-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Showdown over packing heat in national parks
- Thread starter BigdoggyB
- Start date
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
Penalty flag- Wild West cliche and gun-control-buzzword in article title. 10 yard penalty and immediate loss of interest.
Penalty flag- Wild West cliche and gun-control-buzzword in article title. 10 yard penalty and immediate loss of interest.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Great point! Call the media on cliches and buzzwords.
Great point! Call the media on cliches and buzzwords.
AWDstylez
Banned
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:
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.
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:
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.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
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
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
AWDstylez
Banned
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.
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.
imperialism2024
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
[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...]
AWDstylez wrote:
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...]
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Are you an anarchist? That isn't exactly constitutional, but I wouldn't disagree with you either.
Are you an anarchist? That isn't exactly constitutional, but I wouldn't disagree with you either.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
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.
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.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
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.
Tomahawk wrote:
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.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
deepdiver wrote:
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.
deepdiver wrote:
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.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
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.
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.
AWDstylez wrote:
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.
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.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
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
Tomahawk wrote:
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
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
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.
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.
AWDstylez wrote:
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.
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.
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Correct, as usual.
Correct, as usual.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
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.
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.
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
Tomahawk 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.
deepdiver wrote:
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.
Tomahawk 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.
deepdiver wrote:
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.
SIGguy229
Regular Member
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.
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.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
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.
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.
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.