Tony G., (2/7/2008 6:16:45 AM)

I am NOT a hunter, but I do visit these parks WITH MY CHILDREN.
I do not want some drunk hunters taking pot shots while I may have my CHILDREN
at the park.
And we have to pay these idiots, Oklahoma does not have reasonable legislators.

*****, (2/7/2008 6:36:58 AM)

Tony get over it. These are licensed gun holders. They do it for a reason. Who knows maybe they will save your kids life someday. Besides it isnt them you should fear for your children from. It is their peers that are more likely to take pot shots at them.

The Oracle, Tulsa (2/7/2008 6:38:51 AM)

If we visit these parks with our children and we are confronted by some drunken criminals with guns, taking pot shots then we want to have the protection of legal firearms carried by law abiding citizens.

LL, Owasso (2/7/2008 6:40:30 AM)

Tony G., I believe you need to adjust your meds. Did anybody say anything about allowing hunting? The good senators aren't wanting to make it legal to hunt in those federally owned areas. They are wanting to allow concealed carry permit holders to travel through these areas without needing to stop, unload and secure there guns. These people are trained, fingerprinted, background checked, mentally stable and the smallest gun-related infraction could result in revocation of their concealed carry privileges. Almost all states already have laws making it illegal to transport a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle, so the licensed orners are the only people who would be affected by this change in policy.

jam, tulsa (2/7/2008 6:47:03 AM)

I've done a lot of backpacking and camping in wilderness areas and I always carried a weapon for protection from predatory animals/people. I've never heard of drunken hunters taking "pot shots" at kids. I won't forego second amendment rights.

#1, sorry to hear you have children

oldrusty, tulsa (2/7/2008 7:01:12 AM)

The Lemmings are out early today, Id rather have a gun, and not need it, than need it and not have one.

a, tulsa (2/7/2008 7:15:35 AM)

Tony, I'm with you. This had to come from the dangerously and ridiculously influential NRA.. With all the problems in this country they are wasting time working on this?
I'm not anti gun, but I am 'reasonable gun'. This is just silly. Securing your weapons while you are in a National Park isn't an onerous burden.
I am so ashamed of our Senators every single day. They don't represent me.

S.A.R., Tulsa (2/7/2008 8:02:19 AM)

#1. Our legislators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. We should all read it regularly. Especially the Bill of Rights which is our original 'Civil Rights' act. Let's give thanks to our Revolutionary Founding Fathers and do our best to preserve those 'rights' that they fought so valiantly to secure.

Larry, Rogers County (2/7/2008 8:46:47 AM)

Laws that prohibit the cary of weapons serve only to disarm the law abiding citizen, who are neither inclined nor known for commiting crimes. On the other hand a Criminal will by his very nature ignore any such law and use his armed advantage against the disarmed citizen.

wmcol, Tulsa (2/7/2008 9:04:39 AM)

That great liberal, the pride of conservatives everywhere, Ronald Reagan, attacked and tore pieces out of the Second Amendment(did it twice). Democrats fought him every step of the way.

Ironic, the "gipper" couldn't protect himself with his laws that banned guns. and was shot by someone who didn't obey the very restrictive gun laws for which Reagan was responsible.

Nah, it ain't Democrats who will take away gun rights, it has already been done by the Republicans. Democrats respect and uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Larry, Tulsa (2/7/2008 9:20:07 AM)

I think we should keep the ban. The statement that people will violate the ban any way is not a reason to overturn the ban. People speed, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of speed limits. People use drugs and drink and drive, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of drug laws or DUI laws. People burgle houses, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of burglary laws. That's a bogus argument.
--
Also, if Coburn is so willing to let people onto parks with guns, why isn't he willing to let people into the Senate chamber with guns. Why don't we let guns in schools or work places?? That way kids and workers can defend themselves?? That "self-defense" arguement is bogus too.
--
Mr Coburn, let's stop grand standing for votes and just do the right thing for once.

Debo, (2/7/2008 9:28:37 AM)

You and your kids are more likely to be shot at their school than in a national park. Good Grief! Let's ban schools and smoking and guns and pointy scissors! BIG BROTHER SAVE US!

wmcol, Tulsa (2/7/2008 9:32:44 AM)

Larry, according to article it ain't just Coburn, "almost half of the U.S. Senate supports doing away with the current policy". I felt real good when it was allowed to open-carry in our federal parks. Reagan changed that, and for the record, the fact that "people will violate the ban any way(sic)" makes it all the more important that legitimate citizens be allowed to carry weapons.

