• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Ken Burns: Allowing guns in national parks is "foolish"

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Well, now mine is back as #9. I will copy it here, just for posterity:

9. KBCraig | 10.01.09

I’m struck by two thoughts in response.

First, Mr. Burns lives in New Hampshire, which is inarguably one of the top 5 states for gun freedom (and arguably, one of the top two). The only National Park Service property in NH is the tiny Augustus St. Gaudens home in Cornish (the Appalachian Trail is a national park, but within NH it’s under the purview of the National Forest Service and a collection of private trail groups).

Second, I spent today enjoying a short vacation in Hot Springs, Arkansas. The City of Hot Springs, and the Hot Springs National Park, are hopelessly intertwined and confused, and even the two entities can’t draw a clear distinction about where one ends and the other begins. One of the only clear lines is the main tourist area along Central Avenue: the west side of the street is in the City, and privately owned; the east side of the street is National Park.

Hot Springs is the 13th most dangerous Metropolitan Statistical Area in the US, despite a population of under 40k. I wonder if those criminals disarm when they cross the street into the National Park?
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
imported post

At the bottom of the page, the following appears:

We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published. Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it. Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights. Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
I do not know if this was always there, but it is now. I have seen other sites just like this and do not post as I need no censorship of my views from others.
 

Section32

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
50
Location
, ,
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
This reads like a "Who's Who" of the New World Order and the Bankster/Military-Industrial Complex. It would be nearly impossible to compile a "short list" of more crooked, corrupt, and Anti-American interests..

Wow. That's some post. I don't disagree with your characterization of Burn's politics but you certainly paint with a broad brush and splash the whole landscape with paint. I watched all 12 hours of 'Parks' and enjoyed it despite the glorification of Muir and the other founders of the modern day environmental movement. I do strenously disagree with you including the Lilly Endowment in a list of organizations described as above. I live in Lilly's hometown and see their efforts firsthand. I'm sure we can all find specific organizations supported by philanthropic groups like Lilly that we aren't happy about but the liberties we cherish apply to everyone, right? The Lilly endowment has almost single handed made Indianapolis into a great city. I would hope you are not in favor of the government taking over from private charity?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
The Eli Lilly company is cloesly tied into Political Globalism, the Eugenics movement, and Population Reduction intiatives. Eli Lilly also provided the LDS for the CIA's MKULTRA experiments in the 1950's...

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWO/newworld17.htm

You do the math...

(chuckle)

I couldn't imagine why Lilly would provide Mormons for the CIA's MKULTRA.

Thanks for the link. Interesting information there.

And thanks for the unintended chuckle. Now I understand its a typo, and is supposed to be LSD, not LDS. :)
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Oops...

I've edited my post to correctly spell the abbreviation for Lysergic acid diethylamide.

As they say in the "hood", You gotta check yourself before you wreck yourself. (meaning, before you support a position, person, or group, make shure it's REALLY worth supporting). The Eli Lilly company and the Lilly Endowment are a couple of nasty old nags that any Constitution-believing, freedom-loving sovereign human should think twice about before "hitching their cart to that horse"...

You gotta remember your history any time you are investigating these "philanthopic" organizations. There was once a "philanthropic Workers organization" in Europe that got hold of the government in the early 20th century, and they built fantacstic schools, hospitals, public parks, the Autobahn, and they even invented an automobile that all the people could afford to own and drive (which went on to become the most numerously produced car in the history of automobiles!). This group basically revitalized the entire economy of a nation that was literally bankrupt, and re-built their infrastructure to the point where it was (and in many ways still is) the most advanced in all of Europe. They greatly reduced crime, put a total halt to illegal immigration, and even was responsible for broadcasting the first large-scale sporting event that was ever broadcast on television. The deployed the first fighter jet, revolutionized modern rocketry, and received financial support and public endorsements from the liked of the Rockefellers, Prescott Bush, and even Henry Ford.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/genociderockefellernazis2apr03.shtml

The gifts of good roads, advanced schools, nice public parks, and astounding technology do not wash the blood off the hands of demons...

