PSH From the LA Times

The LA Times is unhappy with the National Park carry rule:

The impact of this rule change should have been obvious to those who drafted it; ancient petroglyphs that are already used by some for target practice will become even more bullet-scarred, rangers will have to cope with armed and dangerous visitors, wildlife will come under fire and campers will have to worry that the rude guy in the Winnebago next door is packing heat.

Wait, wait, I can help them write the next bit:

And I beheld when He had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was an earthquake: and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood: and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

11 thoughts on “PSH From the LA Times”

  1. I knew our National Parks were treasures. I knew they were beautiful. I knew they were special.

    I just never knew that they were magical. Apparently once the boundaries of the parks are crossed, those duly authorized by their state of residence to carry a firearm, with a phenomenal track record of safety and responsibility, will suddenly become vandals, poachers, and murderers…

  2. Of course it’s sarcasm. Pretty clearly the LA times thinks allowing people to carry in national parks, like they can everywhere else, will bring about the end days.

  3. Oops. Meant to write pretty much. I think pterry is pterodactle sauce or something. ;)

  4. @ sir limerick:

    The problem is that these people don’t think that anybody is trustworthy enough to carry a gun, period. Background check, license requirements, whatever controls there are, none of them change the fact that there are a large number of people who believe in the neutrality of violence (i.e. that there is no distinction between what we call “justified” and “unjustified” violence). Therefore, according to this moral theory, anybody who carries a gun is okay with using violence, and is hence “dangerous” to those who are not. Our definitions of “intent” “violence” and “responsibility” are totally, utterly separate, and no side can ever win a debate by using these terms.

  5. Why would a newspaper in LA care in the first place? It’s not like anybody has a carry permit in California anyway. And it’s not like California can’t pass their own carry restrictions on federal land within their state anyway.

    All this rule change does is defer to state law, which is exactly as it should be.

  6. “ancient petroglyphs that are already used by some for target practice will become even more bullet-scarred” – at least those not already either covered with graffiti or scarred in the search for souvenirs.

Comments are closed.