.JPG){kind=small}
Gun Rules May Be Eased in U.S. Parks
Jean Biergarten
Washington Pest
Visitors to some national parks would be able to start packing heat along with their tents and picnic baskets under a proposal being considered by the Interior Department that would ease restrictions on loaded firearms in the parks.
[The] action comes in response to two recent letters from 51 senators -- 44 Republicans and seven Democrats -- requesting that the National Park Service align its gun rules with state laws. If a state permits citizens to carry concealed weapons, the national parks in that state should, too, they argued.
"These inconsistencies in firearms regulations for public lands are confusing, burdensome and unnecessary," wrote the lawmakers, led by Sens. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.). ". . . Such regulatory changes would respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, while providing a consistent application of state weapons laws across all land ownership boundaries."
Hmmm… it sounded like there was more to the story, so I contacted a straight shooting authority, the has-been actor, Snarlton Peston. He told me that this was only the first step in a well-thought out process to fully implement the Second Armament.
SP: As you know, Jean, the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.
JB: I thought it was the right to wear short sleeves (“bare arms”)….
SP: Idiot! Go back and read the Second Armament to the Constipation.
JB: ???
SP: You know I’m an advocate of states’ rights.
JB: I figured that.
SP: But that’s only a start. I am very logical, so I extend states’ rights to local rights.
JB: What do you mean?
SP: Shoot, man! A county or township or other jurisdiction could have its own rules and regulations. I want the NPS to be consistent with those. In other words, if the local government allows you to carry a gun, the federal government has no business restricting that right.
JB: But wouldn’t that be a nightmare to enforce?
SP: Exactly!
JB: ?????
SP: Told you I’m logical. So I want all federal agencies to be consistent with each other.
JB: What? Are you smoking something illegal?
SP: If I smoke it, it can’t be illegal. Anyway, what I was saying – what was I saying?
JB: You fantasize that all federal agencies become consistent…
SP: Hey! Don’t say fantasize! Nothing wrong with my size, and I think only wholesome, family values type of thoughts – like shooting.
JB: ????
SP: So, all federal agencies should consistently allow you to carry a gun if the local government does.
JB: Have you run this past the DHS?
SP: If they try to run past me, I’ll shoot them.
JB: I mean, do you really expect to carry a concealed gun into every federal building in Virginia, for example?
SP: Why not? The constipation gives me that right.
JB: I see.
SP: Because I’m logical, I don’t stop at the county level; I would allow every zip code, may be every homeowner’s association, every street or every block, to enact its own gun control regulations; and require every federal agency to abide by those regulations.
JB: Don’t you think this would undermine national security?
SP: How? If we’re armed, we would be able to shoot all democrats – I mean, terrorists. Well, that’s it, Jean – I have to go to the shooting range now. Would you care to come along and hold a target for me?
JB: Normally, yes, Mr. Peston, but today I have a root canal scheduled.
Jean Biergarten can be reached at biergarten@pestwash.com
Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Control. Show all posts
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Second Armament
Second Armament
Noted conservative commentator, Mean Mannity, visited our offices recently and spoke with your correspondent, Edwin Oldman. A transcript follows:
EO: Welcome, Mr. Mannity.
MM: Good to be here, Edwin.
EO: You look pensive, Mr. Mannity. Something on your mind today?
MM: Yeah. I can’t get over the editorial in the Washington Post today. It just goes to show that Liberals are unfit to write editorials.
EO: Which one, Mr. Mannity? Guantanamo, the HUD Secretary, or the Virginia Tech follow-up?
MM: The last one, of course. Democracks are crying wolf about mentally unstable people buying guns at gun shows. Can you believe it?
EO: Well, sure. Liberals tend to say things like that.
MM: But, I mean, really! Guns are not allowed on the Virginia Tech campus; that didn’t stop the killer. Do they think more useless regulation would have stopped him from buying a gun illegally, bringing it on campus illegally and killing people, also illegally?
EO: Yes, but – would you abolish all traffic regulation because people break speed limits and run red lights?
MM: You’re missing my point, Edwin. Regulation is not the way to regulate the conduct of people who don’t obey regulations. No matter what you regulate, the perpetrators will continue to perpetrate their perpetrations.
EO: So, how would you attack the problem?
MM: That’s the spirit.
EO: Huh?
MM: You need to attack the problem. Just think, if all the students at Virginia Tech, or NIU, had been armed, they could have killed a shooter as soon as he opened fire on one of them. That would have limited the killing to no more than two.
EO: You want to arm all students?
MM: Exactly! That is the free market approach to solving the problem of campus violence. It keeps the government out of our lives and lets the market allocate the deaths the most efficient way.
EO: Really!
MM: In the same way, if the TSA arms all passengers as they pass through security –
EO: What!
MM: Kindly don’t interpret me. As I was saying, if only the TSA had the intelligence to arm all passengers before they board the air craft, we won’t need air marshals.
EO: Why not?
MM: How can anyone hijack an airplane full of armed passengers? Unless they can all agree on a destination? Unlikely.
EO: Hmmm…But what about jihadis – you know, suicide hijackers, like suicide bombers? They don’t care if they die, as long as they kill the rest of us.
MM: Oh, Edwin – don’t you see that is a self-correcting problem, with built-in negative feedback? Sooner or later, all suicide attackers will have committed suicide.
EO: But how many people will die in the meantime?
MM: So? You want to bring in Big Government? You sound like a Democrack. Let me assure you, the American people don’t want that.
EO: Oh, you have heard from the American people on this issue?
MM: Sure, I have heard from Lush Dimbaugh, Ann Falter, Snarlton Peston and many others, including Dick “Chuck Yourself” Feney. Well, Edwin, I’m afraid I have to move on. This has been a pleasure but I need to attend a meeting of the local chapter of Noxious Rebellious Assassins.
Noted conservative commentator, Mean Mannity, visited our offices recently and spoke with your correspondent, Edwin Oldman. A transcript follows:
EO: Welcome, Mr. Mannity.
MM: Good to be here, Edwin.
EO: You look pensive, Mr. Mannity. Something on your mind today?
MM: Yeah. I can’t get over the editorial in the Washington Post today. It just goes to show that Liberals are unfit to write editorials.
EO: Which one, Mr. Mannity? Guantanamo, the HUD Secretary, or the Virginia Tech follow-up?
MM: The last one, of course. Democracks are crying wolf about mentally unstable people buying guns at gun shows. Can you believe it?
EO: Well, sure. Liberals tend to say things like that.
MM: But, I mean, really! Guns are not allowed on the Virginia Tech campus; that didn’t stop the killer. Do they think more useless regulation would have stopped him from buying a gun illegally, bringing it on campus illegally and killing people, also illegally?
EO: Yes, but – would you abolish all traffic regulation because people break speed limits and run red lights?
MM: You’re missing my point, Edwin. Regulation is not the way to regulate the conduct of people who don’t obey regulations. No matter what you regulate, the perpetrators will continue to perpetrate their perpetrations.
EO: So, how would you attack the problem?
MM: That’s the spirit.
EO: Huh?
MM: You need to attack the problem. Just think, if all the students at Virginia Tech, or NIU, had been armed, they could have killed a shooter as soon as he opened fire on one of them. That would have limited the killing to no more than two.
EO: You want to arm all students?
MM: Exactly! That is the free market approach to solving the problem of campus violence. It keeps the government out of our lives and lets the market allocate the deaths the most efficient way.
EO: Really!
MM: In the same way, if the TSA arms all passengers as they pass through security –
EO: What!
MM: Kindly don’t interpret me. As I was saying, if only the TSA had the intelligence to arm all passengers before they board the air craft, we won’t need air marshals.
EO: Why not?
MM: How can anyone hijack an airplane full of armed passengers? Unless they can all agree on a destination? Unlikely.
EO: Hmmm…But what about jihadis – you know, suicide hijackers, like suicide bombers? They don’t care if they die, as long as they kill the rest of us.
