Archive for Friday, January 18, 2008

Guns in parks

Some senators are petitioning President Bush to get firearms laws changed.

January 18, 2008


Why would anyone want guns for personal activities in public parks? Prior to 1983, the National Park Service had problems with tourists carrying firearms on public land to stalk and destroy wildlife or engage in target practice. Appropriately, laws were passed putting limits on gun-owners who choose to have their weapons in the parks or in wildlife refuges.

At present, guns cannot be readily accessible. Firearms must be unloaded and locked in a case or in the trunk of the vehicle being used by the gun owner.

A recent Associated Press article, however, notes that members of the U.S. Senate are trying to get those laws changed. Forty-seven senators, including both of those from Kansas, have signed a letter asking President Bush to repeal the restrictions of firearms and allow tourists to carry guns pretty much as they wish.

The letter to Bush says the rules "infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms on or across these lands."

Jerry Case, chief of regulations and special park uses for the National Park Service, told the AP that the current rules were developed to ensure public safety and protect park wildlife. Before the rules were adopted, he said, "people would go out and shoot wildlife in national parks," including bears, wolves and other animals.

Given that seeing large animals in their natural habitat is a primary attraction for visitors to the national parks, not to mention the illegality of such shootings, it seems clear why the current policy was put in place.

Case added that national parks have a lower crime rate than many similar-sized communities and that with the large campsites that are a part of many national parks, "If you have people start plinking around with weapons, then you have accidents."

We support the Second Amendment, but one has to question the thinking of senators involved in this effort. What possible justification is there to endanger both wildlife and humans so that people can brandish guns in national parks?

The senators who signed this letter should explain a bit more about why they are so eager to ease these gun restrictions before the president even considers their request.


50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

Because of the lack of sufficient Park Rangers to cover the vast areas of our National Parks they are becoming dangerous to visitors that can no longer be protected from violence. Read the article link above for the complete story. When Rangers can no longer provide adequate protection from thieves and murderers it is time for self protection. That is the reason some Senators want to change the current "NO Guns Laws".

ImTooOldForThis 10 years, 4 months ago

Gun owners are paranoid idiots. End. Of. Story.

Thank you and goodnight.

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

To the Editor: You have missed the point of the proposed law change about guns in National Parks. They don't want to change the law for plinkers and target practice. Wildlife will not be sniped either. The change is for "Personal Safety" of visitors. Please read the following article in full by the NRA published in Guns and Ammo Magazine. It defined what the intent is for changing the law. ( )

After you have read this completely I will expect you to run a follow up commentary to describe the real problem about our parks

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

"Case added that national parks have a lower crime rate than many similar-sized communities and that with the large campsites that are a part of many national parks, "If you have people start plinking around with weapons, then you have accidents."

The Law change is about personal protection and has absolutely nothing to do with "Plinking around with weapons" This editorial is only to "stir the pot" for Journal World readers.

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

ImTooOldForThis, evidently you are too old to read the facts. Enjoy your nap.

deputyfife 10 years, 4 months ago

Not all gun owners are idiots, just the ones that think they need one for safety.

Never know when one of those terrorist squirrels will attack your campsite....

I always keep my bullet in my pocket so it doesn't accidentally go off.

Flap Doodle 10 years, 4 months ago

"LOS ANGELES - A former Los Angeles gang member who founded an anti-violence group called No Guns has pleaded no contest to federal weapons charges. Hector (Big Weasel) Marroquin, 51, and co-defendant Sylvia Arrellano, 25, entered pleas Thursday for three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon. Arrellano also pleaded no contest to machine-gun conversion and possessing a silencer and acknowledged the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang."

timetospeakup 10 years, 4 months ago

deputyfife - it's not about terrorist squirrels, it's about people that are already, illegally, committing violence in national parks. It happens. Myself once a few years back witnessed someone hold up a car with a gun in a national park. Clearly they weren't following the law, "no guns" only affects people that were following the law, not these thugs. Allowing law abiding citizens access to the same guns they can have outside the park means they don't have to become victims just because the nearest law enforcement might be a hundred miles away.

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

Some facts from the article: Read the part about solving the crimes records below.

To be fair, with such a vast wilderness to police, the NPS serious-crime rate is quite low. However, the rate might be even lower if there were more than 1,800 armed rangers available to protect visitors, employees and valuable natural resources.

