Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Miami Herald editorial 31 Dec 2008

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-10-05
    Location
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Posts
    5,670

    Miami Herald editorial 31 Dec 2008

    My local newspaper gave a prominent position in its editorial page to a reprint of a Miami Hearld article denouncing the lift on the ban on licensed carry in national parks.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/e...ry/832169.html

    Restore firearms ban in national parks

    OUR OPINION: Administration uses waning days to pander to the NRA

    In addition to making it easier for coal miners to pollute rivers and streams, allowing more mining in lands adjacent to national parks and implementing rules that weaken the Endangered Species Act, the Bush administration this month gave the National Rifle Association a parting gift by lifting a decades-long ban on concealed weapons in national parks.

    It is painful to witness the administration's cynical use of the federal rule-making process to assault the environment and pander to the NRA during its waning days. These harmful new rules could take years to undo. Make no
    mistake, though, they must be taken off the books before they can do too much damage.

    Public ignored

    No one associated with our national parks wanted the gun ban lifted. The National Leadership Council, a 22-member group of National Park Service officials, opposed allowing concealed weapons in national parks, which today are some of the safest places in the country. The National Parks Cnservation Association, the unions representing park rangers and the National Park Service Retirees organization all opposed lifting the gun ban. For that matter, so did most of the 140,000 respondents during an Interior Department public comment period on the proposed rule change.

    Apparently, none of this mattered to the outgoing administration. So beginning on Jan. 9, Everglades and Biscayne national parks, Big Cypress Preserve and the dozens of federal wildlife refuges and forests in Florida will be open to visitors packing guns. Under the new rule, anyone in Florida with a concealed weapons permit qualifies to bring a gun into a national park. There are more than 537,000 Florida residents with concealed weapons permits.

    Allowing visitors to carry firearms into these national treasures makes no sense. The weapons ban has worked well all these years. It has reduced poaching of endangered species and kept the level of violence between people to a minimum.

    Visitors at risk

    Unfortunately, reversing this new rule could take years -- as would the other new rules cited above. They were promulgated by the Interior Department but clearly came straight from the White House. So the department that is charged with protecting our legacy of federally owned parks, refuges and wildernesses instead has been forced to put these lands and the people who visit them at greater risk.

    The incoming administration will have many priorities, but beginning the process of removing the harmful new Interior rules should be on President-elect Obama's to-do list -- and on that of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, who is Mr. Obama's choice for secretary of the Interior Department.
    I sent a response to my local paper:

    To the Editor:

    Monday the Times-News carried a Miami Herald editorial entitled "Restore gun ban in national parks."

    The rule change on guns in national parks would allow persons with concealed handgun permits to carry their guns for self-defense. Carry by people without permits and any criminal possession, carry, or use would still be illegal.

    The editorial tries to imply that poaching of wildlife is done by handgun permit holders carrying pistols for self-defense. Please. The editorial tries to link the carry issue with "coal miners" polluting water: those are two seperate issues. It is a wonder the Miami Herald did not raise the spector of Global Warming (yes, permit holders do exhale carbon dioxode, but that is irrelevant).

    The Miami Herald editorial points out that there are 537,000 Florida residents with carry permits and implies that these are the "dangerous people" (to use the words of Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign) who should be kept out of Everglades National Park. Every study that has compared crime rates per 100,000 per year of permit holders and non-permit holders has found that the rate of crimes by permit holders is significantly lower than the rate of crimes by non-holders. (Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS) has kept detailed stats showing this since their permit law was put in place years ago.) A national park limited to permit holders would be a safer place than a park limited to non-permit holders.


    Plus citing the "NRA" as a scare word will not work as well as it did in the 1960s. A survey of congressional staff showed that among lobbying groups, the American Library Association (ALA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) were ranked No.1 and No.2 on the scale of reliable and factual info supplied to congressional researchers on pending legislation. Law professor Don B. Kates pointed out the NRA won most of its legislative battles by raising legitimate questions about badly drawn bills. So shouting "NRA! NRA! NRA!" does not have the same effect today with the intended audience of the Miami Herald editorial staff.

    Yours truly,
    Carl N. Brown
    I also posted a comment at the Miami Heald website (within a limit of 1000 characters)
    Carl_N_Brown wrote on 01/06/2009 06:52:41 AM:

    The rule change on guns in national parks would allow persons with concealed handgun permits to carry their guns for self-defense. Carry by people without permits and any criminal possession, carry, or use would still be illegal. The editorial tries to imply that poaching of wildlife is done by handgun permit holders carrying pistols for self-defense. Please. The editorial tries to link the carry issue with "coal miners" polluting water: those are two seperate issues. It is a wonder the Miami Herald did not raise the spector of Global Warming (yes, permit holders do exhale carbon dioxode, but that is irrelevant). The Miami Herald editorial points out that there are 537,000 Florida residents with carry permits and implies that these are the "dangerous people" (to use the words of Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign) who should be kept out of Everglades National Park. A national park limited to permit holders would be a safer place than a park limited to non-permit hlders.
    I am tempted to do a phrase comparison between the editorial and recent Brady Campaign press releases on the subject.
    Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-11-07
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    816
    Thanks so much Carl!
    I just woke up, and my blood... shooting... out of my... eyes...

    And people wonder why I'm bitter!

    This article is a personal attack on every law abiding gun owner!

