TheMrMitch
Regular Member
imported post
I sent them a thank you note for staying away from National Parks.:celebrate
I sent them a thank you note for staying away from National Parks.:celebrate
-
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.
Brady Group Sues to Stop Concealed Weapons in Federal Parks
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
GumiBear
Founder's Club Member
imported post
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E0DE1631F93BA15754C0A96F958260
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6353
Hows that gun ban working our for ya Brady Bunch? I know I feel safer:uhoh:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E0DE1631F93BA15754C0A96F958260
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6353
Hows that gun ban working our for ya Brady Bunch? I know I feel safer:uhoh:
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
TFred wrote:
TFred wrote:
The down side of that sort of boycott would be ...??
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
A certain percentage of the population has a CHP or equivalent, and a certain percentage of those people are actually carrying a gun.
Now based on the fact that all "people in general" have a need to go to places like the store, the bank, the gas station, etc. but that all "people in general" do not have a need to go to a National Park, it seems that one is much more likely to encounter a person carrying a gun in their normal day-to-day activities around town, than in a National Park, simply because there are more people in stores than in National Parks.
And even if that logic is a bit of a stretch, one is certainly hard pressed to argue that there would be more gun carriers in a National Park than one might encounter during any other ordinary day-to-day activity.
As with everything these Brady folks put out, it not only doesn't make sense, it's the opposite of what does make sense! I think I've just confirmed why liberals support the unionization of our school system.
TFred
Hawkflyer wrote:
It really is funny if you think about it.
A certain percentage of the population has a CHP or equivalent, and a certain percentage of those people are actually carrying a gun.
Now based on the fact that all "people in general" have a need to go to places like the store, the bank, the gas station, etc. but that all "people in general" do not have a need to go to a National Park, it seems that one is much more likely to encounter a person carrying a gun in their normal day-to-day activities around town, than in a National Park, simply because there are more people in stores than in National Parks.
And even if that logic is a bit of a stretch, one is certainly hard pressed to argue that there would be more gun carriers in a National Park than one might encounter during any other ordinary day-to-day activity.
As with everything these Brady folks put out, it not only doesn't make sense, it's the opposite of what does make sense! I think I've just confirmed why liberals support the unionization of our school system.
TFred
lukeshort
Regular Member
imported post
Now who didn't see this coming?
So only pot growers and smugglers can go armed in the national parks?
Now who didn't see this coming?
So only pot growers and smugglers can go armed in the national parks?
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Now if we can just get them to barracade themselves inside their homes.....
Hawkflyer wrote:
I give up, can't think of a single down side. I really believe they should boycot life in general.
Now if we can just get them to barracade themselves inside their homes.....
Slayer of Paper
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
The loss of Brady people will be more than made up by more gun owners enjoying our nation's beautiful parks. I know I'll be going often this year.
marshaul wrote:
Count me in.
The loss of Brady people will be more than made up by more gun owners enjoying our nation's beautiful parks. I know I'll be going often this year.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Slayer of Paper wrote:
Slayer of Paper wrote:
Aren't there a good number of retired Navy ships that are currently national parks? You don't suppose we could get the Brady people .... Well I can dream.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
More lies repeated from other sources. Are these folks incapable of original thought?
TFred
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/832169.html
Posted on Wed, Dec. 31, 2008
Restore firearms ban in national parks
In addition to making it easier for coal miners to pollute rivers and streams, allowing more mining in lands adjacent to national parks and implementing rules that weaken the Endangered Species Act, the Bush administration this month gave the National Rifle Association a parting gift by lifting a decades-long ban on concealed weapons in national parks.
It is painful to witness the administration's cynical use of the federal rule-making process to assault the environment and pander to the NRA during its waning days. These harmful new rules could take years to undo. Make no mistake, though, they must be taken off the books before they can do too much damage.
Public ignored
No one associated with our national parks wanted the gun ban lifted. The National Leadership Council, a 22-member group of National Park Service officials, opposed allowing concealed weapons in national parks, which today are some of the safest places in the country. The National Parks Conservation Association, the unions representing park rangers and the National Park Service Retirees organization all opposed lifting the gun ban. For that matter, so did most of the 140,000 respondents during an Interior Department public comment period on the proposed rule change.
Apparently, none of this mattered to the outgoing administration. So beginning on Jan. 9, Everglades and Biscayne national parks, Big Cypress Preserve and the dozens of federal wildlife refuges and forests in Florida will be open to visitors packing guns. Under the new rule, anyone in Florida with a concealed weapons permit qualifies to bring a gun into a national park. There are more than 537,000 Florida residents with concealed weapons permits.
Allowing visitors to carry firearms into these national treasures makes no sense. The weapons ban has worked well all these years. It has reduced poaching of endangered species and kept the level of violence between people to a minimum.
Visitors at risk
Unfortunately, reversing this new rule could take years -- as would the other new rules cited above. They were promulgated by the Interior Department but clearly came straight from the White House. So the department that is charged with protecting our legacy of federally owned parks, refuges and wildernesses instead has been forced to put these lands and the people who visit them at greater risk.
The incoming administration will have many priorities, but beginning the process of removing the harmful new Interior rules should be on President-elect Obama's to-do list -- and on that of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, who is Mr. Obama's choice for secretary of the Interior Department.
More lies repeated from other sources. Are these folks incapable of original thought?
