A Tale Of Two Officers

Today on AOL I read an interesting article about CPT Ivan Castro, US Army, titled Blind Special Forces Officer Pushes Limits by KEVIN MAURER.

The full article can be found at: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/blind-special-forces-officer-pushes/20080630093209990002


CPT Ivan Castro, US Army

When Capt. Ivan Castro joined the Army, he set goals: to jump out of planes, kick in doors and lead soldiers into combat. He achieved them all, until a mortar round took away his sight.

Capt. Ivan Castro is the only blind officer in U.S. Special Forces. "I am going to push the limits," he said. "I don't want to ... show up and sit in an office. I want to work every day and have a mission."

"Once you're blind, you have to set new goals," Castro said.

So he set them higher.

Not content with just staying in the Army, he is the only blind officer serving in the Special Forces - the small, elite units famed for dropping behind enemy lines on combat missions.

"I am going to push the limits," said the 40-year-old executive officer at the 7th Special Forces Group's headquarters company in Fort Bragg. "I don't want to go to Fort Bragg and show up and sit in an office. I want to work every day and have a mission."

Only two other blind officers serve in the active-duty Army: one a captain studying to be an instructor at West Point, the other an instructor at the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Castro's unit commander said his is no charity assignment. Rather it draws on his experience as a Special Forces team member and platoon leader with the 82nd Airborne Division. "The only reason that anyone serves with 7th Special Forces Group is if they have real talents," said Col. Sean Mulholland. "We don't treat (Castro) as a public affairs or a recruiting tool."

After 17 months in recovery, Castro sought a permanent assignment in the service's Special Operations Command, landing duty with the 7th Special Forces Group. He focuses on managerial tasks while honing the group's Spanish training, a useful language for a unit that deploys regularly to train South American troops.

"I want to support the guys and make sure life is easier for those guys so that they can accomplish the mission," he said.

"Obviously, he cannot do some things that a sighted person can do. But Ivan will find a way to get done whatever he needs to get done," Mulholland said. "What I am most impressed with, though, is his determination to continue to serve his country after all that he's been through."

Castro works out regularly at the gym and runs, his legs powerful and muscular. And though he has a prosthetic right eye and his arms are scarred by shrapnel, his outsized personality overshadows his war wounds: Nobody escapes his booming hellos, friendly banter and limitless drive.

He ran the Boston marathon this year with Adm. Eric T. Olson, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Last year it was the Marine Corps Marathon. He wants to compete in the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii and graduate from the Army's officer advanced course, which teaches captains how to lead troops and plan operations.

Mulholland said Castro, who was awarded a Purple Heart like others wounded in combat, will always be part of the Special Forces family.

"I will fight for Ivan as long as Ivan wants to be in the Army," Mulholland said.

Married and the father of a 14-year-old son, Castro still needs help getting to the gym. He recently needed an escort to the front of the headquarters company formation, where he promoted a supply clerk.

Once in front, Ivan took charge.

Affixing the new soldier's rank to his uniform, Castro urged the soldier to perform two ranks higher. In the Special Forces, he said, one has to go above and beyond what is asked - advice he lives by.

"I want to be treated the same way as other officers," Castro said. "I don't want them to take pity over me or give me something I've not earned."


LTJG John Kerry, US Navy

Lets compare another officer, LTJG John Kerry, US Navy to Capt Castro. LTJG Kerry was very lightly wounded three times in Vietnam and then with the policies in effect at that time, he immediately asked to be transferred out of the war zone to a safe area in Washington, DC.

For further information see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

As a retired Master Chief Petty Officer, Soap Box Ravings can only stand in wonderment of Captain Castro and all of the other severely injured military personnel who have continued to forge ahead in the service of their country.

My Dad, a 17 year old US Army Combat Medic and 18 year old POW, carried shrapnel in him until the day he died. Worse, he suffered post traumatic stress disorder which was never diagnosed until he was in his sixties.

Now, Trang Trong Duyet Says They Are Friends

Former Captor Says He'd Vote for McCain, by MARGIE MASON, on 27 June, 2008 at:
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/former-captor-says-hed-vote-for-mccain/20080627155209990001

Tran Trong Duyet, the Vietnamese jailer who says he held John McCain captive for about five years as a POW and now considers him a friend says he would vote for him.

At the same time, Tran also denies prisoners of war were tortured.

Duyet, 75, grew testy during the interview when repeatedly questioned about torture and why so many other former POWs (Prisoners Of War) say they too were mistreated. He preferred to talk about McCain as an old buddy.

And although they never saw eye-to-eye on the war that killed some 58,000 Americans and up to 3 million Vietnamese, he said they listened to each others' views.

"He's tough, has extreme political views and is very conservative," Duyet said. "He's very loyal to the U.S. military, to his beliefs and to his country. In all of our debates, he never admitted that the war was a mistake."




Soap Box Ravings finds it very interesting that Duyet refers to his interactions with POW (Prisoner Of War) John McCain, pictured above, as debates in which he, Duyet, listened to POW McCain's views.

Debates that regardless of how physical they became towards POW McCain he maintained his loyalty to the U.S. military, to his beliefs and to his country and during these same debates he never admitted that the war was a mistake.

ESPN's Bonnie Bernstein Says Palestinian Kids Want to Be Suicide Bombers, Apologizes .............WHY

Here is the full text of Bernstein's comments as posted by Michael David Smith on Jun 27, 2008 at:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/06/27/espns-bonnie-bernstein-says-palestinian-kids-want-to-be-suicide/?icid=200100397x1204885082x1200218409

It's sort of like, you know, and this isn't -- I'm prefacing this by saying this is in no way an analogy to sports because I know we live in a hypersensitive society -- but I remember a while ago I was reading an article in the New York Times about Palestinian suicide bombers and I just remember being struck by the notion that from the point of birth, people in Palestine are taught to think that dying in the name of God is a good thing.

They grow up wanting to be suicide bombers. So bringing it back to sports -- and again, I'm not making the comparison or the analogy -- if a young talented basketball player is being told at an early age that they are destined, it is a good thing to focus on basketball and not worry about what's going on in the classroom, why are any kids going to be worried about what's going on in the classroom?

The article I read stated that she seemed to know that she would offend people, and supposedly it did.

Soap Box Ravings wonders why people would get offended by the truth. Upset, maybe, but offended is not real. Most of the major magazines including Time have repeatedly reported on children who have became Muslim martyrs.

My question would be "where are all of the offended people and the hoopla when Time or any other major news media reports on child suicide bombers"?. How do these children get to be suicide bombers? They are a lot children in the United States who look at their heroes and decide they also want to play.

The article continues to explain some Arab-Americans feel that her analogy was a poor one, but then those on the receiving side of the truth often feel that way. I for one believe the analogy was true and correct.

The Battle Has Only Begun

From The Patriots Post, 27 June 2008:

In the Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote, “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.”

Justice Scalia continued in defense of original intent: “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad... Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Indeed, the Second Amendment is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic,” and those who fail to support it as such do so at great peril to the liberty of future generations of Americans. However, when the rights of man, as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and its subordinate exposition, our Constitution, hang in the balance, Patriots do not rely on a court of men for interpretation.

Soap Box Ravings believes the Second Amendment battle is equally as important as the battle for energy. Therefore, Soap Box Ravings would like to invite all of his fellow citizen Patriots to please take 30 seconds to read and sign the petition at: http://patriotpetitions.us/second/ Please feel free to ask all your friends and relatives to sign also.

The following is the petition:

The Right of the People ... shall not be infringed

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

We, the people of these United States, rightfully petition our President, House of Representatives and Senate in affirmation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We affirm that said Amendment was established to define an individual "right of the People to keep and bear arms," and that there is no more important constitutional issue than that of defending the plain language and original intent of the Second Amendment.

The newly-emboldened Democrat Party, with Barack Hussein Obama leading the charge, is once again attempting to redefine the Second Amendment as a collective right only, as outlined on the ACLU's website under "Gun Control": "We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias. ... The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns."

Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution's principal author, James Madison, wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Indeed, the Second Amendment is "the palladium of the liberties of the republic," and those who fail to support it as such, and reject detractors like Obama, do so at great peril to themselves and the liberty of future generations of Americans.

Accordingly, we, the undersigned, declare that gun ownership is not only an individual right, but a duty and obligation of all Patriots.

Signed,

A Soap Box Ravings Prediction

Charlton Heston understood the Second Amendment better than four out of nine Supreme Court Judges.


Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Washington, Dc gun statutes were unconstitutional. In their ruling, they also stated that possession of firearms was an individual right.

Today, Soap Box Ravings says "Now the games will begin. The politicians in Washington, DC city government are already at work trying to cobble together anything they can which will keep legal firearms out of their city.

They are Liberals and there is nothing else they can do. They do not want citizens protecting themselves, that can not be allowed. The politicians do not get tax dollars and therefore power from citizens who protect themselves.

The Court said firearms were legal, so now the politicians will have to work around that. Let me see, how can we do that?

1. They will certainly have to register every legal firearm within the city limits.

2. They will certainly have to license every legal firearms owner and qualify every legal operator within the city limits.

3. And there will be fees involved for the licensing of every legal firearm and the qualification and licensing of every legal operator

And there you have it, by making the administrative and financial burden great the City of Washington Dc can remain the same as it has been since 1976. The elite will have firearms and bodyguards, the bad guys will be armed and the local citizens and tourists will remain victims.

Don't believe me, listen to your Mayor, he is already babbling.

What Did The Presidential Candidates Say Regarding The Supreme Courts Second Amendment Decision

Barack Obama's statement in full:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."



John McCain's statement in full:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense.

Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly.

This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.



Soap Box Ravings is quick to note that Senator Obama said, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but."

It is Soap Box Ravings belief that when anyone says they agree with you and they follow their I agree statement with "but" they do not agree. They can soft soap or candy coat their response but everything that follows but is not in agreement. Then some kind of reference like "Justice Scalia himself acknowledged" follows until you then get to what the person really believes in which in this case is Gun Control. While both candidates for President used the word but, the context and meaning was different.

Scarier Than You May Think

An article by Peter Kasler, titled Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals identifies some of the court cases which determined that the government (police) are not responsible for your self protection. The full article may be found at: http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Soap Box Ravings is overjoyed that the U. S. Supreme Court ruled today that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The City of Washington, D. C. passed a law in 1976 preventing citizens who lived there from effectively defending themselves while at the same time various courts were busy ruling it was not the governments job to protect individual citizens.

While Soap Box Ravings is delighted with the Supreme Court's decision, he is totally sickened that four Supreme Court Justices did not comprehend the Constitution and The Bill of rights.

This country came within one vote of losing its Second Amendment protection. Think about that as you decide on your choice in the next and any subsequent elections.

Is Speculation A Bad Thing?

Homeowner Rescue Bill Passed Despite Veto Threat, By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN,
Published: May 9, 2008 in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/washington/09housing.html

Under the Democrats’ plan, lenders could limit their losses from potential foreclosures by agreeing to reduce the principal balances of loans at risk of default. The borrowers, many with expensive adjustable-rate loans, could then apply to refinance with a more stable, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage insured by the federal government.

Housing Aid Bill Passes Senate Test By DAVID STOUT and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: June 25, 2008 in The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25housingcnd.html?hp

The bill would create an affordable housing fund, financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored financial institutions that purchase mortgages from lenders. In the first year after final approval of the legislation, the fund would provide about $500 million for the foreclosure-rescue campaign.


Soap Box Ravings is having a hard time trying to figure out why Congress is considering punitive action against oil speculators while at the same Congress is bailing out those who speculated in the housing market.

Do the words hypocrisy or pandering apply hear. Perhaps Congressmen/women speculate greater rewards from the banking industry than they get from the oil industry

Dictionary.com defines "speculate" as: to engage in any business transaction involving considerable risk or the chance of large gains, esp. to buy and sell commodities, stocks, etc., in the expectation of a quick or very large profit.

In a "hot" housing market when you buy a house, whether to invest in or live in, it is still an investment. When you purchase at the limit you can afford or expect to be able to afford you are a speculator. It does not help that the banking or financial institution may have encouraged the buyer to buy at their maximum. And even if they didn't encourage, perhaps neither did they refuse the deal because the subject was "on the line."

When you speculate and the market stays hot, that can be lucrative, when you do the same thing and the bottom drops out of the market the results can be devastating.

It is the same with the oil companies. When they strike oil, sometimes a lot of money can be made. When they drill a dry whole on land they paid a lot of money for, a lot of money has gone down that hole and the speculators lose.

It is interesting to Soap Box Ravings that we have two groups of people speculating, but one is a victim and the other is demonized.

