but I love you so much.

Give me your carrots again.

I like carrots.

No concealed carrots in National Parks (but a potato gun is o.k.)

I have yet to hear a logical arguement for carrying concealed weapons... including yours. I believe that people have the right to own guns. I don't believe that there is a need to hide, opps sorry, conceal them. People already had the right to carry arms... they just had to be visable. Lets say a criminal, or in this case a bear, is trying to decide which of two people to rob. A guy with his gun visible in a holster or a guy who does not have a visible weapon. Hmm, 100% chance of getting shot at vs. a 50/50 chance of getting shot at. You dont have to be an accountant to figure which is the best choice for the robber. Or lets say its a bear, who is like likely to get eaten... the guy with his gun readily available in a visible holster on his hip or the guy fumbling to get his pants leg pulled up or his shirt and jacket out of the way of his concealed firearm?

Dateline did a special on a convience store in the heart of LA, CA where the clerk kept a pistol visible in his waist band at all times that had never been robbed. Again, if your a robber and there is a store with a 100% chance of the clerk having a gun or a store with a 50/50 chance the clerk might have a gun hidden behind the counter, who do you rob?

Todd, you do make a good point. I carry openly for exactly the reason you mentioned. But sometimes people get itchy if they see someone carrying openly. Not that I care.

The reason for concealed weapons permits, isn't because we want to be allowed to carry guns, my state has an open carry policy, it is just illegal to carry a gun and keep a low profile. I wouldn't be allowed to open carry at my office, but I conceal carry and no one is the wiser, no harrasment from my 'open minded' coworkers, no fears of me losing my job, but I still have the security of knowing I can defend myself.

You are castin pearls before swine my friend..

I always keep my gun hidden in case I see a Commie. I don't want them to get me first because they know I am a freedom loving American.

I surprise them by shooting them before they know what is happening. It is so funny to see the look on the face of those Commies like that 10 year olm girl yesterday. I know she was a Commie because she had a pink backpack. But I got her first.

I am the avenging angel of God. I believe in love and peace an Jesus the Prince of Peace and killing Commies.

Persimmons are evil but carrots are good.

I like carrots.

You are truthfullness in what you say!!!!! Arrr Murphy!]]

The problum is to keep those cary ffooklers fro having the guns tyhat us normal peoples must have!!!

I love you Arrr Murphy.

Kiss my hymen and make me a goat.

I l.ike carrots.

Tood-kicks

1. If not concealed some one will steal it
2. I might not have enough carrots for that odd dude.
3. Some blue state morons might soil themselves if they see it.

Well, the outcome depends on how much you're committed to protecting your right to bear arms. You could be carried by six and bypass the trial. ;)

Jesus said, "Kill them before they kill you."

It's in the Bible.

Carrots are orange.

Bugs Bunny eats carrots. Wait a minute. Bugs Bunny's fur is pink. This "stop me" guy is a commie. GET 'EM!

Bug's is grey. Energizer's is pink. Don't shoot.

I'll bet Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign walks by numerous law abiding citizens who carry their weapons concealed any he doesn't even know it. However, if they were to expose their firearm he would faint.

JWallace... my guess was Ms. Helmke would wet his little, girlie underwear in the scenario you present......LOL

I kill anyone I see in a park.

They might be a criminal.

Better safe than sorry.

He's a commie. GET 'EM, GET 'EM (see earlier post). Thank you for your time.

Tourism has fallen in Nevada.

Now that gambling is everywhere why would anyone go to Nevada for a vacation?

Those legislators who oppose guns are the ones whose sons, uncles, fathers are most likely to be shot by a solid citizen when the politician's relatives are out robbing, raping, stealing, doing drugs and other evil things.

Seems to me the CC bill is flawed if it allows the CC companies to screw the honest folks because in their greed and stupidity, the CC companies gave CCs to deadbeats

first off, a law abiding citizen is not likely to do what you picture.

secondly, what laws do criminals follow? you think they'll see a law and think to themselves "oh, its illegal to own a firearm let alone carry one into a national park. i better get rid of this because its illegal for me to have it."

this law will simply allow honest law abiding citizens to do what criminals have been able to do all along.

race: Although Alaska historically has a very high rate of alcoholism/domestic violence/rapes, their allowing firearms in state parks (and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park) has worked quite well.

race, I agree with your comment that "This law will last for as long as it takes for some evil sh1t to blow away a park ranger or a family of vacationers with a concealed weapon in a place like Yellowstone." What you fail to understand is that this will result in this law being in effect for a very long time.

Prior to passing this bill, "National Park Service officers were 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents".