Also, when it comes to solving violent-crime cases, the NPS has a less than stellar track record. Nationwide, law enforcement agencies solve about 70 percent of all murder cases. The NPS only closes 29 percent of its cases. The national average for solving rape cases is 45 percent. The NPS lags behind, at 34 percent. The story is the same for aggravated assaults. The nationwide law enforcement case-closure rate is 58 percent; the NPS rate is 40 percent.

kansas778 10 years, 4 months ago

A communist and a capitalist are walking in a national park, when an angry bear starts heading towards them--

Communist: A bear! We need to work together to get out of this!

Capitalist: Hell no, let's run for it!

Communist: Run? You can't outrun a bear!

Capitalist: Outrun a bear? I just ned to outrun you!

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

Why don't they allow guns in parks AND forbid their use and display in parks (emergency use and accidental display excused at the discretion of park officials)? Make National Parks no permit required, CC areas for one and all!~)

It does seem a bit weird that some want to make a ban guns law because criminals are using guns illegally in parks, as if adding to a pile of laws will make criminals obey laws.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

logicsound04 says: ...this law was not enacted primarily for the purpose of criminals. It was to prevent legally-carried weapons from being used against park wildlife.

Are you positive about that? Are you also positive that those who would not obey one law suddenly WILL obey another?

At some point, I guess we're going to have to officially give up all this innocent until proven guilty CR@P, eh?

BigDog 10 years, 4 months ago

Wow ...... what is it with the Lawrence Journal World and their attack upon the law abiding citizens who choose to own a gun and those who choose to legally obtain a concealed carry permit?

Seems like the last week or so that they are more concerned about the ownership of guns by the law abiding citizen than they are about the criminal who chooses to not follow gun laws; those who choose to use guns in commission of crimes.

Maybe LJW should focus on those who use guns for illegal activities; getting them off of the streets and some people may not see the need to legally obtain a gun for personal protection.

It is time to be less concerned about legal ownership and more concerned about crimes committed by those who choose to not follow gun laws.

sfjayhawk 10 years, 4 months ago

more guns and more jeasus, the Kansas answer to all problems. All that gang activity in yosemite and yellowstone - such dangerous places - What a joke!

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

Logicsound04, This law was enacted 25 years ago. (Prior to 1983) Don't you think violence has gotten worse since then? Do you remember any mass murders or school shootings prior to 1983? Maybe you are too young to compare safety in the 50's, 60's and 70's compared to now.

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

Logicsound04 says "Under the proposed legislation, recognizing the difference may require actually catching someone using the firearm illegally.

Logic, poachers are no longer carrying their guns in the rear window of their pick-up truck so they can be readily identified by the Rangers. So how do you think they will be easily identified from legal park visitors?

Krakatau 10 years, 4 months ago

My attacker was a 'first time offender" so, even though he almost killed me (and there were several doctors who testified to this), he received probation. He is roaming the streets everyone, right now and is around all of us - everyday.

If society did not tolerate his behaviour and choices, I would not need to be "packing heat" right now. It is a choice I wish I didn't have to make.

mom_of_three 10 years, 4 months ago

After what happened in the parks in the South (with Hilton? murdering several people), I can see why CCH people would want to carry firearms to protect themselves. But I have to wonder if Hilton would have attacked someone carrying a gun, as he seemed to get to know his victims first.

grimpeur 10 years, 4 months ago

If the nation were not awash in a flood of handguns, then gun violence would not be a problem in parks, in alleyways, in schools or anywhere else.

To suggest that the law be revoked or changed, or to claim the need to carry in national parks or anywhere else, because of the threat of "violence" leaves out the most important cause of that "violence."

The "violence" we're talking about is "gun violence." And gun violence is only possible with guns. And when the problem is the number of guns available to anyone who wants one (and it is), putting more guns on the street is not the solution.

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. The perversion and deliberate truncation of the 2nd amendment is what got us here. Criminals come in all forms. The most dangerous ones come with guns.

Now that those who have twisted the 2nd beyond recognition (NRA and similar) have ensured a continuous supply of guns to any lawless citizen (a predictable side effect of their staunch adherence to only the second part of the 2nd amendment), they expect us to believe not only that more guns will reduce gun violence, but that they have no responsibility for the amount of gun violence we already see. Wrong on both counts. But I expect NRA to continue to willfully ignore its role in perpetuating gun proliferation and gun violence, all while denying the connection between the two.


50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

Logic, All guns are not illegal in the Parks. Under the current law you can travel in or camp in the Parks with an unloaded weapon in your vehicle as long as the weapon is inaccessible from the passenger area and locked in a container with the ammunition locked in a separate container. Therefore only the people with illegal intentions will, after passing through the Ranger Gate Area, take these weapons out of the locked areas and use them for criminal activity. They can not be identified or separated from legal visitors until after the crime happens. Repealing the old law will give law abiding visitors a legal means of protecting themselves without breaking the law.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

Wow. Again, I am blown away by your impeccable use of that logicsound. It's fingernail on chalkboard melodic!~)

logicsound04 says: Positive about what? That legal weapons were being used against wildlife?

No. BTW, I don't believe that legal firearms can be used illegally. The act of using one illegally effectively MAKES it an illegal firearm. If caught in the act, the firearm will be confiscated and will not be returned.

logicsound04 says: As far as obeying one law and not obeying another, I'm not quite sure where you are going with that... The reason prohibiting firearms reduces the frequency of poaching is because when park rangers are patrolling the park, rather than having to figure out who can have a gun and who can't, they can assume that anyone with a gun is breaking the law.

So you're OK with my above suggestion?

logicsound04 says: Having a law that prohibits firearms in a certain area has nothing to do with presumed innocence. It's about preventing those that would break the law from blending in with those that are law-abiding citizens.

You're joking, right?~) "blending in"?~) That sounds so funny. Anyway... So you're OK with my above suggestion?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

if someone thinks that it's not safe to go into a national park without a gun maybe they shouldn't go in...

for that matter... why would anyone want to go anywhere they thought they needed a gun to be safe...

cfdxprt 10 years, 4 months ago

As someone who is going deep woods camping in Glacier NP for 2 weeks this year I would like to see this enacted. There is a serious threat of bears and mountain lions up there and I would prefer to have something better than a stick if I needed it.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

Once again the LJW has let their bias write their articles.

If there is ANY violence in parks, then there is perhaps a need to defend oneself. And I'd like to know how many poachers have actually shot an animal in a park in recent years. And how long they went to jail. How many visitors have been injured by careless handling of a firearm and how many visitors have been robbed by someone illegally carrying a firearm.

Campers "brandish(ing) guns in National Parks" LJW? Oh give me a break.

And regarding the derision that we should allow cocealed carry in shcools where most of the violence happens? Utah thinks so and allows their students to carry legally.

Hell yes we should allow concealed carry in schools.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

this isn't an article... it's an editorial...

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says: this isn't an article: it's an editorial:

article/editorial....just semantics. What it really is is BS.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

stuckinthemiddle says: if someone thinks that it's not safe to go into a national park without a gun maybe they shouldn't go in:

If someone thinks that guns are too dangerous to be around, then maybe they should another country, since there are upwards of 222 million here...or to another planet, since there are at least 639 million on this rock of insecure borders. Or not...

The bottom line is that we shouldn't have laws which penalize law-abiding citizens because of the existence of law ignoring citizens.

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

It would have been nice if the Journal World Editor had done some research about this topic before jumping in with a uninformed opinion about what the new law might be about!

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

JJE007 then again... maybe those who feel the need to carry a gun could move to Baghdad where there might be a reasonable chance that they'll need it...

I'm around guns all the time and it doesn't seem dangerous to me... If it did seem dangerous I might carry one myself...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

Are we going to have a condescension party, sound0?~)

My point was that we can all make arguments that sound silly to another person. They don't matter. I did realize that heads on autopilot would respond as you did. Why don't you respond to the bottom line of that post or my post above? I would so love to watch you wallow in the slop of your obfuscation.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

stuck, I don't carry a gun to protect myself. If I thought I needed one to protect myself, I might; hence, I'd like to keep that right as available as possible.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

JJE007 well... I'm not arguing against your right to carry a gun... but as I said... I don't understand why people go places where they think they need a gun...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

But do you NEED to understand?~) Don't you think everyone deserves to live as they like, as long as it doesn't cause harm?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

JJE007 heck no, I don't need to understand... just interested... and I love the idea of everyone living as they like... whether they deserve to or not...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

stuck, cfdxprt might have something to say on that.

