View Full Version : Loaded guns allowed in national parks under bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic-controlled Congress is moving to restore a Bush administration policy that allowed loaded guns in national parks.
The Senate voted Tuesday to allow guns in national parks and wildlife refuges, and the House could follow suit as soon as Wednesday.
The measure is included in a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a final version to the White House for the president's signature by week's end
The Senate vote is a stark reversal from what many gun-control advocates expected when a federal judge blocked the Bush policy in March. The Obama administration accepted the ruling, saying that the Interior Department would conduct a full environmental review.
The review is expected to take several months at least. In the meantime, restrictions that had been in place since the Reagan administration remain in effect. The rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.
That timetable changed quickly last week after Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn inserted an amendment to the credit bard that would allow concealed, loaded guns in parks and refuges.
To the surprise of many, the amendment easily passed, winning support from 67 senators - including 27 Democrats. Among those who voted "yes" was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn's amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year. Seven other Western Democrats voted with Reid to support the Republican senator's amendment, which allows a range of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.
Spokesman Jim Manley said Reid is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, adding that the guns in parks issue was a major concern for many Nevadans.
"The rules that apply to our federal lands are felt acutely in Nevada, where 87 percent of the state's land is managed by federal agencies," Manley said.
...and more (source (http://app.com/article/20090519/NEWS/90519079/Loaded+guns+allowed+in+national+parks+under+bill))
though it looks like your name must be bill and it must be under you.
Well I am truly surprised and happy to see that the 2nd amendment is being up held.
halibut15
05-19-2009, 15:25
So here's a fun game: how many posts before this thread devolves into a discussion of gun rights?
I bet 3 more after this. :banana:banana:banana
So here's a fun game: how many posts before this thread devolves into a discussion of gun rights?
I bet 3 more after this. :banana:banana:banana
I will take that bet and raise you that it will get shut down before the 50th post.
So here's a fun game: how many posts before this thread devolves into a discussion of gun rights?
I bet 3 more after this. :banana:banana:banana
I think that it's my right to carry a firearm in a national park!!! :D
So here's a fun game: how many posts before this thread devolves into a discussion of gun rights?
I bet 3 more after this. :banana:banana:banana
Im the 3rd ONE more and you loose...
I have always carried a pistol when hiking...have never fired it in 8 years. But feels
good to have it, just in case.
le loupe
05-19-2009, 15:48
gun's are great!
I wish my state was like Tenessee and allowed me:
1) to carry
2) and to do so in state and local parks to go along with the now legal federal ones.
http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10384168
Rifleman
05-19-2009, 15:59
A little discounting before the brat crowd starts posting.
"An immature, irresponsible, irrational man or woman should never be allowed to touch, much less carry any type of weapon anywhere.":-?
leeki pole
05-19-2009, 16:00
I will take that bet and raise you that it will get shut down before the 50th post.
Umm, it is the Second Amendment. It's not politics, it's Constitutional Law. And thank goodness for the First Amendment, so we can post here and wear teabags if we want to.
A little discounting before the brat crowd starts posting.
"An immature, irresponsible, irrational man or woman should never be allowed to touch, much less carry any type of weapon anywhere.":-?
But I'm sometimes all of those...darn it.
Homer&Marje
05-19-2009, 16:14
A little discounting before the brat crowd starts posting.
"An immature, irresponsible, irrational man or woman should never be allowed to touch, much less carry any type of weapon anywhere.":-?
I think I originally said that. If it makes me a brat. I don't know.:rolleyes:
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 16:43
I think I originally said that. If it makes me a brat. I don't know.:rolleyes:
You aint never gonna learn:rolleyes:
Homer&Marje
05-19-2009, 18:02
Hahahhaha. I can one up that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMEFcYij2uY
Many Walks
05-19-2009, 19:02
Hahahhaha. I can one up that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMEFcYij2uY
Ah, the good old days being a maggot in the DI's Corps!
:banana
I tried to post but one of the mod's must have disliked what I said and deleted it. Oh well, I guess you have to be politically correct on WB. Doesn't matter that you are a donating member, not a registered member. :banana
:banana
I tried to post but one of the mod's must have disliked what I said and deleted it. Oh well, I guess you have to be politically correct on WB. Doesn't matter that you are a donating member, not a registered member. :banana
It sure doesn't, I've had a few of mine disappear on occasion. In defense of the moderators, a few of mine probably needed to go away. :)
It sure doesn't, I've had a few of mine disappear on occasion. In defense of the moderators, a few of mine probably needed to go away. :)
I will second amendment that.
:banana
I tried to post but one of the mod's must have disliked what I said and deleted it. Oh well, I guess you have to be politically correct on WB. Doesn't matter that you are a donating member, not a registered member. :banana
Having read the post that was deleted, it's obvious that you don't think that rules/laws apply to you. Get over it.
take-a-knee
05-19-2009, 19:43
Having read the post that was deleted, it's obvious that you don't think that rules/laws apply to you. Get over it.
