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 "paradox" is called freedom.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
....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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.