Coburn ain't "grand standing(sic)", he is speaking up for our valuable Constitutional rights, and I hardly ever agree with this guy.

Stanely, Stillwater (2/7/2008 9:33:02 AM)

We don't need hunters in public parks. Accidents will happen and we don't need to risk people's lives. People go there on vacation so let's keep a level head here.

wmcol, Tulsa (2/7/2008 9:39:40 AM)

Fine, Stanely, ban hunting in parks, but not guns. When hiking trails in National Parks one can get very deep and isolated into the areas and it is very comforting to have a weapon. There can be a lot of dangers in some of the parks, from animal inhabitants to humans. All it takes is one time to not be armed in the face of a threat.

XonOFF, Tulsa (2/7/2008 10:36:00 AM)

Anyone who has found themselves in a true wilderness situation understands the comfort and value of a weapon. It's as important a 'tool' as a cell phone or a medical kit.

Except, out there, a cell phone is used only as a rock.

Michael Phillips, Tulsa (2/7/2008 10:38:46 AM)

If there is one organization that knows exactly what it is doing and what should be done, it is the NRA. I recognize much of the wisdom that I read here, it comes from the NRA. One person made a comment about the democrats being the ones who are protecting the second amendment. Too often I think that is true. This time it appears it is only eight out of 45 democrats who are out front.
Go to NRA/ILA and find the truth about gun legislation. You're denying yourself more than half the story by relying on the Tulsa World for your news on gun legislation.

Paul, Tulsa (2/7/2008 10:40:39 AM)

There have been ZERO cases where someone needed to use a gun but didn't have one since Reagan put this ban into effect 25 years ago. This is a non-issue. I agree with the other poster who said Mr Co-bum needs to quit grand standing.

Jeff, Dallas, TX (2/7/2008 11:02:18 AM)

Stanley, Larry, Tony,

I carry almost everywhere I go. You would never know, nor spepect, that I had a weapon on me unless you attempted to hurt someone in my presence. When I travel, I sometimes have multiple weapons in my vehicle as I do not like to leave them unattended at home. At times it means crossing over park land to reach my destination, sometimes it means stopping to enjoy the park as you do.

I am a law abiding citizen who has gone through the extended training, filed for and recieved a concealed carry permit. You state that it is no burden to stop and unload and secure my weapon. Not true. First off, that action would raise suspecion on anyone passing by and a a CCW holder I am not allowed to do that. Second, that means that I have a number of weapons in my vehicle that I cannot defend against someone taking from me.

I know that you see a weapon as some destructive force intent on hurting you. In the wrong hands, thos hands not controlled by rule of law, this is true. In a law adiding gun owners hands it is the exact opposite.

I once asked a friend with similiar attitudes if he would want me to use my gun to protect him from someone intent on doing him harm. This this question is answered no. I then asked about his wife and children. If someone were to try to harm his family would he want me to take action. Think for yourself how you would answer that question.

If you are in the middle of the wilderness and run afould of dangerous animal or person, would you want me,a licensed law adiding citizen, to come to the aid of your family? I think I know the answer and that is why I went through the trouble of the training, practice, filing, paying and everything else. Not just to protect myself and my family, but others in need.

One last thought for you. Were you aware that law enforcement has no legal obligation to come to your aid! I know that you doubt that statement but a little research will prove this. I also have no obligation but will come if needed and the chances that I am there when you need assistance, or one of the millions of CCW holders, is much greater than law enforcement being there. Just food for thought.

Please keep in mind that these restrictions only punish lawful gun owners, not the criminals. Thay are already prohibited from owning and carrying a gun. Speed limits, which are not guaranteed by our constitution, are established to provide order and safety to an extremely dangerous activity. Everyone can get a drivers license whereas gun owners are only licensed after they pass a background check and attend training. The reference to speeding would be more accurate if they put in place a policy that states that upon entering a park you must park your car and walk to wherever you want to go. After all, your kids are much more likely to be hit by a car than shot with a gun, so letsw not let any cars, boats, ATV's, motorcycles, etc into our parks.

