Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: Showdown over packing heat in national parks

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Frederick, Maryland, ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Penalty flag- Wild West cliche and gun-control-buzzword in article title. 10 yard penalty and immediate loss of interest.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Great point! Call the media on cliches and buzzwords.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    At first I was like, "Why the hell would they not want people to carry in national parks?" Then Ikept readingandI was like...."oooooooooh."



    extremely biased but notincorrectarticle wrote:
    But Morris, who retired three years ago, says he did see cases where visitors shot wildlife or fired wildly into the night in crowded campgrounds.
    camping = drinking = idiots = dumb ideas = shooting randomly

    Now the ban makes perfect sense. They don't want guns in camp grounds for the same reasons they don't want guns in bars and the same reason I don't want guns at frat parties. I get it now.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I guess those drunken visitors were following the rules, weren't they? Good thing you can count on rules to always be followed by just the people you made them for.

    Edit: spelling

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    I guess since rule violators don't, by definition, follow the rules that were made for them we should just get rid of rules all together. Every time someone breaks a rule we'll declare the rule ineffective and useless and do away with it. In short order we'll have no rules at all because the simple fact remains that, by definition, rule breakers aren't effecting by rules,and the people that follow the rules are,again, by definition,rule abiding citizensand according to your logic need no governing. Soreally, using your logic, there's no reason to have rules of any kind, at all. Looks like you've just entered a paradox.

    As long as there have been rules there has been people breaking them. Rules in and of themselves are not effect in any case. Enforcement is what dictates effectiveness. If people are breaking the rules, it isn't because the rules are bad, it's because the enforcement is lacking or ineffective.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    I guess since rule violators don't, by definition, follow the rules that were made for them we should just get rid of rules all together. Every time someone breaks a rule we'll declare the rule ineffective and useless and do away with it. In short order we'll have no rules at all because the simple fact remains that, by definition, rule breakers aren't effecting by rules,and the people that follow the rules are,again, by definition,rule abiding citizensand according to your logic need no governing. Soreally, using your logic, there's no reason to have rules of any kind, at all. Looks like you've just entered a paradox.

    As long as there have been rules there has been people breaking them. Rules in and of themselves are not effect in any case. Enforcement is what dictates effectiveness. If people are breaking the rules, it isn't because the rules are bad, it's because the enforcement is lacking or ineffective.
    That "paradox" is called freedom.



    [More to come later, but I hoped that a pithy one-line response might persuade someone to write it for me in the mean time...]

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Are you an anarchist? That isn't exactly constitutional, but I wouldn't disagree with you either.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    So AWDstylez: are you saying I don't have a right to defend myself in a National Park because some people I don't know and have no control over have acted irresponsibly? Please explain.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    So AWDstylez: are you saying I don't have a right to defend myself in a National Park because some people I don't know and have no control over have acted irresponsibly? Please explain.
    You always have a right to defend yourself. Whether or not you have a right to have a firearm on you is the question.

    I disagree with the park ban, but I can easily see why it's in place.

    Just like I wouldn't want to go to a frat party with little drunk Jonny showing off his new, loaded and chambered 1911 to all his friends, I don't want to go into a camp ground full of drunk retards with guns. Just because you and I are properly trained and responsible doesn't mean the guy next to us, who happens to be completely blasted (we are camping after all), is. So when he thinks he sees a bear sitting on his RV's toilet and attempts to annihilate it with his .454 and the rounds go through his camper, your camper, my camper, and your head, I'll make sure your tomb stone is engraved, "At least I got to carry into the park."

    If they're going to keep the park ban, then start enforcing it better. Whether you agree with it or not depends what your "rights" are worth to you. Is your 2A right worth the risk of getting shot by a drunk moron? If yes, then have fun arguing against it. If not, then that's perfectly understandable. I, personally, am all for getting rid of the ban. I never camp.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Once again they want to punish everyone and deny everyone the right to defend themselves and their families because of the bad acts of a few stupid jerks. Those idiots should have faced the full punishment of the law. And the millions of other LAC who are not jerks should not have to choose between protecting their family and enjoying the national parks their taxes help pay for.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Once again they want to punish everyone and deny everyone the right to defend themselves and their families because of the bad acts of a few stupid jerks. Those idiots should have faced the full punishment of the law. And the millions of other LAC who are not jerks should not have to choose between protecting their family and enjoying the national parks their taxes help pay for.