MM: Oh, Edwin – don’t you see that is a self-correcting problem, with built-in negative feedback? Sooner or later, all suicide attackers will have committed suicide.
EO: But how many people will die in the meantime?
MM: So? You want to bring in Big Government? You sound like a Democrack. Let me assure you, the American people don’t want that.
EO: Oh, you have heard from the American people on this issue?
MM: Sure, I have heard from Lush Dimbaugh, Ann Falter, Snarlton Peston and many others, including Dick “Chuck Yourself” Feney. Well, Edwin, I’m afraid I have to move on. This has been a pleasure but I need to attend a meeting of the local chapter of Noxious Rebellious Assassins.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Well, shoot!
"Gun-control advocates, including survivors of the April 16 shooting rampage that took the lives of 32 victims at Virginia Tech, poured into a Senate committee meeting to support a bill that would require background checks for all gun-show sales. They then staged a "lie-in," lying on their backs outside the Capitol to draw attention to gun deaths in Virginia last year." - Washington Post, January 22, 2008.
Eric Severehead, spokesman for the Plato Institute, dismissed the significance of the event. "This is nothing new," he pointed out. "People have been lying inside and outside the Capitol for decades now, may be centuries."
Barflick Loosecannon, the conservative columnist, took issue with the liars - er, the lie-in'ers. "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people," he asserted. "All these gun-control advocates would be better off advocating bullet-control."
Your reporter inquired why bullet-control would be more effective than gun-control. Loose cannon replied testily, "Try filling out a background check for every round of ammunition and you'll see."
Jeff Sniper, of the Wacko Institute, weighed in with, "They have more than enough laws on the books, if only they choose to enforce them. We don't need more laws! A good starting place would be with tightening immigration, to keep out all people who have, or are likely to give birth to people with, mental illness."
Shayne Lemorte of the Noxious Rural Assassins emphatically rejected the protesters' demands for background checks at gun shows. "We need more guns, not fewer," he explained. "If Virginia Tech had imposed mandatory gun ownership on all students, Cho would have been shot dead long before he killed 32 of his fell0w students. Archie Bunker taught us a long time that the best way to prevent a hijacking was to arm all the passengers. Just imagine, we could have averted the 9/11 tragedy if the passengers had had a shootout with the hijackers!"
Andrew Moss, a historian, told the protesters there had never been a Scond Amendment right to gun ownership. "It was all a spelling error. Remember, the Philadelphia Convention did not have the benefit of air conditioning. All the Founding Fathers wanted was the freedom to wear short sleeve shirts -- i.e., the right to bare arms."
Eric Severehead, spokesman for the Plato Institute, dismissed the significance of the event. "This is nothing new," he pointed out. "People have been lying inside and outside the Capitol for decades now, may be centuries."
Barflick Loosecannon, the conservative columnist, took issue with the liars - er, the lie-in'ers. "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people," he asserted. "All these gun-control advocates would be better off advocating bullet-control."
Your reporter inquired why bullet-control would be more effective than gun-control. Loose cannon replied testily, "Try filling out a background check for every round of ammunition and you'll see."
Jeff Sniper, of the Wacko Institute, weighed in with, "They have more than enough laws on the books, if only they choose to enforce them. We don't need more laws! A good starting place would be with tightening immigration, to keep out all people who have, or are likely to give birth to people with, mental illness."
Shayne Lemorte of the Noxious Rural Assassins emphatically rejected the protesters' demands for background checks at gun shows. "We need more guns, not fewer," he explained. "If Virginia Tech had imposed mandatory gun ownership on all students, Cho would have been shot dead long before he killed 32 of his fell0w students. Archie Bunker taught us a long time that the best way to prevent a hijacking was to arm all the passengers. Just imagine, we could have averted the 9/11 tragedy if the passengers had had a shootout with the hijackers!"
Andrew Moss, a historian, told the protesters there had never been a Scond Amendment right to gun ownership. "It was all a spelling error. Remember, the Philadelphia Convention did not have the benefit of air conditioning. All the Founding Fathers wanted was the freedom to wear short sleeve shirts -- i.e., the right to bare arms."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
