Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: I thought guns had been banned from National parks?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,769

    Post imported post

    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Yeah, well, allot of people thought that assault stylerifles had been banned for awhile, too. NOT

    Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.
    Better do away with those laws after you do away with the park ban. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.:quirky
    The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

    Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

    It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.
    Better do away with those laws after you do away with the park ban. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.:quirky
    The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

    Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

    It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.
    if only one of awdstylez professors had told him about corpus delicti or locus standi instead of karlus marxi

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

    Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

    It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.


    The logic is the same. Laws don't stop bad people. Bad people will be bad people no matter what. Laws stop "on the fence" people. Someone breaking a law doesn't make the law useless.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    The major difference is that murder and theft are acts perpetrated by an individual(s) against a victim(s).

    Where as gun bans are effected against inanimate objects, which can do nothing on their own, therefore they cannot victimize anyone or anything.

    It makes more sense to ban a behavior than an object.


    The logic is the same. Laws don't stop bad people. Bad people will be bad people no matter what. Laws stop "on the fence" people. Someone breaking a law doesn't make the law useless.
    But taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not logical at all,which is all that is accomplished by gun bans. Bad behavior should be punished, possession of a tool which can be used for good as well as bad should be a non-issue. It is the behavior of the person that determines if the tool is used for good or bad.

    If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    ...SNIP
    Yes or no, shouldnuclearexplosivesbe readily available at Walmart? What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.SNIP...
    Holly .... Ever hear of a "Daisy cutter"? By your standards we should prohibit sales of gasoline and ignition sources.So what if people need to run equipment and light fires for legitimate reasons. How about fertilizer and fuel oil, my god that needs to be closely watched, remember Oklahoma City? So what if people need to raise crops with fertilizer, and power machinery with fuel oil. Oh my, did you know that people can buy black powder in bulk!! WOW! There are civilians that actually own cannons! The horror ... my god think of the children....

    You really need to get out more. There are missile silos all over the mid west each containing multiple warheads. They are not located on military bases, they are located in farm fields. Why go to Walmart when anyone who wants one can just take from the few people on guard. But why bother, just go to Russia and buy one.

    But as usual your question emanates from a flawed starting point. A Bomb is just that ...a bomb. It is a weapon of mass destruction without any peaceful purpose unless you considergenocide a peaceful purpose. It is actually very much a single purpose item, and it is the height of hyperbola and gratuity to compare it to firearms ownership on any scale. The fact is that radioactive materials ARE sold in Walmart. They just do not contain a fissionable volume of material. I suppose a person could buy enough watches and build a bomb, and maybe set it off with a microwave oven.

    You really do have an unreasonable fear of the world and everyone in it. Perhaps you should seek help.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:

    Yes or no, shouldnuclearexplosivesbe readily available at Walmart? What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.So don't go off-topic, just answer the questions.
    OK, with out going off topic, the common sense answer would be NO.

    Now, if we were to ban every item that Walmart sold in it's stores that could be used as a tool for good OR BAD, we'd elliminate at least 3/4 of all the merchandise found in the store.

    AWD, it seems that you rarely failed to come up with the most non-senseical responses in these forums. I'm willing to give youthe benefit of the doubt, that you are attempting to play "devils advocate"in providing the rest of us a source of mental exercise. If I'm wrong, then man, you reeeeeeeally need help.


  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    But taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not logical at all,┬*which is all that is accomplished by gun bans.┬* Bad behavior should be punished, possession of a tool which can be used for good as well as bad should be a non-issue.┬* It is the behavior of the person that determines if the tool is used for good or bad.

    If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.
    ┬*

    Yes or no, should┬*nuclear┬*explosives┬*be readily available at Walmart?┬* What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?┬*┬*They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.┬*┬*So don't go off-topic, just answer the questions.┬*
    Why shouldn't they be allowed? It's not like the average WalMart customer can afford Nuclear explosives. So, allowed or not, they won't be for sale in WalMart. :quirky

    Once again you give government credit for things which society and markets accomplish all on their own.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Gordie wrote:
    But taking away the means to defend oneself from those bad people is not logical at all,which is all that is accomplished by gun bans. Bad behavior should be punished, possession of a tool which can be used for good as well as bad should be a non-issue. It is the behavior of the person that determines if the tool is used for good or bad.

    If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.


