NPS says new gun law won't take effect until Feb. 2010

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Just as a note... If a wild animal attacks and kills you when you venture into its natural habitat... uhm... It doesn't make one a PETA lover to point out that DUH, that's what they DO... They're called PREDATORS for a reason...

I think it is beyond dumb to go hunting down a wild animal for being what it is. You knew they lived there. Its not a surprise. Maybe this comes as a shock, but human beings aren't the only things that eat meat on this planet. And human beings are made out of meat.... and YOU are a human being!

[Negative, I am a Meat Popsicle!] Still meat!

If that isn't something you can accept, then stay in your Prius, or Hummer, whatever. Political affiliation is irrelevant. If you venture out of your huddled urban centers and can't face the real world, you certainly haven't got the perspective to declare a crusade....

Click to expand...

Ummmm, I am not anywhere near an "urbanite." But yes, I am on somewhat of a "crusade" as you call it to fix the problems of my locality. Again, my residential neighborhood is not "natural habitat" for these creatures and if they endanger the populous then it needs to be addressed. If they come in my neighborhood and just look around, I could care less, but they don't.

This is everyone's planet, I don't care if they come into my yard as long as they are not endangering anyone. I should also be able to go into the woods and nature hike without fear of being munched. There are no human-only or animal-only zones or at least, there shouldn't be.

Everything is being hunted in one way or another, I understand that. But I am not going to lay down and die or not ever experience nature because I shouldn't encroach on animal territory, that is ridiculous.

imported post

Humanity deliberately fails to live up to it's name, and the animals don't... I respect animal life more than human life, so my perspective is not quite the same.

I wouldn't be unhappy at all to see entire cities devoured by bears and mountain lions... It'll never happen, but I can see how others might disagree with me.

I hate people.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I hate people.

Click to expand...

Shocker.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I hate people.

Click to expand...

Shocker.

Click to expand...

imported post

You're just a 4-leg-lovin, tree-huggin, bunny-humpin, city slicker. you've never even seen a bear, have you, mr "I hate people"? You'd probably blow your panties out if you did. Animals in the bush don't give a crap about any human, or any other creature beside their young. If they feel threatened they will fight or flight. I change their options to flight or die, so they still have the option to live. Its their choice, so don't blame me.

They ruled that it is lawful to carry in NP, so I am not going to wait on their lousy arses. I am going to carry, and they can't stop me, because if they decided it into law it should be effective NOW. Our rights shouldn't be infringed any longer. I urge you all to do the same.

imported post

n16ht5 wrote:

You're just a 4-leg-lovin, tree-huggin, bunny-humpin, city slicker. you've never even seen a bear, have you, mr "I hate people"? You'd probably blow your panties out if you did. Animals in the bush don't give a crap about any human, or any other creature beside their young. If they feel threatened they will fight or flight. I change their options to flight or die, so they still have the option to live. Its their choice, so don't blame me.

They ruled that it is lawful to carry in NP, so I am not going to wait on their lousy arses. I am going to carry, and they can't stop me, because if they decided it into law it should be effective NOW. Our rights shouldn't be infringed any longer. I urge you all to do the same.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your position but honestly, I'll wait for it to become legal. Yes, I know it means living infringement (oh the horrror!) but I'd rather be a member of the 'Rule of Law' club than be a member of the 'Rule of Lawlessness' club (aka: criminal).

laws exist for a reason. If they are bad, then they need to be obeyed insofar as is necessary to effect change through the prescribed methods. Failing to do so makes you no worse than those who choose to ignore the laws and infringe upon everyone's rights.

imported post

darthmord wrote:

n16ht5 wrote:
I appreciate your position but honestly, I'll wait for it to become legal. Yes, I know it means living infringement (oh the horrror!) but I'd rather be a member of the 'Rule of Law' club than be a member of the 'Rule of Lawlessness' club (aka: criminal).

laws exist for a reason. If they are bad, then they need to be obeyed insofar as is necessary to effect change through the prescribed methods. Failing to do so makes you no worse than those who choose to ignore the laws and infringe upon everyone's rights.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that Martin Luther King Jr was a criminal and infringed on everyone elses rights for civil disobedience?


Also I am not in "rule of lawlessness" club. I've never even had a speeding ticket. I just stand up for what I believe in.

imported post

darthmord wrote:

I appreciate your position but honestly, I'll wait for it to become legal. Yes, I know it means living infringement (oh the horrror!) but I'd rather be a member of the 'Rule of Law' club than be a member of the 'Rule of Lawlessness' club (aka: criminal).

laws exist for a reason. If they are bad, then they need to be obeyed insofar as is necessary to effect change through the prescribed methods. Failing to do so makes you no worse than those who choose to ignore the laws and infringe upon everyone's rights.