Good job Kanati, you got Mowgli's drawers in a wad. This is so frickin' typical, no one has said anything yet in this thread that could in anyway by deemed improper or offensive by anyone with half-a-brain. I forgot, that rules out most knee-jerk, hands across the water lib types.
Good job Kanati, you got Mowgli's drawers in a wad. This is so frickin' typical, no one has said anything yet in this thread that could in anyway by deemed improper or offensive by anyone with half-a-brain. I forgot, that rules out most knee-jerk, hands across the water lib types.
Rambo defending a guy who brags about illegally carrying a firearm in a National Park, and pulling out and showing said firearm to a complete stranger he meets on his hike.
Absolutely priceless!! :p
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 20:04
Ah, the good old days being a maggot in the DI's Corps!
Would you happen to be the hiker known as Walking Man???:-?
The deleted posts were about politics, OR in some cases quoted the deleted posts. We got rid of the politics forum a year ago. Please, let's try not to re-open it here.
The deleted posts were about politics, OR in some cases quoted the deleted posts. We got rid of the politics forum a year ago. Please, let's try not to re-open it here.
Not trying to be difficult here and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this entire thread political? We are discussing a decision made by elected politicians as a result of political lobbying. It would be pretty hard to seperate the issue from it's inception. If we are to delete every post that carries an undertone of politics, this would rapidly become a pretty dry place. Just sayin'...:D
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 20:14
This thread has already taken place more or less a couple of weeks ago. Look I support the constitution but just because I disagree with some of you about gun carrying while hiking does not mean that my opinion should be bashed. Keep it nice everyone and you wont get the harsh remarks back. This discussion can be carried on in a respectful way but if some of you want to come down harsh on those of us that differ in our opinion, you will get the same in return and therefore, posts will get deleted and threads will get shutdown. Dont blame the mods for doing there job, remember they are volunteering their time!!!
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 20:15
Not trying to be difficult here and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this entire thread political? We are discussing a decision made by elected politicians as a result of political lobbying. It would be pretty hard to seperate the issue from it's inception. If we are to delete every post that carries an undertone of politics, this would rapidly become a pretty dry place. Just sayin'...:D
I think it skates a very fine line but it does fall into the category of hiking. Remember the thread last week???
Not trying to be difficult here and please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this entire thread political?
Nope, the thread has a direct application to hiking in National Parks for those who might choose to carry.
The original deleted posts were general comments about the current Washington establishment. There is a difference.
This thread has already taken place more or less a couple of weeks ago. Look I support the constitution but just because I disagree with some of you about gun carrying while hiking does not mean that my opinion should be bashed. Keep it nice everyone and you wont get the harsh remarks back. This discussion can be carried on in a respectful way but if some of you want to come down harsh on those of us that differ in our opinion, you will get the same in return and therefore, posts will get deleted and threads will get shutdown. Dont blame the mods for doing there job, remember they are volunteering their time!!!
I do agree that sometimes we need to agree to disagree and just move on. Thankfully we are in a free society (for now anyway) that allows us to freely express out opinions. When we disagree on a subject, the discourse arising from differing opinons can lead to some pretty interesting threads. As long as we remain civil, there can be much to gain.
Nope, the thread has a direct application to hiking in National Parks for those who might choose to carry.
The original deleted posts were general comments about the current Washington establishment. There is a difference.
I missed those I think. I just find it difficult to seperate things, such as the right to carry and the process by which that right came to be. I do understand the burden of moderating though and to be completely honest, you all do a much better job than I could hope to. Too many shortcomings on this end. :)
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 20:30
I missed those I think. I just find it difficult to seperate things, such as the right to carry and the process by which that right came to be. I do understand the burden of moderating though and to be completely honest, you all do a much better job than I could hope to. Too many shortcomings on this end. :)
Yea they were a bit outta line
Yea they were a bit outta line
Maybe because you didnt agree with them.:0 just sayn.
take-a-knee
05-19-2009, 20:51
Rambo defending a guy who brags about illegally carrying a firearm in a National Park, and pulling out and showing said firearm to a complete stranger he meets on his hike.
Absolutely priceless!! :p
RAMBO!? :-? I wish I resembled that remark but I'm sorely afraid I could never fill Sly's jungle boots.
16 more post guys and I have won the bet!!
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 20:53
Maybe because you didnt agree with them.:0 just sayn.
That isnt correct, they didnt relate their comments to the discussion.:rolleyes:
Lone Wolf
05-19-2009, 20:55
armed, law abiding citizens is a good thing. cuts down on the crime rate. this thread will be shut down soon thanks to anti-gunners
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 20:58
armed, law abiding citizens is a good thing. cuts down on the crime rate. this thread will be shut down soon thanks to anti-gunners
What about the non law abiding citizens that are armed in our parks?