    Crap! I'm so politically depressed recently, just the thought of arguing my points makes me sick

    EDIT: Correction. Just the thought of HAVING TO DEFEND MY POINT OF VIEW, makes me sick.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-08
    Location
    Miami Beach,Florida
    Posts
    12,834
    Excellent work,Carl.Except for the Sports section(and even their sportswriters are constantly throwing in their Progressive gibberish )the Herald is only fit for lining my parrot's cage.
    Like Eric I used to rage daily at their endless anti-gun, anti-American rhetoric.No more.It's a waste of precious energy.And no matter how many times the Herald changes hands the new company is still straight from the Politburo.
    We went from Knight-Ridder to McClatchy.No difference.Same Socialists.Same Editorial Staff ,the most leftist in all this great land,out-doing even the NYT and the Compost.
    Sigh.

  4. #4
    Moderator  
    Join Date
    10-10-06
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, VA
    Posts
    7,807
    This one is so easy to deconstruct it was hardly worth the effort. (aside from being a rehash of the "official Brady Campaign" statement).

    OUR OPINION: Administration uses waning days to pander to the NRA
    Because 5 years of public effort regarding this issue is "last minute pandering".

    In addition to making it easier for coal miners to pollute rivers and streams, allowing more mining in lands adjacent to national parks and implementing rules that weaken the Endangered Species Act, the Bush administration this month gave the National Rifle Association a parting gift by lifting a decades-long ban on concealed weapons in national parks.
    So possession of firearms is somehow supposed to be linked to pollution?

    It is painful to witness the administration's cynical use of the federal rule-making process to assault the environment and pander to the NRA during its waning days. These harmful new rules could take years to undo. Make no mistake, though, they must be taken off the books before they can do too much damage.
    Interesting, if one views the "comments" section of the rulemaking page one would get the impression that 140,000 -citizens- (not government) were using the rule-making process to express their views and will regarding this rule.

    Public ignored

    No one associated with our national parks wanted the gun ban lifted. The National Leadership Council, a 22-member group of National Park Service officials, opposed allowing concealed weapons in national parks, which today are some of the safest places in the country. The National Parks Cnservation Association, the unions representing park rangers and the National Park Service Retirees organization all opposed lifting the gun ban. For that matter, so did most of the 140,000 respondents during an Interior Department public comment period on the proposed rule change.
    This is a flat-out lie.
    -Obviously Kempthorn and at least some other officials had no opposition to lifting the ban.
    -The per-capita crime rate of our National Parks is OFF THE SCALE!
    -The majority of the 140,000 comments left during the response period were for lifting the ban.

    Apparently, none of this mattered to the outgoing administration. So beginning on Jan. 9, Everglades and Biscayne national parks, Big Cypress Preserve and the dozens of federal wildlife refuges and forests in Florida will be open to visitors packing guns. Under the new rule, anyone in Florida with a concealed weapons permit qualifies to bring a gun into a national park. There are more than 537,000 Florida residents with concealed weapons permits.
    This is an interesting thing to fear. The legal permit holders have had investigations and background checks and are literally certified to be law-abiding types. Can the same be said for the REST of the folks in our National Parks?

    Allowing visitors to carry firearms into these national treasures makes no sense. The weapons ban has worked well all these years. It has reduced poaching of endangered species and kept the level of violence between people to a minimum.
    CCW permit holders already carry out in the general public and have proven over a decade (or more) to be model citizens. Assuming that they will somehow change into monsters upon entering a National Park makes no sense.

    Visitors at risk

    Unfortunately, reversing this new rule could take years -- as would the other new rules cited above. They were promulgated by the Interior Department but clearly came straight from the White House. So the department that is charged with protecting our legacy of federally owned parks, refuges and wildernesses instead has been forced to put these lands and the people who visit them at greater risk.
    See the above comment about the alleged "increased risk".
    It is also worth reading the DOI report regarding this rule change, especially the section that talks about the "impossibility of protecting individuals within the boundaries of the parks".

    The incoming administration will have many priorities, but beginning the process of removing the harmful new Interior rules should be on President-elect Obama's to-do list -- and on that of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, who is Mr. Obama's choice for secretary of the Interior Department.
    We can only hope that the incoming administration will honor it's top-most priority, safeguarding the rights of the citizens of the United States of America. The priority that is oath-sworn upon a Bible upon taking office.
    .
    "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on"

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-16-05
    Posts
    1,047
    cancel your subscription to any paper advocating such positions. newspapers are hurting.

    as if you already had'nt.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-28-08
    Posts
    233
    Thank god the ban is lifted. Now I can take my .380 and go hunt Bull Gators and Florida Panthers! YEEE-HAW!

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-12-08
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    160
    Must be a slow day in the Editorial room if that is all they can think of to write about.

    Yes, newspapers are hurting. 1+ on canceling your subscription

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-22-06
    Location
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Posts
    896
    The yahoo Cleveland Plain Dealer had an article against recently. They stated that 64% of the 160 thousand or so commentors were anti change--I VERY seriously doubt they had anywhere near that percentage. In July the comment period was extended cause they didnt have enough negatives (speculated) but that I do believe.

    Most articles comment on the LAST MINUTE change. The request was started by VCDL 4 (four) years ago and they jumped thru lots of hoops-Last minute??

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •