Showdown over packing heat in national parks

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Authoritarian conservativesare fascists you dim wit. Saying a limp wrist liberal made the politicalthought spectrumto make anything look like anything is like saying feminists invented the sexes so they'd have someone to discriminate against. :banghead:

johhny b said:

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

Click to expand...

Just becaue you have a right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall doesn't make it a good idea and doesn't mean you aren't getting arrested. You have every right in the world to violate nation park, courthouse, post office, etc gun bans, doesn't mean you aren't going to pay for it. With rights comes responsibility. I said it already, ifpeople can't be responsible ontheir own, eventually the governmentsteps in and does it for them. That's when rightsstart getting restricted.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

johnnyb wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Authoritarian conservativesare fascists you dim wit. Saying a limp wrist liberal made the politicalthought spectrumto make anything look like anything is like saying feminists invented the sexes so they'd have someone to discriminate against. :banghead:



johhny b wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Just becaue you have a right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall doesn't make it a good idea and doesn't mean you aren't getting arrested. You have every right in the world to violate nation park, courthouse, post office, etc gun bans, doesn't mean you aren't going to pay for it. With rights comes responsibility. I said it already, ifpeople can't be responsible ontheir own, eventually the governmentsteps in and does it for them. That's when rightsstart getting restricted.

Click to expand...

you are are admiting that you do the same thing "authoritarian conservatives" do.

pick and choose when people can use their rights without "getting arrested"

awd is a free thought free expression liberal... unless you say fags are disgusting, or god is great.

its pretty pathetic that you actually believe these nonsense phony political spectrum charts. they are made specifically to make liberalism look good.

case in point:

Socialists - Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 2nd

does anyone actually believe "socialism" is freedom? or anywhere close? its not... its very very very small on freedom.

Lenin - Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st

does anyone actually blieve this either? was there really equality in the soviet union? oh everyone was equally poor... except the party memebers right.... :?

political spectrum charts are phony. and they are made purposly to skew results.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

[/quote]
AWDstylez,

The government is not a panacea. It's not the answer to all ills and woes that exist in the world today and 'IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE'. Government is made up of the exact same people that you're leery of when it comes to gun possession in national parks, 'CITIZENS'.

The people that do stupid things with guns are going to continue to do stupidthings with guns regardless of whether guns are banned or not. These people are called criminals.

Knowing what you know and seeing what you see wouldn't you agree that alcohol and guns don't mix? The majority of us are law abiding citizens.The majority of usdon't have an "inner idiot"when it comes to gun ownership. We know our limitations and we know better.We don't drink while carrying, we don't fire into the airat 12 midnight onNew Years, we don't allow access to our guns by irresponsible and underaged individuals and we don't let our environment bring out the inner idiot in us.

Westay away from, outof, and avoid provocative situations because we have accepted the awsome responsibility of owning and carrying deadly force.

AWDstylez, you came to this website because of your interest in firearms and your desire to be a good stewart of those firearms that you own. Don't you think that this positive action on your part deserves some merit? It sets you apart from someone who just doesn't care or simply wants to use them for nefarious purposes.

The chances of youbecoming the victim ofa criminal act 'anywhere' are slim but there's a 100% chance that the incident will be a very traumatic experience, and that's if your assailant decides to let you (and whoever's with you including wife, kids, girlfriend, etc) live.

The After Effects Of Being A Crime Victim

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/41039/the_aftereffects_of_being_a_crime_victim.html

AWDstylez,

Growing up in the inner city as a kid and a teenager, I was the victim of two armed robberies by multiple individuals. Inone instance I was beaten by the suspects. By the grace of God I survived those encounters and others that weren't as serious.

As an adult I successfully thwarted one attempted carjacking with the mere sight of my firearm. The assailants fled with no shots fired.


[/quote]

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

johnnyb wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Authoritarian conservativesare fascists you dim wit. Saying a limp wrist liberal made the politicalthought spectrumto make anything look like anything is like saying feminists invented the sexes so they'd have someone to discriminate against. :banghead:



johhny b wrote:

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

Click to expand...

Just becaue you have a right to shout "fire!" in a crowded mall doesn't make it a good idea and doesn't mean you aren't getting arrested. You have every right in the world to violate nation park, courthouse, post office, etc gun bans, doesn't mean you aren't going to pay for it. With rights comes responsibility. I said it already, ifpeople can't be responsible ontheir own, eventually the governmentsteps in and does it for them. That's when rightsstart getting restricted.

Click to expand...

its pretty pathetic that you actually believe these nonsense phony political spectrum charts. they are made specifically to make liberalism look good.

case in point:

Socialists - Freedom ranked 1st, Equality ranked 2nd

does anyone actually believe "socialism" is freedom? or anywhere close? its not... its very very very small on freedom.

Lenin - Freedom ranked 17th, Equality ranked 1st

does anyone actually blieve this either? was there really equality in the soviet union? oh everyone was equally poor... except the party memebers right.... :?

political spectrum charts are phony. and they are made purposly to skew results.

Click to expand...

Dude, honestly, you're a retard. You'd be better off back at HMT.

It's not meant to skew anything. Maybe you need to go look up the definitions of the terms you're talking about. Conservative or liberal makes zero difference, if you have an Authoritarian attitude (which you do despite your claims to be libertarian) you aren't for personal freedom.





Toymaker, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You and I are responsible, yes, no one is debating that. However, if we're being honest, it isn't all that hard to get a gun, especially in a shall-issue state. To deny that there aren't a whole lot of irresponsible people out there with guns is kind of naive andit's obviousyou're smarter than that. Like I said in the beginning, it comes down to a personal choice. If I was someone that camped regularly, it wouldn't be worth it to me to carry my 9mm for defense (which isn't going to stop any animal bigger than a squirrel) and risk having a bunch of morons that also went camping for the weekend for the sole purpose of blasting stuff in the woods. Obviously you don't agree and that's your prerogative.

Maybe you'll understand it this way. Ever been next to an idiot at the range? You know, the guy that hands his cocked, chambered, unsafety'dgun to his kid who proceeds to wave it around everywhere but down range as the guy turns his back to load up another magazine? The guy that pulls the trigger with the gun pointed at his foot to de-cock without even checking if there's still a round in the chamber. The guy that spends an hour practicing drawing at a range with a huge sign that specifically states it isn't allowed, and then proceeds to drop the gun 7 out of every 10 draws. You know the guy I'm talking about. Well that guy is out camping next to you today and thanks to the elimination of the park ban, he has his gun. What good is your gun going to do in defending against his stupidity? You can't shoot the guy because he's incompetent and not using safe handling practices.


The almost guaranteed occurrence of that situation is undeniable. I only see two ways to protect against it: tighten firearms licensing requirements or ban guns in parks. No one here would EVER go for the first solution (although I think it's the far better one because it protects you from the idiots in all possible places) so that only leaves the later. Given the environment of camping, wilderness, and the near guaranteed use of alcohol it makes the situation a little different than simply walking down the street where people normally keep themselves in checkand that's why it warrants the special attention.

imported post

awd =

imported post

johnnyb = towel rack thief

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

johnnyb = towel rack thief

Click to expand...

no one understands what you're doing. and i don't think anyone cares.

and for the millionth time i did steal a towel rack and i did not ban him

imported post

Trust me, I'm well aware that no one is going to get it, but I still find it funny that you felt compelled to steal a towel rack. Can't you get one at Bed, Bath & Beyond for like $8.95 or is that store to hippie liberal for you?

imported post

imported post



Now that thepicture war is over can we get back on topic and save the immaturity for the automotive forums?

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

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 citizens and according to your logic need no governing. So really, 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.

Click to expand...

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...]

Click to expand...

Thank you for defending my position so succinctly. I myself lacked the energy to write a complete response to AWDstyles' post, which was far from grasping either the point I was making, or the self-contradicting ramifications of the arguments used in his "rebuttal" to it.

People can only be responsible if you give them responsibility. I think AWDstyles has a deep misunderstanding of the function of regulation on behavior.

Then again, so does anyone who doesn't advocate the deregulation of, for example, drugs and firearms. Speed limits too, for that matter, seeing as AWDstylez likes to bring them up to bolster his failed arguments. (This despite fact that the German autobahns are safer than American speed-regulated roads -- a fact that alone disproves his entire position.)

AWDstylez: Please don't pretend you are anywhere near the libertarian "end of the scale" (whatever that is). From what I can tell, you are what I like to call a "pseudo-liberal," one who just so happens to like guns.

In fact, having re-read your post:

AWDstylez wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

This is an inherently authoritarian argument. Your statement about your position on that silly graph of yours is laughable. So is your failure to recognize the point of my original post back on page 1.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Speed limits too, for that matter, seeing as AWDstylez likes to bring them up to bolster his failed arguments. (This despite fact that the German autobahns are safer than American speed-regulated roads -- a fact that alone disproves his entire position.)

Click to expand...

No, see, that's where you're wrong. Germany has extremely strict licensing requirements and competant drives. We don't have that here, with cars or guns. That WAS my whole point. Up the standards and everyone will be safer because it keeps the idiots away. The German Autobahn without the super strict driver training is a death trap, just like America without any firearms restrictions would be.


My position is 99% libertarian, yours is simply anarchist.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

No, see, that's where you're wrong. Germany has extremely strict licensing requirements and competant drives. We don't have that here, with cars or guns. That WAS my whole point. Up the standards and everyone will be safer because it keeps the idiots away. The German Autobahn without the super strict driver training is a death trap, just like America without any firearms restrictions would be.


My position is 99% libertarian, yours is simply anarchist.

Click to expand...

AWDstylez, your posts are chock full of contradictions. The more you argue, the more you contradict yourself. You claim to be a Libertarian but you believe in the authority of the state, like an Authoritarian. Are you trying to change the meaning of Libertarian all by yourself?

Why don't you just admit that youprefer strictgun laws because you fear guns more than youdespise crime.

Either you believe in Liberty or you don't. You can't straddle the fence and have it both ways.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

No, see, that's where you're wrong. Germany has extremely strict licensing requirements and competant drives. We don't have that here, with cars or guns. That WAS my whole point. Up the standards and everyone will be safer because it keeps the idiots away. The German Autobahn without the super strict driver training is a death trap, just like America without any firearms restrictions would be.


My position is 99% libertarian, yours is simply anarchist.

Click to expand...

Odd, because the more regulation we have had the more violence we have had in America.

The farther back you go, the less gun control you have, the less violence you have.

imported post

Toymaker wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

No, see, that's where you're wrong. Germany has extremely strict licensing requirements and competant drives. We don't have that here, with cars or guns. That WAS my whole point. Up the standards and everyone will be safer because it keeps the idiots away. The German Autobahn without the super strict driver training is a death trap, just like America without any firearms restrictions would be.


My position is 99% libertarian, yours is simply anarchist.

Click to expand...

AWDstylez, your posts are chock full of contradictions. The more you argue, the more you contradict yourself. You claim to be a Libertarian but you believe in the authority of the state, like an Authoritarian. Are you trying to change the meaning of Libertarian all by yourself?

Why don't you just admit that youprefer strictgun laws because you fear guns more than youdespise crime.

Either you believe in Liberty or you don't. You can't straddle the fence and have it both ways.

Click to expand...

I prefer strict gun laws because I fear idiots. I have no fear of guns. Much like I prefer strict drinking laws. People have proved themselves to not be responsible and self-regulating in many areas. I believe in the power and dutyof the state to provide its citizens with the safest environment possible to live their liveswhile restricting them as little as necessary.

You've turned Libertarian into Anarchist. You believe we should have no laws, no regulations, and people should simply be trusted to do the right thing on their own. Chaos is not freedom.



hsmith wrote:

Odd, because the more regulation we have had the more violence we have had in America.

The farther back you go, the less gun control you have, the less violence you have.

Click to expand...

You need to learn to recognize the difference between a cause and a correlation. Their are atrillion other factors that have effected the crime rate. Internationally, the US has a very high crime rate relative to other countries. It also happens to have very loose gun control compared to other countries. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Just because two things happen to be true it doesn't mean that one caused the other.

imported post

Sorry...laws do not prevent idiots.



Gun laws infringe on law-abiding citizens.



Gun laws do not stop criminals.



Whenever I see someone use stats like "a trillion"--to me, causes me to doubt everything said. Why does it *appear* the U.S. has a higher crime rate? Maybe it is because crime reporting is not universal.