I'd say there is spectacular beauty and solitude available in National Parks. It's worth physical training, outfitting yourself with backpacking gear, flying in a commercial jet, renting a car and humping your stuff up a mountain to find. It's worth doing a lot of stuff that is expensive, time consuming and even painful.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

JJE007 well... thousands of people go backpacking in the mountains and backwoods where bears and lions live and the vast majority of them don't feel the need to take guns and only on the very rarest of occasions do any of them get attacked... part of the training for backpacking is how to avoid close encounters with bears and lions...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

I backpack without packing. So? I'm just saying that packing and backpacking are not somehow mutually exclusive. I was responding to your "I don't understand why people go places where they think they need a gun." Even if they are afraid, they may still want to go. I don't know why you would have a problem with that. They might not be "model" backpackers but they have the right to backpack. If they don't hang their food and are eaten by bears...well...backpacker bear shi+ happens!~) I'm sure their snub-nosed .38 will pass through the ursid's digestive system.

beatrice 10 years, 4 months ago

kj: "Once again the LJW has let their bias write their articles."

Bias don't write articles, people write articles.

Why, I can let a bias just sit there for a thousand years and it won't harm nobody. It takes somebody with intent to manipulate a bias. Didn't we cover this yesterday?

The right to arm bears -- makes sense to me. Probably levels the playing field from all the crazy people with guns visiting the national parks.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

JJE007 Hmmm... I guess I'm not making myself as clear as I could... It's not that I have a problem with a backpacker wanting to carry a gun or even carrying a gun... I'm just interested in the mindset that people have when they decide they are going to go somewhere that the feel they need a gun... and actually your explanation is pretty good... and I agree that it may involve being afraid:

the only time I carry a gun is when I hunt... and then I'm hoping I get to use it...

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

Nowhere in the LJW article does it say anything about the real reason for the Senators requesting this change to park policy, which is to simplify and consolidate rules across the broad range of parks.

The originators of this bill are from Alaska, where carrying a firearm is not only NO big deal (no permits required for concealed carry) but it is a necessity with the number of dangerous animals in the state.

The LJW chose to spout some kind of kneejerkreaction without giving all the facts and reasons. In their article, park visitors are brandishing guns and

LJW's general editorial policy is clearly antigun, and they are selectively disseminating information in the news to further their agenda. Very annoying.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

this is not a news piece... it is an opinion piece...

and they are often annoying...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

I don't see why bears should have extra appendages. They already have four legs, for gosh sakes. Do we really want bears to be ginormous, hairy tardigrades!~) Crazy talk...

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

Someone said....I don't understand why people go places where they think they need a gun:

You mean like V Tech? Nebraska Mall? Ward Parkway Mall? Sure don't need guns there.

Well, once you did....

stuckinthemiddle 10 years, 4 months ago

some people think they need a gun to go anywhere... and I don't understand that... either...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

logic0 - I didn't respond because restricting guns in a public park isn't a penalty.

Of course it is, you arrogant prig. Just because you don't think it isn't doesn't make it so.

Hey. I've got a new idea! Why don't they allow guns in parks AND forbid their use and display in parks (emergency use and accidental display excused at the discretion of park officials)? Make National Parks no permit required, CC areas for one and all!~)

It just seems so weird that you want to make a ban guns law because criminals are using guns illegally in parks, as if adding to a pile of laws will make criminals obey laws.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

It's a penalty (in perhaps a broader sense than you choose to consider) if you are not allowed the freedom to defend yourself because some arrogant prigs cannot envision any need to do so...because two laws make a right...go away!~)

I read what you falsely presume that I did not read. See my immediate attempt at a correction, immediately above your post.

There's a red herring on your tail end, there, dude.

This is all so stupid. Adding a law on top of a law to prevent lawless behavior is silly. You can currently carry unloaded and cased guns into the park. All a criminal has to do is open his trunk to be a criminal. The law is practically worthless. Where are the before and after stats indicating the effectiveness of this law? Certainly Jerry Case could present some good manufactured stats rather than an emotional "argument". Or...Is logicsound04 Jerry CASE. Case closed.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

some people think they need a gun to go anywhere: and I don't understand that: either:

One doesn't always need a gun to go anywhere. I carry everywhere and always.

sfjayhawk 10 years, 4 months ago

i cant imagine carrying a gun everywhere, or anywhere really. I dont feel the need what so ever. I can only imagine that people that do must be trying to compensate for something, perhaps something very small and flaccid.

