What on god’s (sic) green earth possible reason could there be to allow a jackass to carry a gun in a national park? Offhand, I can only think of two.
First, if some scissor dicks are determined to go around a national park all tooled up, why not allow all the scissor dicks to carry guns? Which is just plain stupid on its face—even if it weren’t for the fact some wiseass (like me) will suggest that national parks (under the same logic) should allow legalized crack selling, goat prostitution, and wanton removal of mattress tags by individuals who are not the consumer (because some folks are going to do it anyway)—but I am a cranky cynic, and easily disregarded.
But that’s what stupid gun bastards honestly belief and hope for with all their heart, because how ELSE are they going to meet a bunch of LHSBLBSNs?
How do I know gun idiots believe this? Just listen to them pimp on the tragedies at Columbine High School, Colorado (where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve fellow students, one teacher, and wounded twenty-three others, before taking their own lives) and Virginia Tech (where Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people and injured twenty-three others, before taking his own life). What is the gun idiots’ proposed “solution”? Get MORE people with guns, and have the GOOD gun people shoot it out with the BAD gun people! (I am not making that up). Why not? After all, it worked for William Holden, Yule Brenner, Charles Bronson, and Clint Eastwood—well, maybe not so much for Yule and Bill—but Clint and Chuck did okay.
Shooting people with a handgun is hard.
I used to think this was obvious—but apparently, it isn’t. I KNOW Eli Wallach was crazy accurate with a six shooter in “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly,” but handguns don’t work like that. First, they are just not accurate over any distance—and I mean distance measured in feet, not meters. But what about, you may ask, those people with the target pistols? First, the morons who get concealed weapons permits, intending to carry guns in national parks, they aren’t going to be carrying target pistols, or be the kind of people who know how to use a target pistol. How do I know? Because people who spend any time with a target pistol know better than to use said pistol to go looking for stupid trouble. No, the gun idiots who will be packing heat in the parks will be carrying the cheap crap that’s sold for “home defense,” or some other damn thing.
But I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth of ignorant gun aficionados, all demanding to know WHY I am ignoring all their good arguments. Crap like:
1) But what about the LHSBLBSNs at their annual conventions? Aren’t they going to be at the mercy of Andrew Robinson, those guys from “Death Wish,” the Mexican bandits in “The Magnificent Seven,” that army in “The Wild Bunch,” and Margaret Hamilton?
Ask anyone involved in the criminal justice system (and who is not a complete asshole), and they’ll tell you the clear majority of murders and assaults are done by family members or sex partners, and done in the heat of the moment. There are just not any Andrew Robinsons hanging out at Yellowstone, waiting for LHSBLBSN conventions.
But if there really WAS a problem with bad folks in the national parks, stalking the LHSBLBSNs of the world, then what would be needed was a rationale, police response, featuring people who knew what they were doing and what to expect. Not a ragtag militia of random morons with pistols stuffed in their pockets (not that they aren’t happy to see you, but they ARE packing heat. Ya feel me?)
Because allowing more idiots with more guns makes us LESS safe and MORE sorry. A few years ago, the AMA released a study, calling for greater gun control. The recommendations were based on the fact far from making you safer, having a gun meant you were much more likely to shoot yourself, in any number of stupid (“I was just cleaning it, and it went off!”) and not so stupid (high incidence of suicide) ways.
What evidence is there that more idiots with guns will reduce the incidence of gun violence? Here’s a hint: it rhymes with “none.” What evidence is there that having an area awash with guns generates MORE gun violence? Look at any major American city. When was the last time you heard a police chief say “If only people had more guns…we’d all be so much better off! Please—everyone start buying up saturday night specials!”
3) But shouldn’t the focus be on keeping guns out of the hands of outlaws? After all, if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
No. The focus should be on keeping guns out of the hands of stupid people. And if you think you need to bring a gun into a national park, you qualify--by definition--as a stupid person.
4) Oh yeah? But what about that one time in *cough cough,* there was this LHSBLBSN having a picnic with a few other LHSBLBSNs, when the Hell’s Angels attacked, and….blah blah blah…and everyone lived happily ever after! How about that, huh?
Fine. You want one time? I’ll give you that one time. It doesn’t happen—but I’ll give it to you anyway. Happy now?
I believe that no situation could be so bad, that throwing in random armed putzes wouldn’t make matters even worse. More guns mean more bad news. Period.
5) Why do you keep assuming that anyone who would bring a gun into a national park is an asshole? Maybe a non-asshole will bring a gun too, ya know!
No, I do know. Everyone who brings a concealed weapon into a national park is an asshole. Everyone of them. How do I know? Because people who actually know about guns and are not assholes, they know what I am saying is true. Non-asshole gun owners know better than to carry around guns, pretending they are (maybe) that guy from the future who gets wit’ Linda Hamilton and fathers John Connor.
My point is that even though it’s now “legal” to bring your piece (the weapon kind, not the penis kind) into a national park, gun owners who are not complete morons know better than to do so.
6) So what you’re saying is that because of this one piece of ill-advised legislation, we’re all doomed?
No. Here’s what I am saying. I equate this law with a ban on abortions: those laws will stay in effect right up until the time a young, skinny, white girl dies because of it—with the emphasis on white, skinny, young, and white girl.
You can’t mix idiots, guns, and public places without guns being fired and killing people. Maybe enough rational people will come forward, and demand this asinine law be changed. Then the kind of young, skinny, white girls (who always have to die before any change happens), won’t have to die just because she picked the wrong day to visit a national park. But Senators Ron Wyden (Senior Hypocrite, OR) and Jeff Merkley (Junior Hypocrite, OR)-- even knowing everything I said was true—they still voted to allow jerks to carry handguns.
So, people will die because of this stupid law.
But you know-----if life’s got to suck for everyone, it might as well suck for the young, skinny white girls who have to get killed before change happens. It’s only fair…………………
For Margaret Hamilton, you throw a bucket of water at her. You don’t need a special permit for that, because if you miss Margaret and hit a LHSBLBSN with the bucket of water (which is sure to happen), the LHSBLBSN will not die. The LHSBLBSN, however, WILL DIE from stray bullets, as all too often happens when the best aimed gunshots of mice and men go awry.
8) So what you’re saying is that the LHSBLBSNs will never demand I father their children?
That’s not my place to say….so let’s just leave it to what dreams may come. But while Mao believed that political power grew out of the barrel of a gun, everyone knows that action with LHSBLBSNs will not.
When visiting national parks, please leave your guns at home.