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 21:00
armed, law abiding citizens is a good thing. cuts down on the crime rate. this thread will be shut down soon thanks to anti-gunners
And just to be on the same page, yes I dislike guns, but I am not against Americans possesing them. I think the bill in which this law is in in wrong.
I will take that bet and raise you that it will get shut down before the 50th post.
armed, law abiding citizens is a good thing. cuts down on the crime rate. this thread will be shut down soon thanks to anti-gunners
It can't go away yet, Snowhoe said it would be before 50, but we are only in the mid 30's.
What about the non law abiding citizens that are armed in our parks?
You said it yourself Chaco, "non law abiding" denotes people who don't care about laws and as such it wouldn't matter to them whether it was legal to carry in a national park or not. They existed before this bill and they will still exist after. You cannot legislate morals, and criminals are by nature immoral so lets give the law abiding citizen the right to protect themselves from the dirtbags. :-?
Signing off now, getting typers cramp since it's been a slow day at work. :)
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 21:14
It can't go away yet, Snowhoe said it would be before 50, but we are only in the mid 30's.
You said it yourself Chaco, "non law abiding" denotes people who don't care about laws and as such it wouldn't matter to them whether it was legal to carry in a national park or not. They existed before this bill and they will still exist after. You cannot legislate morals, and criminals are by nature immoral so lets give the law abiding citizen the right to protect themselves from the dirtbags. :-?
Signing off now, getting typers cramp since it's been a slow day at work. :)
I am saying that if you call for law abiding citizens being able to carry, what about the people that choose not to carry? It is said that law abiding citizens should be able to carry in our parks. WHat about those of us that choose not to carry? By allowing guns in our parks, it puts those of us at risks that choose not to carry. Im not objecting to anything you are saying, or anyone, Im just bringing up the fact that there are some of us that choose not to carry and we are also at risk with the non law abiding citizens. Law or not, it wont stop anyone from carrying anywhere in our parks or on the trail. Just by saying its wrong to carry or passing a law wont stop most people.
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 21:17
Im just going to TRY and leave it at that but I know how this discussion goes. Just please be respectful and that is all I ask
LockJaww
05-19-2009, 21:33
Long overdue...Why shouldnt law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves within national parks boundries?...I always hike armed...
le loupe
05-19-2009, 21:40
I am saying that if you call for law abiding citizens being able to carry, what about the people that choose not to carry? It is said that law abiding citizens should be able to carry in our parks. WHat about those of us that choose not to carry? By allowing guns in our parks, it puts those of us at risks that choose not to carry. Im not objecting to anything you are saying, or anyone, Im just bringing up the fact that there are some of us that choose not to carry and we are also at risk with the non law abiding citizens. Law or not, it wont stop anyone from carrying anywhere in our parks or on the trail. Just by saying its wrong to carry or passing a law wont stop most people.
While I'm not about to call you dumb- I've never understood what the position is or why/how a "law abiding citizen" carrying puts those that choose not to carry at risk. Can you explain that? At risk of what? Being shot by a "law abiding citizen"?
The likelihood of this is infintesimal. There are more than enough statistics to demonstrate this and you can go back to previous threads to read them
or click on the link
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/gunfacts_v3.2.pdf
Skidsteer
05-19-2009, 21:52
What about the non law abiding citizens that are armed in our parks?
There oughta be a law against that sort of behaviour.
Lone Wolf
05-19-2009, 21:57
What about the non law abiding citizens that are armed in our parks?
they'll get their ass blowed away by guys like me
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 21:57
This is Sgt Rocks post from the closed thread before it got insane. I respect what the man says and think he makes a very good point.
"The legality of shooting someone - it isn't. Sure you may claim self defense, but that means you must stop everything you are doing with your hike and your life to go through the process of police reports, investigation, possibly going to court for bail and time in jail while they sort it out, maybe a trial or at least grand jury (Weasel would know the ins and outs better). AND you may not have anyone to back up your story against the local boy. Also remember they guy in Louisiana about 10 or so years ago that shot the Japanese exchange student because he thought the guy was trying to break into his house, but the student just wanted to borrow a phone after his car broke down - my point is you may kill some innocent person thinking you are in danger when you really aren't. HOW COULD YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF AFTER THAT!?!"
"How about training? Most people can point and shoot, some can even shoot well at cans. But in a real gunfight even professionals have a hard time hitting anything. Remember that video of the two sheriffs having a gun fight about 5' from a couple of white separatists when they pulled them over? Over 30 shots fired at close range from professional police and NOT ONE SINGLE HIT! Can you look someone in the face and actually pull the trigger? What will you do after shooting them and the blood is everywhere and this human being is pleading for their life after you shot them? People don't always drop like in the movies, and it is a bloody mess. Will you let them die in front of you? If you will, you're sick. If you do the right thing, imagine how much of a problem and a responsibility it is to treat a gunshot person, especially when they are bleeding out and their backside looks like raw hamburger.