    Yes or no, shouldnuclearexplosivesbe readily available at Walmart? What's your pro/con analysis of that situation?They're a tool that can be used for good or bad, just like a gun.So don't go off-topic, just answer the questions.
    It's official, you're beyond help.:what:



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Murder and theft are also suppose to be banned. That hasn't been working out to well either.
    Better do away with those laws after you do away with the park ban. Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.:quirky
    The stupidity of this statement is mind boggling

    There is good reason why murder and theft are illegal as they are crimes against others. But trolling is trolling I guess. Best to derail every thread you possibly can. Right?

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I'm not convinced that our current approach to alcohol use (very broadly, at a societal level, including related functions of government), actually does anything to, say, reduce traffic fatalities due to drunk driving.

    Simply put, we demand and thus encourage compliance, and true responsibility becomes increasingly ignored and forgotten.

    Once again you give government credit for things for which society is responsible, both for good and for bad.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Drunk driving is a victimless crime. Are you suggesting it be made legal simply because it isn't a crime against anyone? Thereare suchthingsas deterrence and prevention.

    Drunk driving is a victemless crime... until they run into another vehicle causing injury/deathor run over a pedestrian, or cause damage to another persons property.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Sound's an aweful lot like "we should take away all guns because they they could be used to shoot someone".

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    hsmith wrote:
    The stupidity of this statement is mind boggling

    There is good reason why murder and theft are illegal as they are crimes against others. But trolling is trolling I guess. Best to derail every thread you possibly can. Right?


    Let me explain this for the millionth time, because the trolling accusations only make the accusers sound like idiots (so you might be interested in this)...

    Things get posted on the board to be DISCUSSED. That means more than one line of opinion needs to be present and argued. If you don't like having anyone disagree with you, ever, maybe try http://www.strokeeachotheralldaylongforums.com.



    Drunk driving is a victimless crime. Are you suggesting it be made legal simply because it isn't a crime against anyone? Thereare suchthingsas deterrence and prevention.
    It is nothing about not disagreeing with you.

    It is about making stupid statements equating the infringing of other peoples rights (murder, rape, theft) to lax firearm laws.

    But, that wouldn't further the purpose of derailing every thread you post in, like this one.

    So, keep up the good work of trying to destroy these forums with your inane comments, I am sure you find pleasure in it.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    ...under the OC.org extremist logic,we should have a right to keep and to bear them, correct? If you trust ANYONE with a gun, why don't you trust anyone with a nuke? I guess it's all a matter of degree and you have to take it to that extreme degree to expose the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Letting any retard own and carry a gun wherever they want isn't likely to effect you (that it might effect others doesn't matter to you, I'm learning that more and more), so you're ok with that degree of"trading safety for freedom", but letting any old idiot own a nuclear bomb has a significant chance of effecting you, so that's where you draw the risk/reward freedom line.
    Y'all through with this one yet?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  18. #18
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    FogRider wrote:
    Sound's an aweful lot like "we should take away all guns because they they could be used to shoot someone".
    Nope. People don't want guns readily available to anyone for the same reason you don't want nukes readily available to anyone. Nukes are an "arm", therefore, under the OC.org extremist logic,we should have a right to keep and to bear them, correct? If you trust ANYONE with a gun, why don't you trust anyone with a nuke? I guess it's all a matter of degree and you have to take it to that extreme degree to expose the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Letting any retard own and carry a gun wherever they want isn't likely to effect you (that it might effect others doesn't matter to you, I'm learning that more and more), so you're ok with that degree of"trading safety for freedom", but letting any old idiot own a nuclear bomb has a significant chance of effecting you, so that's where you draw the risk/reward freedom line.
    Mr. Stylez, What is it exactly that you are advocating? Aside from simply arguing with people that is.I can't really tell if you are in agreement with the National Park ban or not.


  19. #19
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    I'm against the national park ban. We can agree on this.
    I'm so sick of hearing people talk about unlimited rights and completely unrestrictedweapon ownership Where would you draw this line? Handguns, rifles and shotguns?What about "assault rifles"? Are those on the banned side of the list of the ok side? What about anything over X caliber?
    Just trying to see what is ok to own and what is not.

  20. #20
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    That's why I AM a supporter of licensing, training, and qualifications. You want to own an Abrams tank? That's fine with me, but first you need to be certified as being competent in it's practical and legal use, and obviously pass all the common sense background checks and such.
    I just want to own a few guns. Do I need to pass a test for those?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hermiston, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Things get posted on the board to be DISCUSSED. That means more than one line of opinion needs to be present and argued. If you don't like having anyone disagree with you, ever, maybe try http://www.strokeeachotheralldaylongforums.com.
    Umm I hate to bring it up, but that link is broken.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    ...SNIP
    I'm not an extremist.
    SNIP...
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •