Apparently in the minds of the Globe editors, allowing trained citizens to carry concealed weapons onto the "pristine" acres of national parks constitutes not only a transformation of "these peaceful places" into war zones, but also amounts to the NRA "gun[ning] down democracy."
There's not a whit of truth to the argument.
In the first place, the parks aren't "pristine". They have ranger stations and trails running through them, and millions of people routinely visit. If they were really pristine, nobody would know what they looked like.
Second, they're hardly the definition of "peaceful". Not only are they the sites where the struggle of life against death races furiously without timeouts or ceasefires (just what do you think wolves, bears, and coyotes do with the antelope? Play polo?), but they are also favorite places for (*ahem*) "farmers" to carry their weapons around.
Third, the NRA is a legitimate "interest group," which may be likened to any of the Left's favorites--the NAACP or the ACLU--and which uses "collective bargaining" (sound familiar? Labor Unions are all over that one) with the government for policy ends. The NRA, far from the evil anti-American institution it is made to seem, speaks for thousands upon thousands of law-abiding and "peaceful" gun owners throughout the United States. In the give-and-take of policy, then, it constitutes one of the elements of democracy itself.
But get a load of this little gem:
Allowing such weapons in national parks was one of the most thoughtless of President Bush's outgoing midnight rules, which took effect in January. Happily, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last week issued a preliminary injunction, saying the rule was conjured up in an "astoundingly flawed process." Responding to a suit by gun-control and park advocates, the judge said the Bush administration made no effort to assess possible environmental impacts of people packing heat in these peaceful places. [emphasis added]
You've got to be kidding me. Environmental impacts of people carrying concealed weapons?!? Okay, this is just plain silly. People carrying concealed weapons have permits that can be revoked if they abuse the privileges afforded by them. An environmental concern would be appropriate if Dubya had ordered that national parks become target ranges (which are known for their large quantities of lead and brass added to the soil content), but he didn't do that. Concealed weapons cause no more environmental damage than the presence of people in parks causes already. In fact, it might have a net-positive effect, making national parks a place where thugs, rapists and murderers will have to be on notice, even out in the middle of a "pristine" wilderness.
I have an idea: why don't we try to make American liberties "pristine". It would be a nice change.
Email Me