TFred
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/832169.html
Posted on Wed, Dec. 31, 2008
Restore firearms ban in national parks
In addition to making it easier for coal miners to pollute rivers and streams, allowing more mining in lands adjacent to national parks and implementing rules that weaken the Endangered Species Act, the Bush administration this month gave the National Rifle Association a parting gift by lifting a decades-long ban on concealed weapons in national parks.
It is painful to witness the administration's cynical use of the federal rule-making process to assault the environment and pander to the NRA during its waning days. These harmful new rules could take years to undo. Make no mistake, though, they must be taken off the books before they can do too much damage.
Public ignored
No one associated with our national parks wanted the gun ban lifted. The National Leadership Council, a 22-member group of National Park Service officials, opposed allowing concealed weapons in national parks, which today are some of the safest places in the country. The National Parks Conservation Association, the unions representing park rangers and the National Park Service Retirees organization all opposed lifting the gun ban. For that matter, so did most of the 140,000 respondents during an Interior Department public comment period on the proposed rule change.
Apparently, none of this mattered to the outgoing administration. So beginning on Jan. 9, Everglades and Biscayne national parks, Big Cypress Preserve and the dozens of federal wildlife refuges and forests in Florida will be open to visitors packing guns. Under the new rule, anyone in Florida with a concealed weapons permit qualifies to bring a gun into a national park. There are more than 537,000 Florida residents with concealed weapons permits.
Allowing visitors to carry firearms into these national treasures makes no sense. The weapons ban has worked well all these years. It has reduced poaching of endangered species and kept the level of violence between people to a minimum.
Visitors at risk
Unfortunately, reversing this new rule could take years -- as would the other new rules cited above. They were promulgated by the Interior Department but clearly came straight from the White House. So the department that is charged with protecting our legacy of federally owned parks, refuges and wildernesses instead has been forced to put these lands and the people who visit them at greater risk.
The incoming administration will have many priorities, but beginning the process of removing the harmful new Interior rules should be on President-elect Obama's to-do list -- and on that of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, who is Mr. Obama's choice for secretary of the Interior Department.
Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
I still fail to see how this could make the parks any less safe than the streets leading to them. These people need to get a grip, or therapy.
I still fail to see how this could make the parks any less safe than the streets leading to them. These people need to get a grip, or therapy.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
(chuckle)
Philip Van Cleave over at VCDL pointed out the flaw in the Fraidy Campaign's logic on being too fearful to visit Nat'l Parks.
With a zillion CCW permits, why aren't they too fearful to go outside their homes?
(chuckle)
Philip Van Cleave over at VCDL pointed out the flaw in the Fraidy Campaign's logic on being too fearful to visit Nat'l Parks.
With a zillion CCW permits, why aren't they too fearful to go outside their homes?
imported post
"We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."
As others posted I also feel slandered. As a member of the Armed Forces and a citizenI passed the back groundchecks and was issued a permit to carry, and I’m classified as "dangerous people". Those that continue their relentless crusade to remove the rights of Americans are the dangerous ones. The Brady Bunch and others like them must be countered and sued by groups with the means to do so!
"We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks."
As others posted I also feel slandered. As a member of the Armed Forces and a citizenI passed the back groundchecks and was issued a permit to carry, and I’m classified as "dangerous people". Those that continue their relentless crusade to remove the rights of Americans are the dangerous ones. The Brady Bunch and others like them must be countered and sued by groups with the means to do so!
Chief_of_Scouts
Regular Member
imported post
jbone wrote:
That's it, I am never going unarmed to a National Park again.
jbone wrote:
Wait a second...there are dangerous people carrying concealed in our Nat'l Parks?
That's it, I am never going unarmed to a National Park again.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Chief_of_Scouts wrote:
Good catch!
Chief_of_Scouts wrote:
Good catch!
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
Oops, posted this on the wrong thread...
ETDelete...
Oops, posted this on the wrong thread...
ETDelete...
Taurus850CIA
Regular Member
imported post
I'll say it again... restrictive gun laws affect the law abiding, not the criminal. As to the slander, is this a real possibility? Can there actually be a class action law suit by this group against the Brady bunch? If so, put my name on the list, and get it done.
(edit for form)
I'll say it again... restrictive gun laws affect the law abiding, not the criminal. As to the slander, is this a real possibility? Can there actually be a class action law suit by this group against the Brady bunch? If so, put my name on the list, and get it done.
(edit for form)
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
Granted, not your most reliable source for legal advice.... However, for what it's worth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.Or an untruthful oath. [1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
Granted, not your most reliable source for legal advice....
However, for what it's worth:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts which arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.Or an untruthful oath. [1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
Taurus850CIA
Regular Member
imported post
If it's a bona fide opportunity to put these people in their place, and show the country that legally armed citizens are not dangerous and criminal people, do it. It's time to stop being the picked on kid.
If it's a bona fide opportunity to put these people in their place, and show the country that legally armed citizens are not dangerous and criminal people, do it. It's time to stop being the picked on kid.
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Count me in too, on this class action.
I'm only dangerous when provoked, and the Brady Bunch is getting real close to crossing that line.
Count me in too, on this class action.
I'm only dangerous when provoked, and the Brady Bunch is getting real close to crossing that line.
shad0wfax
Regular Member
imported post
TheMrMitch wrote:
Hahahahh! :lol:
In all seriousness, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center make me so angry every time they go on the record I have to count to ten before I move on.
TheMrMitch wrote:
Hahahahh! :lol:
In all seriousness, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center make me so angry every time they go on the record I have to count to ten before I move on.