A responsible gun user must always carry their gun on them. To let it out of your possession means anyone else can get it. And for defense, it must always be ready, and always be very accessible. If you plan to put it inside your pack neither requirement is met, so there is no usefulness in the weapon. If you are always carrying it, then how? They do make holster/waist belts that look like a normal waist belt, but after carrying it 24/7 for a month will you feel safe or burdened? What will you do when showering in a hostel? Or swimming in a creek? People will catch on, then you may have problems."
Now I took this from the closed thread and the reason being is that it illustrates the point Im trying to make about the new law. Carry your gun all you want, I just dont see the need to carry it in our parks.
le loupe
05-19-2009, 22:06
This is Sgt Rocks post from the closed thread before it got insane. I respect what the man says and think he makes a very good point.
"The legality of shooting someone - it isn't. Sure you may claim self defense, but that means you must stop everything you are doing with your hike and your life to go through the process of police reports, investigation, possibly going to court for bail and time in jail while they sort it out, maybe a trial or at least grand jury (Weasel would know the ins and outs better). AND you may not have anyone to back up your story against the local boy. Also remember they guy in Louisiana about 10 or so years ago that shot the Japanese exchange student because he thought the guy was trying to break into his house, but the student just wanted to borrow a phone after his car broke down - my point is you may kill some innocent person thinking you are in danger when you really aren't. HOW COULD YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF AFTER THAT!?!"
"How about training? Most people can point and shoot, some can even shoot well at cans. But in a real gunfight even professionals have a hard time hitting anything. Remember that video of the two sheriffs having a gun fight about 5' from a couple of white separatists when they pulled them over? Over 30 shots fired at close range from professional police and NOT ONE SINGLE HIT! Can you look someone in the face and actually pull the trigger? What will you do after shooting them and the blood is everywhere and this human being is pleading for their life after you shot them? People don't always drop like in the movies, and it is a bloody mess. Will you let them die in front of you? If you will, you're sick. If you do the right thing, imagine how much of a problem and a responsibility it is to treat a gunshot person, especially when they are bleeding out and their backside looks like raw hamburger.
A responsible gun user must always carry their gun on them. To let it out of your possession means anyone else can get it. And for defense, it must always be ready, and always be very accessible. If you plan to put it inside your pack neither requirement is met, so there is no usefulness in the weapon. If you are always carrying it, then how? They do make holster/waist belts that look like a normal waist belt, but after carrying it 24/7 for a month will you feel safe or burdened? What will you do when showering in a hostel? Or swimming in a creek? People will catch on, then you may have problems."
Now I took this from the closed thread and the reason being is that it illustrates the point Im trying to make about the new law. Carry your gun all you want, I just dont see the need to carry it in our parks.
Those are completely different issues than whether a non-carrying citizen is any less safe now that the law allows carry in NPs
Hoop Time
05-19-2009, 22:18
I am not anti-gun, but I am also not one who believes the second amendment is a blanket authorization for anyone to carry guns anywhere they want. Remember it was prefaced with the caveat about the need for a militia.
As for this legislation, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I can see no need for someone to carry in most national park situations, where hunting is not allowed. But at the same time, I can understand the desire for many to have a gun for security when hiking/camping -- especially alone. In fact, I have often thought about buying a handgun for just that reason, since I am often by myself in relatively remote areas. So I support this idea, as long as any yahoos who behave recklessly with a gun in a national park are dealt with severely.
Chaco Taco
05-19-2009, 23:03
Those are completely different issues than whether a non-carrying citizen is any less safe now that the law allows carry in NPs
OK your right
Just because they passed the freaking law doesnt mean every person you meet will be packing heat!! Just saying...
All right who's going to invent an UL handgun for us to all have :P
What!!!!!! You guys stink. You couldnt even get this thread shut down by the 50th post I guess I lost.
All right who's going to invent an UL handgun for us to all have :PThere are a few out there that are surprisingly light.
Having read the post that was deleted, it's obvious that you don't think that rules/laws apply to you. Get over it.
Was his post about dopers that don't respect others? If so, I agree with you.
Homer&Marje
05-20-2009, 05:54
they'll get their ass blowed away by guys like me
Wow what a tough guy. How's vigilantism going down there in Damascus? That how you caught the Chief of Police selling Meth?
Lone Wolf
05-20-2009, 05:56
Wow what a tough guy. How's vigilantism going down there in Damascus? That how you caught the Chief of Police selling Meth?
shut up already :rolleyes:
Homer&Marje
05-20-2009, 05:57
Can't. Wake up to early these days. Gotta start the day full o' piss and vinegar.
RAMBO!? :-? I wish I resembled that remark but I'm sorely afraid I could never fill Sly's jungle boots.
Got roids? :sun At least now we know where Rambo's rage came from. :p
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 07:35
Got roids? :sun At least now we know where Rambo's rage came from. :p
I have hemmoroids.
I have hemmoroids.
Cut the cheese out of you diet. :D
I have hemmoroids.