Click to expand...

Well, their ban violates the law at the constitutional leval, so the NPS is on the side of lawlessness. No shame in breaking laws that violate basic human rights.

I, however, choose to obey the law not becuase I have any respect for it, but out of fear. Simply, I have too much to lose if I get busted, starting with my job.

I've had this discussion before with people who claim that carrying in DC or NYC is a good idea. Their argument is the "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" argument, which is in itself a true statement, but things aren't that simple.

I'm an engineer, so I view it as a risk assesment. Risk has two "dimensions" and can be plotted on a 2D chart.

The x-axis is probability of occurance; the probabilty that I will get caught breaking the law, or the probability that I will need my firearm to save my life.

The y-axis is the severity of consequences if the worst should occur. How severe is getting arrested and charged for illegal carry? How severe is being attacked by a bear or a criminal?

The upper right corner of the chart is "very high risk" and the lower left corner of the chart is "very low risk". You need two charts to do the analysis, and some info or at least a good hunch to plot the inputs. Then you compare the two charts and see which risk is greater.

For a city like DC there is a high likliehood of contact with the police, and stiff penalties for illegal carry. If you are careful, you have a low likleyhood of being mugged, and if you are you can usually survive without a firearm. So,carrying in DC or NYC brings greater risk than not carrying, as long as you watch yourself and be careful to avoid crime. (IOW, the government is a bigger threat than the street crime)

In the woods, you're not likely to encounter LEOs, so the risk of occurance is less. So I would be more likley to carry in some NPs than in NYC. But the consequence of breaking the law here is still high, at least for me. So overall I lean towards obeying the laws, even bad ones.

I won't finish the math here, everyone has to work it out for himself.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

No shame in breaking laws that violate basic human rights.

Click to expand...

+10

imported post

Your chart is a pretty good assessment of reality. People who help build society have far more to risk from a minor crime than people who have nothing. Thus the cost benefit ratio tends to produce two relatively distinct groups, those that are productive and lawabiding, and those that are not productive and could care less about the law.

imported post

ccwinstructor wrote:

Your chart is a pretty good assessment of reality. People who help build society have far more to risk from a minor crime than people who have nothing. Thus the cost benefit ratio tends to produce two relatively distinct groups, those that are productive and lawabiding, and those that are not productive and could care less about the law.

Click to expand...

What does productive have to do with it? Law-abiding does not automatically make a good citizen. Defiance of bad government is the highest calling a citizen and neighbor can find. For failing to defy it, you bring it down, not just upon yourself, but everyone you share the country with.

I, for one, am getting sick of asking myself "Why am I in this handbasket, and why is it getting so warm?"

I quite resent being forced to go along for the ride, when I know damn well where the road leads. I don't care how much of the popular vote goes to ignorance; I am not.

Now, who is going to be the first monkey to tell me that America is a Democracy, and I should get used to mob rule, or leave? Thus proving said monkey's pride for being ignorant...

imported post

Oh fine Sir,

The presence of knowledge is obvious, It just seems to fade as you continue typing. I would like nothing more than to debate the issue further but I am afraid that it would not be impressed upon you, he who forgets that he lives in the very place those creatures once called home. Further more who are you to decide that a cow is less than a cougar or bear.



I patiently wait for your witty response

imported post

itsjustme wrote:

Oh fine Sir,

The presence of knowledge is obvious, It just seems to fade as you continue typing. I would like nothing more than to debate the issue further but I am afraid that it would not be impressed upon you, he who forgets that he lives in the very place those creatures once called home. Further more who are you to decide that a cow is less than a cougar or bear.

I patiently wait for your witty response

Click to expand...

I haven't got a witty response for someone who is no longer interested in constructive debate, and builds presumptive straw men to poke at.

I have never made a decision that a cow is less than a cougar or a bear. However, I would probably weight it as such. This is acceptable. I am a Human Being, I have dominion over animals, and should exercise it with respect, restraint, and intelligence. Killing indiscriminately, or out of ignorance, does not fit that.

I also do no forget where I live, and have little respect for what it has been made into and those who have done it. Human beings have an intellect, and a choice that comes with it, with which to be more than animals. Yet they choose not to be. I have more respect for those creatures who don't have the choice, than those who choose to squander it on hate, lies, and deliberately engineered cannibalistic/piratic social mores.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

itsjustme wrote:

Oh fine Sir,

The presence of knowledge is obvious, It just seems to fade as you continue typing. I would like nothing more than to debate the issue further but I am afraid that it would not be impressed upon you, he who forgets that he lives in the very place those creatures once called home. Further more who are you to decide that a cow is less than a cougar or bear.