We will start seeing the crime rate decline in National Parks.

I dont think this is a conservative thing, full disclosure I am a conservative, I think its the traditional self determinination that is prevelant in American society. There is a rift in American society over what our goverment is doing during this bailout, and I think loosing, or having more common sense, firearm policies is a way to appease Americans that are worried that there will be a noose around their necks in the future.

A loaded handgun won't do much against a grizzly...except maybe make him more angry... if it's Yogi or Booboo, then you might try a picnic basket...

Billy,

Really? When I hike in the wilderness, I don't carry a .38 special. I carry a .44 magnum or bigger. Believe me, the grizzly will go down. Get it right.

Sorry...Dirty Harry... I usually keep my phaser on stun.

Billy,

I guess you have nothing substantive to say to back up your argument.

What exactly are we arguing about?...

Mitchell - you mean you wouldn't call 911 and wait passively for help to arrive? Shame on you.

Methinks a phaser > than a .44 Though I prefer a lightsaber as it is not as brutish or clumsy as a blaster pistol.

Get them before they get you! They look like boy scouts but they are the evil spawn o Satan who will eat your testicles.

Jesus said, "kill them lest they kill you."

I buried them slavering in the park with their teeth and cackling heads beneath their horrid feet and bloody lips but they still sing in my head. Stop them! Stop the voices!!! The evil boys hate me with their anuses. God loves me .

Thank God I have my gun.

Pickles are so good. I like pickles.

Do you like pickles too?

Stop Me... Congratulations you are undoubtedly the wierdest MF I have ever encountered in any format, and trust me that is way off the end of the wierdometer scale. You rank right up there with the friend who's goal in life is to get himself completely tatooed and upon his death leave his skin to his son for use as a lampshade.

I prefer the 88mm dual purpose cannon, myself.

tell me, the old saying "ignorance is bliss", is it true?

Daihtio what are you smoking man. That was one pathetic post that made no sense!!!!

To anti-trust proponent. you should just shut up. If you won`t go to a state or park where we can carry concealed pistols you don`t travel much or very far since there are about 40 states where ccw is legal. Another thing, what good is a gun if it`s not loaded and locked. If you don`t like guns then you should move to a country where guns have been taken away. You have a much higher chance of being shot in a country like that. I hope I never have to take my gun out the holster,but if I have a need it will have a full clip and no lock. There is one thing for sure, a criminal is not going to give you time to remove your lock and get loaded.

Yea, more campsites!!!!

Anti-Trust,

Concealed Carry Permits were designed to make people like you feel safe. Out of sight, out of mind. Firearm sales also kept the economy going in a positive direction. I have no problem with people purchasing numerous firearms because they find something appealing in each one. How many pairs of shoes do you own?

I would rather be camped by you, with my firearm with me.

"Lets get back to harshly punishing criminals. You know, the ones that murder, rape and steal. Round them up, kill them all?"...if we did that then who would be left in Washington to run the government?

Hey Billy, I get it. Perhaps honest citizens. From what I have seen, polititions in many ways are criminals. Just what exactly is it that they produce?

Politicians are the largest source of harmful emissions on the planet...

Politicians produce Lies... and place Blame on others when caught ....

Thomas Jefferson Quote: Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

Given the fact that the Second Amendment unambiguously prohibits any interference - "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Why did our government have to vote on a bill that allows American Citizens to carry concealed in National Parks? I would suggest this is clear evidence that our government has become opressive and has violated our 2nd amendment right.

Any politician that has voted in favor of banning firearms of any kind doesn't recognize the second amendment and therefore shouldn't be representing the United States Citizens. Obama studied Consitutional Law and has supported anti-gun laws. That's worse than someone that is ignorant on the subject. Obama will not be a 2-term president. I'd like to see Mike Huckabee serve as the US President.

JWallace, they should not have to vote on a law concerning the 2nd Amendment, but the anti gun sector, seeing they cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment, are trying to legislate it out of existance. In other words, if you can't beat it, just keep making laws till it is so watered down as to disappear.

Hey truthfinder3. I just wish for once that people like you could could propose a real solution for todays problems without trying to name and blame people by name. Come on, I challange you to step foreward. Provide us with some solutions.

to hell with our children just give me another dollar!!!

truth,

If the liberals truly care about their children, they wouldn't support deficit spending by the trillions whether by a Republican or Democrat president. Now, you want to stick it to your children again with free heathcare for 75 million aging boomers.

hear hear from a fellow seattleite

MikeB-----You don't even have to leave the populated area to have problems in Alaska. Anchorage has bears roming the streets of downtown now. Simply put I would never leave the house without protection up there.