You are a PITA. :p
I'm suprised that this made it through the Senate but I'm glad it did! Bought time gun owners get a win!
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 09:45
Wow what a tough guy. How's vigilantism going down there in Damascus? That how you caught the Chief of Police selling Meth?
Thats a bit messed up. :rolleyes:
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 09:47
I have hemmoroids.
We know :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 09:49
The measure is included in a popular bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders have said they hope to send a final version to the White House for the president's signature by week's end.
TJ aka Teej
05-20-2009, 10:00
I'm suprised that this made it through the Senate but I'm glad it did! Bought time gun owners get a win!
This gun owner doesn't think it's a "win".
Oh wait, you meant "gun nuts get a win", right?
If you're so terrified of the scary scary deep dark woods you need a firearm to get yourself past the trailhead parking lot you should just stay home.
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 10:05
http://cybermesa.com/~morology/Guns.jpg
[QUOTE=TJ aka Teej;841226]This gun owner doesn't think it's a "win".
Oh wait, you meant "gun nuts get a win", right?
If you're so terrified of the scary scary deep dark woods you need a firearm to get yourself past the trailhead parking lot you should just stay home.[/QUOTE
Oh wait! Thats were you are most likely to get robbed!!
chaco taco we all know you carry when you hit the trail so dont hide it any more. You remember when you showed me your glock when we were out side of hot springs? I didnt want to bring it up but..... the truth hurts some times. :)
This gun owner doesn't think it's a "win".
Oh wait, you meant "gun nuts get a win", right?
If you're so terrified of the scary scary deep dark woods you need a firearm to get yourself past the trailhead parking lot you should just stay home.
Nail hit firmly on head... Perhaps if you feel there are so many "bad guys" out their with guns, perhaps you have an issue of too many firearms. Perhaps restricting the number of firearms produced and sold would be a better approach than planning to arm everyone in the hopes that when the "bad guy" behaves badly, he will be dealt with in a shoot out...
Just taking a walk through a local walmart or grociery store watching some folks manouver a shopping cart provides me enough pause to question the logic of arming the average citizen...
For me it's not so much a matter of being caught in a gun fight with a knife as it is using common sense to avoid getting in those situations in the first place. And if I do find myself in that situation, by that time even if I am armed, it will be to late to react with my gun to protect myself...
If you feel safer with a gun, and decide to carry on the trail, don't be offended when I steer clear of you, because your need for safety in a gun will diminish my feeling of safety by seeing your gun!
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 10:16
chaco taco we all know you carry when you hit the trail so dont hide it any more. You remember when you showed me your glock when we were out side of hot springs? I didnt want to bring it up but..... the truth hurts some times. :)
People think the sleeve on the side of my pack is tent poles, Its my sawd off shot gun.:p
I thought that it was an AR-15. HAHA
Having read the post that was deleted, it's obvious that you don't think that rules/laws apply to you. Get over it.
What rules? Actually, it doesn't bother me. That's why I put the :bananaon it?
Have a great day.
Good job Kanati, you got Mowgli's drawers in a wad. This is so frickin' typical, no one has said anything yet in this thread that could in anyway by deemed improper or offensive by anyone with half-a-brain. I forgot, that rules out most knee-jerk, hands across the water lib types.
Thanks. All I said was support the NRA. Shhhhh. The liberals might hear it.
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 10:37
I thought that it was an AR-15. HAHA
A CAR-15 with a telescoping stock would hold up a tarptent quite nicely
Thanks. All I said was support the NRA. Shhhhh. The liberals might hear it.
No. That's not all you said. You posted about taking your Ruger SP101 .357 magnum in Shiloh NMP (last Friday) and showing it to a stranger that you met. That's just plain stupid.
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 10:41
This gun owner doesn't think it's a "win".
Oh wait, you meant "gun nuts get a win", right?
If you're so terrified of the scary scary deep dark woods you need a firearm to get yourself past the trailhead parking lot you should just stay home.
How long were you in the PPCLI brave boy? You're so brave and patriotic, I know you just had to serve the Queen.
Now we're cooking, Snowhoe will be short of the mark at 50 posts, but this thread is definitely headed for a lockdown...;)
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 10:52
No. That's not all you said. You posted about taking your Ruger SP101 .357 magnum in Shiloh NMP (last Friday) and showing it to a stranger that you met. That's just plain stupid.
You've obviously never taken part in a partisan linkup.
TJ aka Teej
05-20-2009, 10:56
this thread is definitely headed for a lockdown...;)
"Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken."
Starting threads about guns on a hiking website is trolling. Always has been, always will be.
You've obviously never taken part in a partisan linkup.
I live in a place COMPLETELY surrounded by a National Military Park. And in my wildest dreams, I would never imagine taking one of my two firearms into the park and showing it to someone I just met. And seeing as you fancy yourself the resident expert on firearms, it's pretty clear that you're being disingenuous defending that kind of behavior.