Heckler 10 years, 4 months ago


"Before the restriction, people would use guns to shoot animals in public parks. Now the Republicans want to remove that restriction"

Check your facts dude, that's not what the proposed change does. It allows people to carry weapons for self defense only.

homechanger 10 years, 4 months ago

Wasn't a young lady kidnapped raped and beheaded while hiking in the wilderness with her dog recently. I bet she wished she had a gun shortly before or during the brutal attack.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 10 years, 4 months ago

Just like a bunch of liberals, who said anything about brandishing guns, but you? Instead of printing the true reason for this change you try and scare your readers. How many armed park rangers are there to protect people in national parks? Quite an inadequate number considering the vast expanses of land involved. Just like concealed carry everywhere else, personal protection is why the senators signed the letter and why the change needs to be made. Violence is increasing in national parks, just as it is everywhere. Any laws in place in national parks about shooting at targets, and killing animals, should remain so. If anything they should be made more stringent. How many concealed carry permits have been issued in Kansas, over 10,000. I have yet to see any permit holder brandish a gun, and I do get around. Just isn't happening. The right to self defense is a basic right for every human being. Think about it. Thank you, Lynn

cfdxprt 10 years, 4 months ago

Ugh, busy chance to respond.

The bears don't scare me, like JJ said if you hang your food, you've pretty got nothing to worry about (This coming from an Eagle Scout who has had camps invaded by bears because J6P next door didn't think it necessary to put it out of the way). Bears I can deal with, and not start trouble. My big issue is the Mountain Lions, they will stalk you, quietly, and then attack, the first time you notice them is when they're on top of you. At that point, you're going to get mauled, but in the 2 seconds before they can get to your jugular, you can do something.

I try not to go out with a target on my back, and I definitely don't see targets on the creatures I'm around...But name me one person who could take on a 200 lb cat and win and there's a prize for you - it ain't possible without weaponry.

I guess I misspoke when I said lions and tigers and bears, oh my - it's the mountain lions I'm scared of, or defending myself against...The bears, while big in that neck of the woods, you can scare a bear off pretty easy - scaring off a cat on a mission to eat - you pretty much have to kill the cat (applies only to cats over 125 lbs).

denak 10 years, 4 months ago

It seems to me that if violence in our national parks is such a problem then the solution is not to give tourist the "right" to carry but to hire and train more park security. After all, who knows the park better, a tourist who is there for maybe an hour or two, or someone who works there and knows the layout of the land and where there is the potential for violence. Moreover, who would you trust more. The tourist whose skill and training is questionable or the ranger who is trained and certified. Lastly, if you are so scared of some bear attacking you, you should stay out of his habitat. YOU are the one invading his home, he isn't invading your's. He is only acting the way nature made him. You can't expect him to act otherwise. You, on the otherhand, should stick to the paths and out of the animals natural range as much as possible.


denak 10 years, 4 months ago

The point Marion is that these are wild animals. You are encrouching on their terroritory. If you don't want to encounter one, then stay away from one. And if you can't, then at least stay in the most well traveled areas so that, if you are attacked by an animal, your cold dead body will be found sooner.:)

Kathy Theis-Getto 10 years, 4 months ago

There's an obvious fix to both poachers and park safety: Increase the number of rangers. Park budgets reflect the need every year but Congress has no been interested. It's easier to turn visitors into their own self-service rangers. I am sure NRA fans are cheering, but if this goes through, the constant companion of anyone else visiting a state park or a forest will be that added dose of anxiety -- one of the very things parks are meant to diminish. Typical GOP solution.

Read what the folks who have worked in the parks have to say.

KLATTU 10 years, 4 months ago

I know that most gun owners wouldn't "plink" at signs or animals. But I also know that all you have to do is drive around Clinton Lake, or almost anywhere in the country side, and count the bullet holes in the traffic signs to see how much damage a few a-holes can do. Gun rights advocates should stop bitching at those of us who are afraid of everyone running around armed, and start working on the bad apples among themselves.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

I find the "among themselves" reference to be off the mark by a mile. Where were you aiming? Be sure of your target and what's beyond it! We should check these assumptions at the door and recheck them as needed.

Owning a firearm does not make you a NRA type, a murderer, a destroyer of property, i.e. a criminal any more than owning an ax makes you Lizzie Borden or responsible for her actions.

Gosh. I guess Lizzie was acquitted. I don't know if my silly analogy holds up!~)

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says: And the chances of a different outcome is virtually zero. Do you think the criminal simply walked directly up to her and grabbed her? You would be rambo's need to wake up and face reality.

As I understand it, he held her for several days then killed her and cut her head off. So, she had plelnty of time to react.

What's up with people against, or not believing in, self defense?

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

From what I've read, violence against park rangers has increased, but it's not the tourists that are doing it. The parks are swarming with illegal aliens, members of drug cartels, even terrorists who have attempted to attack nuclear power plants.

Seems the parks are more dangerous than one anticipates, but it's not for the reasons outlined in the LJW editorial. The writer of the editorial seems more interested in an antigun rant than in the truth.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says: So you claim that she could have been held for several days and her attacker wouldn't have known she had a weapon? And taken it away immediately?

I wasn't there beo. so I don't know. All I know is that an armed person has a chance against a stronger aggressor.

An unarmed person has no chance.

50YearResident 10 years, 4 months ago

They don't call guns "Equalizers" for no reason. A 120 pound victim can equal a couple 250 lb attackers. But only if they have the gun, otherwise it's just another crime statistic. The hiker could at least have had a chance.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

50yr., it never ceases to amaze me that the antigunners on these forums actually talk anti-self defense. It's like they are in denial that one can actually defend themselves.

Their hatred of guns is so great that they don't see the gun as a tool, they see it as somethng to hate, like GWB.

Diane Feinstein, a fierce antigunner, has a concealed carry permit and carries a firearm for self defense.

You don't have to love guns or ben a "gun nut" to want to defend yourself.

These antigun, anti-self defense bloggers just leave me shaking my head.

local_support 10 years, 4 months ago

I know that every time I roll into the woods I expect widespread violence and possible shoot outs among the foliage and/or rocks.

PS That oak tree has been out to get me since day one.

fletch 10 years, 4 months ago

I've been camping at state and national parks since I was 11. I can only recall two times I ever felt in "danger." The first was when a bunch of good ol' boys felt it necessary to get drunk and throw a bunch of extra stuff they found lying around into their camp fire. They caught on of their tents on fire, and it almost spread to a bunch of dry brush, but a load of other campers helped put it out with camp water and dirt. The second time was when a drunk guy tried to get into a tent in the campsite next to mine and started a fight (his campsite was about a quarter mile away and he got lost).

I never had anything stolen or seen an attack at a park, except when alcohol was involved. Leave the booze at home. Leave the guns at home. Enjoy the outdoors.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

fletch, from what I've read, for various reasons, the atmosphere has changed drastically at state parks. Drunks and rednecks (are those different??) are now the least of park goers worries.

kneejerkreaction 10 years, 4 months ago

beo., are the clueless, violent, wantabe rambo macho people some kind of ethnic group?

And they commit 100 times more violence than they prevent? Really?

Never heard of 'em.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 4 months ago

beabotcher, How much have you had to drink?~) Jeez. You can't make this stuff up!~) Oh, wait. You can.and do. Here's something to take your mind off of your fear and obsession.

[Gentle string music begins to play and continues in background; imagine any one of a number of TV shows or movies where a character begins to make an impassioned but completely phony speech while his cohorts begin to hum "America the Beautiful" and you have the idea.]

What I believe:

I believe in rainbows, and puppy dogs and fairy tales. And I believe in the family: Mom, and Dad, and Grandma, and Uncle Todd, who waves his penis.

And I believe in 8 of the Ten Commandments, and I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome, and natural things that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos", or "golden bozos". And you should only refer to them as "hooters".

And I believe you should place a woman on a pedestal, high enough so you can look up her dress.

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone, no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story, one-bedroom apartment.

And I believe that the "Battle of the Network Stars" should be fought with guns.

And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was: an arctic region, covered with ice.

And I believe the United States should all foreigners in this country, provided they can speak our native language: Apache.

And lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you are listening to right now.

Author: Steve Martin

Commenting has been disabled for this item.