Mike Glaser, Cincinnati, OH (2/7/2008 11:11:26 AM)

"There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting." Really? Ask Meredith Emerson, the 24-year-old woman who had her head bashed in recently by some miscreant who then decapitated her. Oh, yeah, she was hiking in a State Park, not a National Park. Those people who choose to be defenseless out of cowardice and then demand that everyone else be equally defenseless are beneath contempt. No one, and I mean no one, has a right to deny anyone else the right and responsibility to self defense so that they can "feel safer." Strength is not the equivalent of violence, nor is weakness a virtue. Grow back your spine, America!

Marvin h, Pavillion, WY (2/7/2008 11:12:18 AM)

I see we have both sides out today. As for those who believe al they are told by the media, this is not about hunting. Never was and never will be. It's about telling he law abiding they have no right to defend themselves. A the major mass shootings in this country have been where citizens could not defend themselve as criminals love no gun zones. As for our National Parks I can tell you there are very remotparts where you can not get help for hours if you are lucky and days most likely. And yes there have been cases where preditors, both 2 leged and 4 legged have attacked people and all bystanders could do is watch because of this rediculas ban.
And lastly, as a federal employee I quit often feel endangered on the job because I am banned from defending myself at work when traveling about in the field. I go to very remote locations as part of my job and the only way to deal with problem animals and humans is to hope I can get to my truick and run.
In remote areas there is no law enforcement to call for help. And in the city it's even worse.
Viva los 2nd ammendment

Jungle Work, Texas (2/7/2008 11:20:05 AM)

I spent almost twenty years as a National Park Ranger in Visitor Protection. Many National Park Service Areas are Dangerous Places. I would not go to a National Park withou carrying a weapon. Liberals don't like this, but it is the truth.

Jeff, Dallas (2/7/2008 11:20:51 AM)

Paul, you cannot possibly know that. Are you trying to state that no on e has been robbed or confronted with a dangerous animal in a public park since Reagan was in office? Wow, what a President he was. Actually able to communicate with the animals.

Lets get real here. There was never a rape, robbery, or murder until each one of those events happened and then it was too late. Another poster put it well. I would rather have a gun an dnot need it, which is what we all hope for, then need a gun and not have one.

I would bet that if you go back before Reagan and look the number of incidents by licensed gun owners is null also. Again, licensed gun owners are overly law abiding citizens. We cannot drink when we carry, we cannot let anyone know we are carrying, we cannot discharge our weapon unless defending a restricted list of felony offenses, etc. We have a much greater sense of responsability. Every time I put my pistol on I give up a number of things that you take for granted. I no longer get to go about my activities care free and without worry. I have to constantly be on the lookout for someone looking to spot me with a weapon. I have to be watchful for criminals intent on taking my weapon. I have to consciously decide if I would or would not take someone elses life during a threat. All these things run through our heads every minute we carry.

I notice that you, and others, never mention park rangrs and police carrying in parks. Other than a badge and uniform, can you tell me the difference between us and them? I can! Do you know their responsabilitie and powers compared to mine, or even yours? I do! I carry because they are not always there when you need them and they are limited and not always personally liable. I am personally liable for my actions and know that each and every time I put my gun on.

I hope and pray each and every day that our world would become a perfect place and I would not feel a need to take on the added burden; but the reality is we do not live in that world and there are elements that can or will hurt us. I rest much better at night knowing that myself and others, who also shoulder my similiar burdens, are out there looking after one another and you and yours.

So, when you are out in the park having a beer or playing with your kids, you can rest assured that someone might actually be able to protect you. Problem is that if they did no now they would lose their license and probably be jailed for doing so.

wmcol, tulsa (2/7/2008 12:27:03 PM)

Uh, Jungle work, Ronald Reagan was not a liberal. He is the one who started the ban on open-carry and the restrictions on guns in national parks. Liberals fought it but to no avail.

Matt, Denver (2/7/2008 12:43:50 PM)

Concealed carry holders are law abiding citizens who have passed the screening to carry that weapon to defend themselves. The criminals will not heed laws and warnings like this, just as a 'no guns allowed' sign on a gas station window will not deter them, so it only disables the good people from their right to ensure their own well being.