"Topics that have been closed, deleted, or moved by an Administrator or Moderator have been done for a reason. Users will not open new threads on the same subject or continue to make posts about subjects that have had these actions taken."
Starting threads about guns on a hiking website is trolling. Always has been, always will be.
The sad thing is it doesn't have to be this way, but people get their undies in a wad when someone doesn't agree with them and this particular subject seems to get more heated then some. I don't think every OP on the subject would constitute trolling, as some are probably done with an earnest desire for open discourse. It is hard to separate the well intentioned from the troll though I'm sure.
le loupe
05-20-2009, 11:16
Nail hit firmly on head... Perhaps if you feel there are so many "bad guys" out their with guns, perhaps you have an issue of too many firearms. Perhaps restricting the number of firearms produced and sold would be a better approach than planning to arm everyone in the hopes that when the "bad guy" behaves badly, he will be dealt with in a shoot out...
C'mon- its just another safety precaution that people may choose to take like:
helmets on bicycles
seat belts in cars
opting not to fly on a plane
taking doors off unused refrigerators
having releases inside car trunks
The likelihood that any of these situations kills you is low and remote, yet we accept these precautions. Some choose not to implement these and some, perhaps even innocent people, die as a result.
Does it make you a nut not to get on a plane? To some, but you'll never get killed in a plane crash either.
Guns are unique in that they are not a passive tool, like a helmet or seatbelt. Injury to others is possible with their use. If you're against guns on the trail or elsewhere it seems the fear is that you are going to be shot/killed for minding your own business. So how often does this happen, that innocents are injured by gun toting nuts?
On the trail, I haven't heard of any. In day-to-day life very rarely (1:26000 gun uses). Even the situation that Bearpaw (i think) mentioned earlier had extentuating circumstances. While the kid wasn't trying to break-in per se, he was; drunk, trying to get into a residence that wasn't his and in a fashion that surely was aggressive as anyone frustrated when they can't open their door would be. As such he didn't deserve to die but he wasn't purely "innocent", he engaged in behaviour that ultimately got him killed.
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 11:17
The sad thing is it doesn't have to be this way, but people get their undies in a wad when someone doesn't agree with them and this particular subject seems to get more heated then some. I don't think every OP on the subject would constitute trolling, as some are probably done with an earnest desire for open discourse. It is hard to separate the well intentioned from the troll though I'm sure.
Yea but when people like Take a Knee come along and call people dumb just for explaining why they disagree or agree with something, I dont think that is hard to separate.
I agree with you in some aspects and respect your opinion, but the trolls love stirring the pot and pissing people off with insults instead of having a civil discussion.
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 11:17
I live in a place COMPLETELY surrounded by a National Military Park. And in my wildest dreams, I would never imagine taking one of my two firearms into the park and showing it to someone I just met. And seeing as you fancy yourself the resident expert on firearms, it's pretty clear that you're being disingenuous defending that kind of behavior.
Okay Mowgli, kindly review COL Cooper's gunhandling rules for us and tell us how Kanati violated any of them? I don't remember if he said he unloaded the revolver before he handed it to the guy (if he handed it to him at all). If he did not, he should have. Other than that, what's the problem, except maybe an acute cause of hoplophobia on your part?
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 11:21
Yea but when people like Take a Knee come along and call people dumb just for explaining why they disagree or agree with something, I dont think that is hard to separate.
I agree with you in some aspects and respect your opinion, but the trolls love stirring the pot and pissing people off with insults instead of having a civil discussion.
After reading your brain-dead, totally illogical post, I thought I was being nice by insulting only you without adding your publik skool teachers into the mix. Stupid is as stupid does. You can't have a civil, logical discussion with someone who's incapable of logic.
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 11:23
After reading your brain-dead, totally illogical post, I thought I was being nice by insulting only you without adding your publik skool teachers into the mix. Stupid is as stupid does. You can't have a civil, logical discussion with someone who's incapable of logic.
I rest my case, jerk
Okay Mowgli, kindly review COL Cooper's gunhandling rules for us and tell us how Kanati violated any of them? I don't remember if he said he unloaded the revolver before he handed it to the guy (if he handed it to him at all). If he did not, he should have. Other than that, what's the problem, except maybe an acute cause of hoplophobia on your part?
No thanks. I have already reviewed US handgun laws as they existed last Friday and applied some common sense. I am a law abiding citizen, and unlike you, I am not in the habit of making excuses for those who are not.
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 11:25
http://pics.bikerag.com/Uploads/data/500/258Troll_spray.jpg
Chaco Taco
05-20-2009, 11:29
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/04/frightenedman400.jpg
Dont worry Take a Knee, it will be ok.
TJ aka Teej
05-20-2009, 11:32
After reading your brain-dead, totally illogical post, I thought I was being nice by insulting only you without adding your publik skool teachers into the mix. Stupid is as stupid does. You can't have a civil, logical discussion with someone who's incapable of logic.
