Showdown over packing heat in national parks

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....:banghead:

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. :banghead: 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.

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! :banghead:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

Toymaker 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.





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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

A republic is a form of democracy. Having a functioning democracy simply means that public opinion should effect policy. That's theoretically how it should work in the US, but unfortunately, in most cases, it doesn't. I think minority groups like this one sometimes forget that they aren't the onlypeople in this country and for every one of us that wantslessfirearms restriction there's 100 other people that don't. If things stay the way they are it's simply the system working how it was designedto.

And if you're now going to claim that the way things are now is cramping your constitutional rights, then let's take a look at that too...

As far the car analogy goes. I never called for a ban of all guns. IIRC, the Supreme Court agrees with me (as evidenced in the Heller decision) that common sense gun restrictions are fine, and I've even go so far as to say necessary. It's much like speed limits. If the country was full of responsible people we wouldn't need speed limits and we wouldn't need gun restrictions. But unfortunately it's not full of responsible people. Quite the contrary, it's full of idiots and that's why we have all these government mandated restrictions on our freedoms. Where people can't find it within their own will power and self-control to restrict themselves, the government has to step in and do it for them in the interest of protecting others or society as a whole. The second amendment is about as broad and vague as they get. As liberally as I'd like to interpert it to mean anyone, bear any arms, any time, any place (the way most people here seem to read it), that just doesn't make practical sense and I happen to havethe supreme court in agreement with me and they happen to be the final authority on whatexactly the constitution means,so you can't really argue that point.

Also, don't give that BS argument that the law onlyrestricts law abiding citizens. Any law only restricts law abiding citizens because, by definition, they are followers of the law. As soon as they break that law they become criminals and therefore the law "doesn't effect them". News flash, bro, in reality the lawstill effects criminalsinfinitely morebecause they're now on the business end of it. If they fail to see the consequences of their actions, it isn't the fault of the law and it's lack of effect on them, it's the lack of enforcement and effectiveness of the justice system. If you out law guns only outlaws will have guns, right? Wrong. If you really out law guns and enforce your law then no one will have guns. Gun bans don't currently work because they're poorly enforced and the penalties are not severe enough.

It's not like Yellowstone (or any of these parks)is in the middle of the ghetto. This isn't MS13 or the Mafia or other such hardened criminalsbringing guns into the parks to go on a killing spree, it's idiot rednecks looking to have some fun. Ifthe bans were properly enforced and the penalties were properly severe, it wouldn't be an issue.

imported post

As far the car analogy goes. I never called for a ban of all guns. IIRC, the Supreme Court agrees with me (as evidenced in the Heller decision) that common sense gun restrictions are fine, and I've even go so far as to say necessary.

Click to expand...

And having shot your credibility straight through, I quit reading your post at that sentence, and am done arguing with you, gun control advocate.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

A republic is a form of democracy. Having a functioning democracy simply means that public opinion should effect policy. That's theoretically how it should work in the US, but unfortunately, in most cases, it doesn't. I think minority groups like this one sometimes forget that they aren't the onlypeople in this country and for every one of us that wantslessfirearms restriction there's 100 other people that don't. If things stay the way they are it's simply the system working how it was designedto.

And if you're now going to claim that the way things are now is cramping your constitutional rights, then let's take a look at that too...

As far the car analogy goes. I never called for a ban of all guns. IIRC, the Supreme Court agrees with me (as evidenced in the Heller decision) that common sense gun restrictions are fine, and I've even go so far as to say necessary. It's much like speed limits. If the country was full of responsible people we wouldn't need speed limits and we wouldn't need gun restrictions. But unfortunately it's not full of responsible people. Quite the contrary, it's full of idiots and that's why we have all these government mandated restrictions on our freedoms. Where people can't find it within their own will power and self-control to restrict themselves, the government has to step in and do it for them in the interest of protecting others or society as a whole. The second amendment is about as broad and vague as they get. As liberally as I'd like to interpert it to mean anyone, bear any arms, any time, any place (the way most people here seem to read it), that just doesn't make practical sense and I happen to havethe supreme court in agreement with me and they happen to be the final authority on whatexactly the constitution means,so you can't really argue that point.

Also, don't give that BS argument that the law onlyrestricts law abiding citizens. Any law only restricts law abiding citizens because, by definition, they are followers of the law. As soon as they break that law they become criminals and therefore the law "doesn't effect them". News flash, bro, in reality the lawstill effects criminalsinfinitely morebecause they're now on the business end of it. If they fail to see the consequences of their actions, it isn't the fault of the law and it's lack of effect on them, it's the lack of enforcement and effectiveness of the justice system. If you out law guns only outlaws will have guns, right? Wrong. If you really out law guns and enforce your law then no one will have guns. Gun bans don't currently work because they're poorly enforced and the penalties are not severe enough.

It's not like Yellowstone (or any of these parks)is in the middle of the ghetto. This isn't MS13 or the Mafia or other such hardened criminalsbringing guns into the parks to go on a killing spree, it's idiot rednecks looking to have some fun. Ifthe bans were properly enforced and the penalties were properly severe, it wouldn't be an issue.

Click to expand...

Public opinion should affect policy? You mean like in slavery? So....if the public says that slavery, or rape for that matter, is ok thenslavery or rape should be legalized? I'm sure you don't believe that 'Bro'. Publicopinion should be taken into consideration 'but' publicopinion should not be the driving force in any policy determination. We're a Republic, not a Democracy. We have a Constitutionthat is our basic lawdocument. Either we follow it or we'll become the mob rule society that you want us to be and, you will not fair well in a society like that. Be careful what you strive for. You may get it and you may very well not like it.

Yes,it has been determined that common sense gunrestrictions are fine 'but' gun bans are not. That's why the DC 'gun ban' was overturned. In the national park system there is a 'gun ban', therefore it'sUn-Constitutional. It's already been determined that a gun ban is Un-Constitutional. What is your reason for arguing this point?

Yes, gun bans only affect law abiding citizens because criminals don't obey laws, especially gun laws. Since you already know this then what's your point? What would exactly be your rationale for disarming yourself so that the 'rednecks' (and other criminals who will carry their illegal guns anyway) can easily kill you? So, have the MS13,mafia and all of the other hardened and un-hardened criminals signed some sort of pact that they will not go into national parks? Show us where these honorable people have all come together and agreed not to go into national parks.

Common, 'Bro'.

Tell me exactly how you can 'really' outlaw guns. Isn't there a nationwide ban on most illegal drugs? Aren't those drugs 'still' illegally smuggled into the country? With that in mind, what do you think would be the result of a nationwide ban on guns? A black market much larger than what we already have, and a bunch of defenseless law abiding citizens because the criminals will be illegally obtaining the guns through the black market.

Why are you so afraid of law abiding citizens having guns?

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

Public opinion should affect policy? You mean like in slavery? So....if the public says that slavery, or rape for that matter, is ok thenslavery or rape should be legalized? I'm sure you don't believe that 'Bro'. Publicopinion should be taken into consideration 'but' publicopinion should not be the driving force in any policy determination.

Click to expand...

Considering that slavery is specifically banned in the 13th amendment that can't exactly happen, short of everyone that wants slavery getting together and making a new amendment to override the first. In which case slavery could be reinstated and away we would go down that road. In fact, slavery isn't even banned in your super-amazing-infallible constitution and, since it's not banned, it is therefore a right of every one of us toownslaves (according to the logic used here so often). So I don't know why you have a problem with it. Bringing slavery back certainly wouldn't be my choice (for purely ethical reasons)but that's the beauty of this country, if enough people get together and try hard enough, they can (or at least theoretically should) be able to accomplish anything.

Your political opinions are contradictory. On the one hand you want to be heard and taken seriouslyas a gun rights advocate.You want serious change to take placebased on your personal opinion on how things should bedone in this country. You want asmall government.But here on the other hand, you think that people and public opinion are incapable of steering the government. You think people are nothing but mere serfs to the almighty government that is the only one truely capable of making decisions for people. We should all just sit down, shut up, and let the all-knowing government handle these matters for us because we wouldn't want "mob rule".

You, sir, are at the furthest reaches of the top-right corner, firmly planted next to Hitler and G. Dubya. I'm way down towards the bottom, towards the people that actually believe in real freedom, not freedom when it's convient for me, freedom for me and no one else,or freedom when I agree with it (like your standard authoritarian conservative that cries "freedom" "freedom" all day long but then tells people how to live their lives, who to marry, what to do with their bodies, etc).






Toymaker wrote:

Yes, gun bans only affect law abiding citizens because criminals don't obey laws, especially gun laws. Since you already know this then what's your point? What would exactly be your rationale for disarming yourself so that the 'rednecks' (and other criminals who will carry their illegal guns anyway) can easily kill you? So, have the MS13,mafia and all of the other hardened and un-hardened criminals signed some sort of pact that they will not go into national parks? Show us where these honorable people have all come together and agreed not to go into national parks.

Click to expand...

My point was up in the last post, ALL laws only effect law abiding citizens (what do you think the definition of law abiding citizen is? Someone that abides by the laws. A criminal is someone that doesn't abide by the laws), but I don't see you calling for an end to ALL laws. What gives? That logic is idiotic and enters you into a paradox from which you cannot escape. You forget that the world isn't black and white, good and evil. There are LOTS of people on the fence. If murder wasn't illegal, there's a bunch of good people that wouldn't murder anyone no matter what, but there's a lot MORE on the fence people that would immediately go on the killing spree. They're law abiding citizens now because the law exists and it isn't worth it for them to break it.It doesn't mean they're good people, they're just forced to do the right thing by the law.