I patiently wait for your witty response

Click to expand...

I haven't got a witty response for someone who is no longer interested in constructive debate, and builds presumptive straw men to poke at.

I have never made a decision that a cow is less than a cougar or a bear. However, I would probably weight it as such. This is acceptable. I am a Human Being, I have dominion over animals, and should exercise it with respect, restraint, and intelligence. Killing indiscriminately, or out of ignorance, does not fit that.

I also do no forget where I live, and have little respect for what it has been made into and those who have done it. Human beings have an intellect, and a choice that comes with it, with which to be more than animals. Yet they choose not to be. I have more respect for those creatures who don't have the choice, than those who choose to squander it on hate, lies, and deliberately engineered cannibalistic/piratic social mores.

Click to expand...

Why are you even lending your ear to some one-poster who posts a 7 month dead thread? And then lending your mind to him enough to form a rebuttal as well? It isn't deserving of your time, especially with the off-kilter nature of his post.

imported post

rpyne wrote:

Prophet wrote:

while animals will look to live in symbiosis with their environment.

Click to expand...

This is utter and total bovine excrement. Animals act completely and totally for the survival and expansion of their species.

Click to expand...

F*&^n' BINGO!!

I'm appauled at the idea that humans are some kind of cancer, and the sick imbecile who posted that drivel is on our side.

The best solution for his "problem" is either a pandemic or a disarmed population being culled by it's government.

Liberalism is a mental disorder in all it's forms, and it makes me sick.

EDIT: did't realize this was such an old post, but that BS makes me sick. Humans are a cancer? Kemo yourself... F*%$n idiot...

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

ixtow wrote:

itsjustme wrote:

Oh fine Sir,

The presence of knowledge is obvious, It just seems to fade as you continue typing. I would like nothing more than to debate the issue further but I am afraid that it would not be impressed upon you, he who forgets that he lives in the very place those creatures once called home. Further more who are you to decide that a cow is less than a cougar or bear.

I patiently wait for your witty response

Click to expand...

I haven't got a witty response for someone who is no longer interested in constructive debate, and builds presumptive straw men to poke at.

I have never made a decision that a cow is less than a cougar or a bear. However, I would probably weight it as such. This is acceptable. I am a Human Being, I have dominion over animals, and should exercise it with respect, restraint, and intelligence. Killing indiscriminately, or out of ignorance, does not fit that.

I also do no forget where I live, and have little respect for what it has been made into and those who have done it. Human beings have an intellect, and a choice that comes with it, with which to be more than animals. Yet they choose not to be. I have more respect for those creatures who don't have the choice, than those who choose to squander it on hate, lies, and deliberately engineered cannibalistic/piratic social mores.

Click to expand...

Why are you even lending your ear to some one-poster who posts a 7 month dead thread? And then lending your mind to him enough to form a rebuttal as well? It isn't deserving of your time, especially with the off-kilter nature of his post.

Click to expand...

I'm bored and he's a douche.

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

rpyne wrote:

Prophet wrote:

while animals will look to live in symbiosis with their environment.

Click to expand...

This is utter and total bovine excrement. Animals act completely and totally for the survival and expansion of their species.

Click to expand...

F*&^n' BINGO!!

I'm appauled at the idea that humans are some kind of cancer, and the sick imbecile who posted that drivel is on our side.

The best solution for his "problem" is either a pandemic or a disarmed population being culled by it's government.

Liberalism is a mental disorder in all it's forms, and it makes me sick.

EDIT: did't realize this was such an old post, but that BS makes me sick. Humans are a cancer? Kemo yourself... F*%$n idiot...

Click to expand...

Yay necro!!

I only partly agree. Human beings have the capacity to be so much more, yet choose to be a cancer. Having the capacity to be more, and refusing because you enjoy sickness... Well, all I can do is agree with you. Liberalism is a sickness, I don't know of any politically affiliated animals. So, it must be people who are Liberals. And they most definitely are a cancer.

imported post

You got me. I do agree with most of your message, its just that something did not sit well with me in the post I originally responded to. Maybe I was just in a mood.I do however appreciate that you would lend your ear and your mind, considering its an "old topic".



Although no one person is perfect, it sure helps when we are willing to impart wisdom rather than ignorance.

I look forward to many more posts with all of you.