Take-a-Knee, please keep posting in this manner. I think it helps those considering taking a gun on an AT hike realize what a silly idea it is.
TJ aka Teej
05-20-2009, 11:34
I think the kids and I will head over to the sandpit and plink at some tin cans later. Hopefully no hiker over at the town forest will start shooting back...
Take-a-Knee, please keep posting in this manner. I think it helps those considering taking a gun on an AT hike realize what a silly idea it is.
What he said. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I can understand why some people are made to feel uncomfortable with gun owners when we are associated with attitudes like that. The extremely low incidence of violence on the trail, coupled with the hope that there might be somewhere we can get away from the confrontational nature of society, causes me to leave the firearms at home when I'm hiking. As a former SWAT medic, I can tell you that the vast majority of violent incidents occur rapidly and without warning. If your firearm isn't immediately accessible, and I mean with 1-2 seconds tops, it might as well be at home. Since I feel safe in assuming you don't carry on your hip, you are essentially wasting the effort of carrying at all in MOST cases. (Of course there are exceptions, but as pointed out the odds are unlikely)
Your mind is the best self defense weapon most of the time.
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 11:47
I think the kids and I will head over to the sandpit and plink at some tin cans later. Hopefully no hiker over at the town forest will start shooting back...
Why would they? Maybe because an evil inanimate object has taken total control of their will and ability to reason? And you people say I "live in fear"?
I think the kids and I will head over to the sandpit and plink at some tin cans later. Hopefully no hiker over at the town forest will start shooting back...
Why would they? Maybe because an evil inanimate object has taken total control of their will and ability to reason? And you people say I "live in fear"?
Anybody got a list of conditions that renders someone unable to recognize sarcasm? :p
Well I guess I will weigh in after reading this thread. Hiked in the Tetons and Yellowstone 5 years ago for a week. Did not carry a weapon. Never have. Never felt the need. 5 of us on the trip that year. Not suppose to have a gun out there. One of our hikers carried and I was a little concerned should we be checked. After having a bear come through camp I changed my mind. He had his nose to the ground and plowed right on through. Got some great pictures. Now my point. Would have been a real problem should someone had to shoot the bear if it had attacked. I would rather deal with that though over a chewed up or dead hiker. We had no problem because the guy carrying wasn't stupid. Stupid people with guns cause problems. Stupid people just plain cause problems. I don't carry a gun but if I decide to I will get a carry permit and only I will know that I have it on me. Hopefully the day will not come when I would have to use it. Don't suspect it will, but if it does maybe, just maybe I will be in a situation where I can help save you from someone intent on doing you harm. Thanks. Jay B.
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 11:58
What he said. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I can understand why some people are made to feel uncomfortable with gun owners when we are associated with attitudes like that. The extremely low incidence of violence on the trail, coupled with the hope that there might be somewhere we can get away from the confrontational nature of society, causes me to leave the firearms at home when I'm hiking. As a former SWAT medic, I can tell you that the vast majority of violent incidents occur rapidly and without warning. If your firearm isn't immediately accessible, and I mean with 1-2 seconds tops, it might as well be at home. Since I feel safe in assuming you don't carry on your hip, you are essentially wasting the effort of carrying at all in MOST cases. (Of course there are exceptions, but as pointed out the odds are unlikely)
Your mind is the best self defense weapon most of the time.
I'm sure Meredith's parents would disagree with your assumptions, the odds seem much more "likely" to them. You are obviously not qualified to offer concealed carry advice and should refrain from doing so, there are numerous ways to carry discretely so the weapon is easily accesible. Mindset and self-awareness are certainly important, but by themselves won't always get you home safely. Admiral Crowe, in testimony to Congress after the Jimmy Carter induced fiasco at Desert One in Iran in 1981, opined that "Military amatuers talk tactics, military professionals talk logistics".
I'm sure Meredith's parents would disagree with your assumptions, the odds seem much more "likely" to them. You are obviously not qualified to offer concealed carry advice and should refrain from doing so, there are numerous ways to carry discretely so the weapon is easily accesible. Mindset and self-awareness are certainly important, but by themselves won't always get you home safely. Admiral Crowe, in testimony to Congress after the Jimmy Carter induced fiasco at Desert One in Iran in 1981, opined that "Military amatuers talk tactics, military professionals talk logistics".
In what manner am I OBVIOUSLY not qualified? In what manner did I offer concealed carry advice as well? It is becoming readily apparent that you are both argumentative and unable to accept criticism and as such I will stop wasting my time attempting to educate you when your mind is closed. As Fez would say, "Good day".
I don't post here very often, but I had to throw in my $.02 on this one.
A gun ban has never stopped a criminal, so why bother. For the law abiding it should be a personal choice. I have several and know when it is sensible to carry and when it is not. Everyone else should do the same ..... make a personal choice.
None of it has to be more complicated than that.