I believe there should be rules/laws, as long as they are in line with the Constitution.

imported post

awd is a liberal and will be voting for obama

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

No, see, that's where you're wrong.  Germany has extremely strict licensing requirements and competant drives.  We don't have that here, with cars or guns.  That WAS my whole point.  Up the standards and everyone will be safer because it keeps the idiots away.  The German Autobahn without the super strict driver training is a death trap, just like America without any firearms restrictions would be.


My position is 99% libertarian, yours is simply anarchist.

Click to expand...

I have to laugh at your "99%." Actual libertarianism is derived from a well-developed respect for and complete understanding of human rights. It is absolute, and is not subject to being "99%" of anything. You either understand human rights, and apply law to them, or you don't. You fall in the latter category.

The only thing your post demonstrates is that you have as deep a misunderstanding of the meaning of "anarchist" as you do "libertarian."

johnnyb wrote:

awd is a liberal and will be voting for obama

Click to expand...

I am a "liberal," and this is precisely why I will not vote for Obama. There is nothing liberal about Obama and the rest of his ilk.

However, I agree that AWDstylez is probably going to vote for him.




AWDstylez wrote:

I prefer strict gun laws because I fear idiots. I have no fear of guns. Much like I prefer strict drinking laws. People have proved themselves to not be responsible and self-regulating in many areas.
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Once again, you espouse a position that is the definition of "authoritarian." Why do you insist on using words in a way that has no correlation with their accepted meaning (e.g. you call yourself a "libertarian")?

I will repeat myself: people can only exercise responsibility if they are given responsibility.

You have no proof, or evidence, or even logical argument that "strict drinking laws" have, in any way, promoted responsible use of alcohol. On the other hand, on an appropriate forum, I would be prepared to argue the opposite case, using logic and evidence.


AWDstylez wrote:

You've turned Libertarian into Anarchist.

Click to expand...

Only in your mind.

My "libertarianism" (I use the term properly) is basically what you might call "Jeffersonian Liberalism." Let's see how your views stack up against some similarly-minded people:

AWDstylez wrote:

I believe in the power and duty of the state to provide its citizens with the safest environment possible to live their lives while restricting them as little as necessary.

Click to expand...

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Click to expand...

Hmm... I see a little discrepancy here.

AWDstylez wrote:

You believe we should have no laws, no regulations, and people should simply be trusted to do the right thing on their own. Chaos is not freedom.

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.

Click to expand...

"Chaos" may not be liberty, but then neither is what you espouse. You utterly fail at understanding any of the philosophy to which you claim subscription.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

"Chaos" may not be liberty, but then neither is what you espouse. You utterly fail at understanding any of the philosophy to which you claim subscription.

Click to expand...

We happen to live in an imperfect world full of stupid people. True libertarianism requires that people be responsible and self-supporting.The American people are neither, hence my "less than libertarian" attitude. Maybe you can call me a realistic libertarian or simply someone that recognizes the impossibility of the current generation of people acting responsibly.

I honestly don't care what you quot from the founding fathers. Last time I checked they weren't infallible.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

"Chaos" may not be liberty, but then neither is what you espouse. You utterly fail at understanding any of the philosophy to which you claim subscription.

Click to expand...

 

We happen to live in an imperfect world full of stupid people.  True libertarianism requires that people be responsible and self-supporting.  The American people are neither, hence my "less than libertarian" attitude.  Maybe you can call me a realistic libertarian or simply someone that recognizes the impossibility of the current generation of people acting responsibly.

I honestly don't care what you quot from the founding fathers.  Last time I checked they weren't infallible.

Click to expand...

Someone who understood the point of libertarianism would not be "less than libertarian."

The purpose of those quotes was to demonstrate how little you understand of the philosophies of which you speak.

Allow me to underline this. It will require me to repeat myself a third time:

People can only be responsible if you give them responsibility.

If Americans are irresponsible (something that remains to be proved), it is because of a society that deprives them of responsibility through the regulation of things that are in the realm of personal responsibility. Like what speed you drive. Or how many beers you've had with that gun on your hip.

Indeed, it is the very authoritarianism you espouse that engenders irresponsibility. Your views are not only no solution, they are in fact the source of the problem.

Until you understand this you still have failed to grasp the concept of what "libertarianism" actually is.