    Kind of like all of us having to drive at far slower speeds than most coordinated people with modern cars can handle, all because of a few idiots that slipped through the (large) cracks of our failed licensing system?

    It's not just firearms, the idiots of the world ruin lots of things for lots of people.But rather than try to fix the cause of the problem (the idiots) we have one group that says screwrules and lawswe'll just increase the risk to everyone so we don't have to suffer with excess restrictions, and we have the other group that says we needs more rules and laws and everyone will just have to deal with it. In actuality, we need to get rid of the idiots. In the case of driving that means tighter licensing requirements. No one here would EVER go for tighter firearms owning standards and it's pretty hard to place an objective test on someone's maturity level anyway, so we have what we have, compromises.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    So AWDstylez: are you saying I don't have a right to defend myself in a National Park because some people I don't know and have no control over have acted irresponsibly? Please explain.
    You always have a right to defend yourself. Whether or not you have a right to have a firearm on you is the question.

    I disagree with the park ban, but I can easily see why it's in place.

    Just like I wouldn't want to go to a frat party with little drunk Jonny showing off his new, loaded and chambered 1911 to all his friends, I don't want to go into a camp ground full of drunk retards with guns. Just because you and I are properly trained and responsible doesn't mean the guy next to us, who happens to be completely blasted (we are camping after all), is. So when he thinks he sees a bear sitting on his RV's toilet and attempts to annihilate it with his .454 and the rounds go through his camper, your camper, my camper, and your head, I'll make sure your tomb stone is engraved, "At least I got to carry into the park."

    If they're going to keep the park ban, then start enforcing it better.
    So you understand why they want to ban guns instead of focusing on the bad behavior of drunks? That doesn't make sense to me.

    National parks are no different than any other public place where there might be drunken idiots, inclufing public streets, private campgrounds, and campgrounds in National Forests, where carry is not prohibited. The argument you are "understanding" here is no better than the antis' "blood in the streets" argument.
    Is your 2A right worth the risk of getting shot by a drunk moron? If yes, then have fun arguing against it. If not, then that's perfectly understandable.
    Freedom comes with risk.

    All my rights and liberties are worth at least a minor risk of danger, or else they are completely worthless. If all you do is go along to get along, you wind up with no freedom at all.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Freedom comes with risk.

    All my rights and liberties are worth at least a minor risk of danger, or else they are completely worthless. If all you do is go along to get along, you wind up with no freedom at all.


    Kind of like the same way we go along without an American Autobahnto get along alive. I don't see you complaining about speed limits restricting your rights. The fact of the matter is that Joe Idiot American can't handle a road with no speed limit so we all suffer for it. Anyone of decent driving skill with a modern car can safely drive at well over the speed limit, but we aren't allowed to because of the massive number of idiots in this country that can't handle it. That isn't "the man" out to get you, that's the government attempting to look out for society's best interest. If your "rights" get trampled in the process, don't blame the government, blame the idiots that necessitated the restrictions in the first place.

    You're right, freedom comes with risk and it also comes with responsibility. When people can't handle the responsibility the freedom is revoked. Do you remember when your mommy told you could go the party if you behaved well, but instead you came home drunk and high at 12 years old? What happened after that? No more parties for you. Then when your little brother came along she probably didn't let him go to any parties either because you had already blown it for everyone and proved that little boys can't handle the responsibility.

    Joe Idiot can't handle the responsibility of a firearm in the presence of alcohol, it's a proven fact, go look at the thread about the guy shooting his tractor, so we all suffer for it. Ignoring the idiots and having unrestricted freedom for all is about the stupidest idea ever. It'd be no different than opening an American Autobahn without doing anything to change licensing requirements and training. My right to carry into a camp ground,bar, or frat partyisn't worth the risk of getting shot by some retard excersizing his right also. So, just like when I drive to work at 65mph everyday, I'll let my right slide in that case because it simply isn't worth it. But in reality, I don't camp and I'm all for your right to carry and get shot, so by all means, lift the national park ban.



    "The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints." ~Samuel Hendel


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Freedom comes with risk.

    All my rights and liberties are worth at least a minor risk of danger, or else they are completely worthless. If all you do is go along to get along, you wind up with no freedom at all.


    Kind of like the same way we go along without an American Autobahnto get along alive. I don't see you complaining about speed limits restricting your rights.
    That's because this is a gun forum, not a drivers' forum. Though it's obvious that even on patroled roads, nobody really obeys the speed limit, just like criminals in DC and National Parks carry guns despite the law.


    The fact of the matter is that Joe Idiot American can't handle a road with no speed limit so we all suffer for it.....

    ....Joe Idiot can't handle the responsibility of a firearm in the presence of alcohol, it's a proven fact, go look at the thread about the guy shooting his tractor, so we all suffer for it.
    Those two sentences sum up your thinking nicely: you don't think your fellow Americans are worthy of their freedom. You think we are too stupid and need to be restrained by a fatherly government of some sort.

    I recognize your cynical attitude, but it's based on anecdotes. One drunken idiot shooting his lawnmower or causing an accident on the Beltway is not representative of all the people who act responsibly every day. I know lots of gun owners, and we all live in a world surrounded by alcohol, and we don't act like idiots.

    So the a-hole park ranger's opinion is just another example of a guy who doesn't like guns and picked out one anecdote to support his argument.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Correct, as usual.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    The world is dangerous. People die all the time from accidents, negligence and bad deeds. We have become risk adverse in this nation, and so worried about safety that we have disrupted the normal process of life and risk and in some cases, actually increased certain risks inadvertently by trying to avoid others.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Freedom comes with risk.

    All my rights and liberties are worth at least a minor risk of danger, or else they are completely worthless. If all you do is go along to get along, you wind up with no freedom at all.


    Kind of like the same way we go along without an American Autobahnto get along alive. I don't see you complaining about speed limits restricting your rights.
    That's because this is a gun forum, not a drivers' forum. Though it's obvious that even on patroled roads, nobody really obeys the speed limit, just like criminals in DC and National Parks carry guns despite the law.

    Using that logic you'd agree to abolishing speed limits, correct? If you don't, it'd be a little hypocritical to want to abolish the national park ban.



    deepdiver wrote:
    The world is dangerous. People die all the time from accidents, negligence and bad deeds. We have become risk adverse in this nation, and so worried about safety that we have disrupted the normal process of life and risk and in some cases, actually increased certain risks inadvertently by trying to avoid others.
    Agreed. It's what I said in the first place: what's it worth to you? Which risk is greater, the possibility of animal attack (two or four legged) or the risk of getting shot by a moron? It's a personal choice and that's why there's two sides to the issue. This is supposedly a democratic society so the prevading opinion should win out in the end.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Why is there a constant comparison between arms/guns (carrying) and cars (driving)? Only one of these is guarenteed in the U.S. Constitution...the other is a priviledge granted by the gov't.



    Want to abolish speed limits...fine with me...add additional training to drive...ok.



    Want to mandate firearms training. Nope. However, since we send kids to school to read and write (an exercise that whole 1st Amendment thing), why not teach firearms training in school?



    Personally, I would concern myself with securing my safety and that of my family while enjoying the outdoors. Park rangers are not behind every rock and cell phone coverage is spotty at best. The two-legged predator is already carrying--I just want to even the odds. Prove to me the human predators are not carrying weapons, and you might have an arguement.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Why is there a constant comparison between arms/guns (carrying) and cars (driving)? Only one of these is guarenteed in the U.S. Constitution...the other is a priviledge granted by the gov't.
    Who says car ownership is not a right? Where in the constitution does it say that owning a vehicle is a priviledge granted by the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking the only rights you have are the ones specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Instead, read the 9th and 10th Ammendments and understand what they mean.


    That's because this is a gun forum, not a drivers' forum. Though it's obvious that even on patroled roads, nobody really obeys the speed limit, just like criminals in DC and National Parks carry guns despite the law.
    Using that logic you'd agree to abolishing speed limits, correct? If you don't, it'd be a little hypocritical to want to abolish the national park ban.

    No, using my logic, I'd agree that anyone may possess and drive a car on public roads, but the way in which they use that car is subject to restrictions and rules, just as carrying a gun for self defense is a right, but plinking at cans on a crowded public street is not.

    I don't think you're really comprehending my logic, though.

    In the end, you're still making excuses for a d-bag ranger who wants to ban guns in Natl. Parks, and you're using the arguments of the antis: Americans are too stupid to own guns, excercising your right to carry to result in losing that right, etc. If you were concerned with logic, you'd unserstand why this is wrong.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    The gist of this discussion seems to be that the NPS wants firearms banned from the parks because some individuals may behave recklessly with them when intoxicated.

    So booze is legal in a National Park? Being drunk in public is legal in a National Park?

    National Parks are where people can go to cast off all vestiges of civilized behavior?

    We certainly can't have uncivilized people handling firearms!

    All these people will assume perfectly sane and civil behavior modes upon leaving the park.

    Of course! Makes perfect sense! After all, we tried prohibition....

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Re-reading the article and thinking more about it this jumped out at me:


    "But Morris, who retired three years ago, says he did see cases where visitors shot wildlife or fired wildly into the night in crowded campgrounds. That’s why Morris and a majority of his fellow members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees adamantly oppose a National Rifle Association-led effort to lift the decades-old ban on concealed weapons in the parks. “Nothing is broken about the existing rule,” he said."

    So by the anti-NPR's own admission, people for whom it is illegal to bring/carry loaded guns into the park already do not only bring/carry loaded guns into the park, but also discharge them in the park. So by their own admission, people who don't follow the law are armed in the park and willing to discharge their firearm illegally. It is only LAC who do not have loaded guns in the park. If the LAC follow the law now to not carry/bring loaded guns into the park, what in the world gives them the idea that if they did carry/bring loaded guns into the park that they would violate a rule/law to not discharge those firearms except in the case of self-defense?

    Essentially their position is that because criminals commit criminal acts with illegally possessed firearm, law-abiding citizens are just as likely to commit criminal acts with legally possessed guns. No wonder so many things are a mess in this nation with people with logic like this in charge of things such as national parks.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    So did Morris ever say that he or his fellow Rangers ever arrested any of these gun wielding criminals? Were any ever prosecuted?

    “Nothing is broken about the existing rule,” he said." Provided that the rule is enforced!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Using that logic you'd agree to abolishing speed limits, correct? If you don't, it'd be a little hypocritical to want to abolish the national park ban.
    It's not logical to compare speed limits to gun rights. Other than certain notable exceptions, most speed limits are designed with safety, and only safety, in mind. Back several years ago, when we were able to raise speed limits, I soon saw advisory signs on curves that previously had not had them. The advised speeds were higher than the old limit, but lower than the new limit. Engineers and surveyers measure the angle and bankof curves,the slope ofhills, thelength of visibility, etc., and use math to figure out safe speeds. An inexperienced driver simply cannot tell just by looking at the road what a safe speed is. Sometimes good, experienced drivers can't either. Appearances can be deceptive.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Washington, DC USA
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post



    Using that logic you'd agree to abolishing speed limits, correct? If you don't, it'd be a little hypocritical to want to abolish the national park ban.





    Agreed. It's what I said in the first place: what's it worth to you? Which risk is greater, the possibility of animal attack (two or four legged) or the risk of getting shot by a moron? It's a personal choice and that's why there's two sides to the issue. This is supposedly a democratic society so the prevading opinion should win out in the end.


    No......using your logic we should ban automobiles from everyone even the responsible drivers because of the actions of the irresponsible ones. Why shouldordinary citizensbe allowed to drive such dangerous machines? We can take bicycles,public transportation, buses, trains, planes and hire specially trained and licensed chauffers and taxi drivers (read: police officers) to drive us to specific places. We can have items and goods delivered to us by these specially trained and licenced government controlled entities.

    What's it worth to you?

    This is not a democratic society. The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The laws that our elected officialspresent have to first pass Constitutional muster before they can become law. We can't just vote for whatever we feel like voting for.Some yearsago the majority of Americans thought that slavery was OK. What would have happened if we were a true democracy and there was a vote back then?

    You deride the anarchists but you're the extreme opposite. You believe in mob rule.



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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