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 12:22
In what manner am I OBVIOUSLY not qualified? In what manner did I offer concealed carry advice as well? It is becoming readily apparent that you are both argumentative and unable to accept criticism and as such I will stop wasting my time attempting to educate you when your mind is closed. As Fez would say, "Good day".
You suggested the accessible, concealed-carry on the trail wasn't possible or at least plausible. That is simply not true. I am always open to constructive, logical, well-reasoned criticism. I just don't get much of it from WB'ers on "gun threads". Just about everything in my pack now has been aquirred in the last several years on the advice of others, many here at WB.
Hey, anyone see that sweet new Marmot suicide bomb vest? It's only 14.5 ounces!!!!
Hey, anyone see that sweet new Marmot suicide bomb vest? It's only 14.5 ounces!!!!
Too heavy. Any self respecting UL terrorist would never carry anything that heavy for a one time use. :D
I don't post here very often, but I had to throw in my $.02 on this one.
A gun ban has never stopped a criminal, so why bother. For the law abiding it should be a personal choice. I have several and know when it is sensible to carry and when it is not. Everyone else should do the same ..... make a personal choice.
None of it has to be more complicated than that.
Assuming everyone is as sensible as you. Take a walk through your local walmart or bass pro shop and then come back and let me know if you feel comfortable allowing average citizens to come to a "sensible determination" on their own...
This gun owner doesn't think it's a "win".
Oh wait, you meant "gun nuts get a win", right?
If you're so terrified of the scary scary deep dark woods you need a firearm to get yourself past the trailhead parking lot you should just stay home.
I personally don't carry and won't start because of this. I just believe the 2nd should be up-held and this is a good start. Anyone whom is a responsible gun owner knows that this really changes nothing for the people that don't/won't carry. The people that carry weapons that would give you any trouble would be packing regardless of what the law says.
All this will do is give honest citizens the right to defend themselves if they so happen to run into one of these thugs.
le loupe
05-20-2009, 13:16
Assuming everyone is as sensible as you. Take a walk through your local walmart or bass pro shop and then come back and let me know if you feel comfortable allowing average citizens to come to a "sensible determination" on their own...
38 states have already allowed average citizens to carry handguns on a daily basis. The guy you bump into in walmart already has a gun in his pocket. This has not resulted in mistaken shootings or increased danger to overall citizenry. Sensible determination has already been made.
This amendment extends that ability to NPs- that is all. It allows for consistency of law
take-a-knee
05-20-2009, 13:22
Assuming everyone is as sensible as you. Take a walk through your local walmart or bass pro shop and then come back and let me know if you feel comfortable allowing average citizens to come to a "sensible determination" on their own...
But I guess those same "sensible" citizens can be trusted to choose rulers to figure everything out for them. I wonder where the rulers shop? Your ill-liberal bonafides shine quite clearly in that post. I go to Bass Pro and Walmart all the time, I have yet to feel "threatened" there by anyone. I usually have a 9mm in my pocket though.
But I guess those same "sensible" citizens can be trusted to choose rulers to figure everything out for them. I wonder where the rulers shop? Your ill-liberal bonafides shine quite clearly in that post. I go to Bass Pro and Walmart all the time, I have yet to feel "threatened" there by anyone. I usually have a 9mm in my pocket though.
Clearly....
Assuming everyone is as sensible as you. Take a walk through your local walmart or bass pro shop and then come back and let me know if you feel comfortable allowing average citizens to come to a "sensible determination" on their own...There are requirements that states have in order to obtain the permit to carry concealed. The beginning of this thread pointed out that the law about loaded weapons in National Parks was about to change, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly going to be legal for everyone to carry a concealed loaded weapon there. The folks who always carried unlawfully will still do so and the law abiding folks with the proper permits will have the option to make a choice.
On that note, please cut out the personal attacks. That has been said before on this message board and it would be nice if people would take a moment to moderate their own comments in that respect. Reading back through this thread it's obvious which posts I'm talking about. Thanks.
Alligator
05-20-2009, 13:32
The persuasiveness of these arguments leads me to believe that everyone changed their minds, so this is a good place to end the discussion.
Alligator
05-20-2009, 13:39
There are requirements that states have in order to obtain the permit to carry concealed. The beginning of this thread pointed out that the law about loaded weapons in National Parks was about to change, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly going to be legal for everyone to carry a concealed loaded weapon there. The folks who always carried unlawfully will still do so and the law abiding folks with the proper permits will have the option to make a choice.
On that note, please cut out the personal attacks. That has been said before on this message board and it would be nice if people would take a moment to moderate their own comments in that respect. Reading back through this thread it's obvious which posts I'm talking about. Thanks.I want to add though that the General Forum mods really work hard at trying to keep these threads open but the same people continue to trash the discussion rather than have a reasonable conversation. Some of you find it so important to talk about yet when you get to the table all you are capable of doing is slinging insults. You all are shooting yourselves in the feet.