To sum that up, of course laws only effect law abiding people and not criminals because that is the definition of those types. HOWEVER, laws DO effect both good AND bad people and that is the point of having laws in the first place.It's about ethical people and unethical people, it's not law abiding vs criminal because that match up is predetermined by the definitions.Bad people that break laws now will always be bad people and will always break laws. That's hardly an argument to get rid of laws altogether, it justshows the need for better enforcement and moreeffective sentencing. The people we're concerned with are the ones that are sitting on the fence, the ones that you can actuallyeffect with laws.



Toymaker wrote:

Tell me exactly how you can 'really' outlaw guns. Isn't there a nationwide ban on most illegal drugs? Aren't those drugs 'still' illegally smuggled into the country? With that in mind, what do you think would be the result of a nationwide ban on guns? A black market much larger than what we already have, and a bunch of defenseless law abiding citizens because the criminals will be illegally obtaining the guns through the black market.

Why are you so afraid of law abiding citizens having guns?

Click to expand...

Again, using your own logic to show you the futility of your argument: why aren't you for legalizing drugs? Why are you afraid of law abiding people having drugs? They're "law abiding" people, aren't they? Surely they will only use them for good.



Get over the "law abiding" vs "not law abiding" and everything will make sense. We're talking ethical vs non-ethical. Just because I follow the laws doesn't mean I do so happily and of my own choosing. I could just as easily only follow the laws because I'm afraid of what will happen to me if I do not.


law abiding person=/= good, moral, or ethical person

Take away the laws and a bunch of previously "law abiding" citizens become... oh wait, they can't become criminals because they aren't breaking any laws if the laws are gone... so how do they change? Oooooooh, it's a trick question. They don't change, they were bad people all along, it's the definitions that changed.

imported post

OK, I see, Bro:dude:.So....... you went from anauthoritarian left winggun control advocate to a Libertarian, all in the same thread:quirky

I see. So, thanks for enlightening me Bro:dude:........it's us, the law abiding citizens, who are really the bad people here. People like you are just trying to survive:lol:

imported post

Bro?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Bro?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bro

Click to expand...

imported post

Toymaker said:

OK, I see, Bro:dude:.So....... you went from anauthoritarian left winggun control advocate to a Libertarian, all in the same thread:quirky

Click to expand...

[/quote][/quote]

From the first page...

AWDstylez wrote:

I disagree with the park ban

Click to expand...

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

OK, I see, Bro:dude:.So....... you went from anauthoritarian left winggun control advocate to a Libertarian, all in the same thread:quirky

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[/quote]

From the first page...

AWDstylez wrote:

I disagree with the park ban

Click to expand...

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

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

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. :banghead: 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.

Click to expand...

Exactly...!!!

Control-P

Exit

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

OK, I see, Bro:dude:.So....... you went from anauthoritarian left winggun control advocate to a Libertarian, all in the same thread:quirky

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

From the first page...

AWDstylez wrote:

I disagree with the park ban

Click to expand...

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




And you can't?

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

Click to expand...

AWDstylez wrote:

Toymaker wrote:

OK, I see, Bro:dude:.So....... you went from anauthoritarian left winggun control advocate to a Libertarian, all in the same thread:quirky

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

From the first page...

AWDstylez wrote:

Click to expand...

I disagree with the park ban

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

And you can't?

Click to expand...

[/quote]If we could see why gun bans were in place, why would we be here teaming up against them?




[/quote]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

If we could see why gun bans were in place, why would we be here teaming up against them?

Click to expand...

Sometimes it helps to understand where the other side is coming from so you can effectively argue against them. For me, their viewpoint is so easy to see in this case it almost has me on the fence. I'm simply not at the point where I trust every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a gun just because they bought it legally. I don't mind it on the street and out in public, but when you get out into the middle of no where and the alcohol starts flowing, it tends to bring out the immaturity in people. It's not necessarily that these people were criminals to begin with, it's just the environment that tends to bring out most peoples' inner idiot. I don't see the point at having my own gun on me to defend against someone that's just shooting at cans... which just happen tobein my direction. I'd rather they NOT have their guns and then the chance of problemsis significantly lower. Yes, there's still animals and the 1/999999999999 chance of a real criminal being out in the wilderness, and that's exactly why I'm on the fence about it. But IMO, your realistic and likely senario isan otherwise law-abiding citizen being stupid with his legally purchased gun(s) and that can be avoided by simply not allowing guns in the park.

[/quote]
[/quote]

imported post

he always breaks out the phony political scale.

some liberal limp wrist made up that scale to pretend conservatives are fascists.


awd is a huge liberal. his parents were religious and the clergy all molested him

imported post

ps: awd just did the same thing he accuses the authoritarian hitler style conservatives of doing...

he is picking and choosing whose rights can be used. you can't use your rights in a national park but you can use them somewhere else