Another Quote From The Master Gunner

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

By Colonel Jeff Cooper, in his book "The Art of the Rifle"

An E-mail To Senator Martinez, (R) Florida

Dear Sir,

On Thursday, 12 June 2008 I heard your telephone comments on the Neal Boortz syndicated radio talk show. I heard you say that you have researched and China is not drilling in Cuba off of our coast for oil.

You may be technically correct that the Chinese are not drilling at this moment.

However, drilling for oil in Cuba is coming, see: Cuban oil production could be a catalyst for a change in relations with U.S. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/12/business/cubaoil.php

or try: Castro's revenge: The Cuban oil rush, Seventy miles from Florida, a Cuban oil rush is underway - and U.S. companies can't join in. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/
03/19/8402339/index.htm

Does it really matter who gets the oil off our coast since the Senators and Congressman and Congresswomen of this country seem determined to let it be lost? Is it any less gone if Spain, Norway or India drills for it?

At first, I thought: Wow, Senator Martinez with the real facts. Until I researched the situation myself. Now again, I see you as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Again, I say Drill Now; in Alaska, inside the continental United States, and offshore of Florida or wherever oil exists that is available to the United states.

Sincerely,

Some Thoughts Of Dr. Peter Hammond

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:United States -- Muslim 0.6%. Australia -- Muslim 1.5%. Canada -- Muslim 1.9%. China -- Muslim 1.8%. Italy -- Muslim 1.5%. Norway -- Muslim 1.8%.

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:Denmark -- Muslim 2%. Germany -- Muslim 3.7%. United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%. Spain -- Muslim 4%. Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%.

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:France -- Muslim 8%. Philippines -- Muslim 5%. Sweden -- Muslim 5%. Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%. The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%. Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%.

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:Guyana -- Muslim 10%. India -- Muslim 13.4%. Israel -- Muslim 16%. Kenya -- Muslim 10%. Russia -- Muslim 15%.

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:Bosnia -- Muslim 40%. Chad -- Muslim 53.1%. Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%.

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:Albania -- Muslim 70%. Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%. Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%. Sudan -- Muslim 70%.

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%. Egypt -- Muslim 90%. Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%. Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%. Iran -- Muslim 98%. Iraq -- Muslim 97%. Jordan -- Muslim 92%. Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%. Pakistan -- Muslim 97%. Palestine -- Muslim 99%. Syria -- Muslim 90%. Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%. Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%. United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%.

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%. Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%. Somalia -- Muslim 100%. Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Soap Box Ravings believes there is enough truth in Dr. Hammond's comments to pay attention. If you follow the news worldwide it also appears the greater the number of Muslims in a country, the more problems , including violence, there seem to be. Things like this brings to mind the old saying; "If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck."

Speak Up Now On Right-To-Carry In National Parks

From NRA_ILA: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3950

As we've reported over the last few weeks, the U.S. Department of the Interior has issued a proposed rule to eliminate the prohibition on Right-to-Carry in national parks and wildlife refuges. The National Rifle Association led the effort to change this policy and we are very close to winning this important battle.

However, the new rules cannot take effect until after a period of public comment. Our opponents will take advantage of this time to try to convince the Secretary of the Interior to reverse his decision. NRA members must take action now so that the anti-gunners are not allowed to sway this process.

It is always best to write in your own words. Here are some talking points to assist you:

* Rules on carrying and transporting firearms should be consistent—across the board—with the laws of the state that includes the national park or wildlife refuge;

* Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges;

* The new rules should provide uniformity across all federal lands, eliminating the patchwork of laws that create confusion for gun owners;

* Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws. Federal regulations should recognize the change in state laws and follow their lead, and;

* The new regulations should restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for all lawful purposes on most DOI lands, just as they do now on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.

It is critical that gun owners and sportsmen submit comments during this process.

Comments can submitted online by going to this web site: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497

Comments can also be mailed to the following address:

Public Comments Processing
Attn: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

Remember, all comments must be received by June 30. Submit your comments today!


Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.


Soap Box Ravings encourages everyone to send an e-mail or snail mail to the US department of Interior supporting this issue. Like everywhere else, those who break the laws are already armed in the woods and parks now. It is only the law abiding victim who is not armed. You don't have to carry a firearm if you do not want to, but the lawbreakers can not tell whether you have access to one if they are carried or possessed in accordance with the law.