I'm not going to say any more on this, because I'm getting perilously close to having someone invoke "Godwins Law"...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
SNIP I'm not going to say any more on this, because I'm getting perilously close to having someone invoke "Godwins Law"...
I've decided that Godwin's Law is over-rated. The subject political organization is one of the most infamous in history, and still somewhat recent. It makes sense that people would think of them. Who really expects people to think first of Ghengis Khan's invasion of Europe?
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Aye Dreamer, right ye are. they are be daemons behi' each an evry tree wha awaits th unwary, an' all Menne about Ye cn nae b'trustit. He ham sayet ye be wrong 's th' less t'be trustit. Fer souch hae taken the counsel o'them as decieve, an are becam decievers their selves. Nae either ken ye trust in them as be saying ye are ud an right, tho. As these might be nae true friend, but rather daemon spirrites ham are more th' less be trustit. Aye, Laddie an' in th' ende all ye ken do is t' trust in yer Claigthmahr an'hope ye two-an'-thirty side die land advantageously, else ye be doomed as so aften happens t' they as treats Real Life as it were a game of DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS NOW WILL YOU WAKE UP??
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
imported post

Alexcabbie,

You know, you might be right. I should have known better than to cite The Guardian (the largest circulating newspaper in the UK) or the Washington Post (an admitted organ of the Leftist movement in the US)...

And I guess Wikipedia, the New York Times, and "Foreign Affairs" magazine can't be trusted either, and are obviously staffed and written completely by conspiracy-theory wing nuts who are just feeding us disinformation to send us off the trail...

Who will you believe, the primary sources, the actual essays, articles, and interviews given by these people, or the media mouthpieces who say that these plain, documented facts are untrue?

I'm not paranoid. I don't think there are wee beasties hunkering behind every shrub. But I know how to read, and do research, and the deeper I look into some of these companies, the more appalled I am at the REAL history behind them.

I'm plenty awake. That, I fear, is the problem...
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

They put mycomment back up again as #9. hmmm...

snip

jmorris <--- that 's me
The Brady Campaign screwed themselves by blocking the new ruling handed down by the DoE regarding carrying of defensive firearms in NP’s and NWR’s earlier this year. That ruling seemed to restict carry to concealed only. The new law passed by congress and signed into law by Pres. Obama is less restictive. It allows carriers to carry according to the state laws, in which the park units are located in. That means that in the states where open carry is allowed (42 of them) we will be able to carry our handguns openly. 26 of those states DO NOT require a permit to open carry.

I suppose that those of us that prefer open carry over concealed carry owe the Brady Bunch a debt of thanks, for THEIR foolishness. Ha ha
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

cbackous wrote:
8. Mike D. | 09.29.09


**As a gun owner with a concealed carry permit I cherish our 2nd amendment rights. That said I agree with Ken Burns and National Parks are not the place to have folks walking around armed. It is not needed, these are shrines to our heritage. I don’t know many who carry in church so why do you need to carry in a national park? Bear spray works wonders on 4 legged and 2 legged threats.**



It would seem that Mike here thinks bad guys will stay away from national parks because they are "shrines to our heritage". I do like his bear spray idea, just sure how well that will work against an armed bad guy..
The only "heritage" National Parks are shrines to is the stealing of land from property owners via emminent domain, a cherished tradition in the Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
They put mycomment back up again as #9. hmmm...

snip

jmorris <--- that 's me
I wonder if their page code has some behind the scenes cache shenanigans going on... show the poster their comment to make them think it's posted, when it's really not. That's one reason I check with multiple browsers, and sometimes even multiple computers and IP addresses to be sure.

My comment just showed up again, after a page refresh command, even though several times in the past 2 days, I have checked from other places using other computers and it has never appeared.

I suspect no other person has seen a comment from TFred, even though I do from the computer I originally submitted it.

Their level of integrity seems to be falling by the hour.

TFred
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

TFred wrote:
Task Force 16 wrote:
They put mycomment back up again as #9. hmmm...

snip

jmorris <--- that 's me
I wonder if their page code has some behind the scenes cache shenanigans going on... show the poster their comment to make them think it's posted, when it's really not. That's one reason I check with multiple browsers, and sometimes even multiple computers and IP addresses to be sure.

My comment just showed up again, after a page refresh command, even though several times in the past 2 days, I have checked from other places using other computers and it has never appeared.

I suspect no other person has seen a comment from TFred, even though I do from the computer I originally submitted it.

Their level of integrity seems to be falling by the hour.

TFred
Now that's a new and interesting theory, never thought of that. If it's true it's both slimy and brilliant.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
They put mycomment back up again as #9. hmmm...

snip

jmorris <--- that 's me
The Brady Campaign screwed themselves by blocking the new ruling handed down by the DoE regarding carrying of defensive firearms in NP’s and NWR’s earlier this year. That ruling seemed to restict carry to concealed only. The new law passed by congress and signed into law by Pres. Obama is less restictive. It allows carriers to carry according to the state laws, in which the park units are located in. That means that in the states where open carry is allowed (42 of them) we will be able to carry our handguns openly. 26 of those states DO NOT require a permit to open carry.

I suppose that those of us that prefer open carry over concealed carry owe the Brady Bunch a debt of thanks, for THEIR foolishness. Ha ha
Actually the Bradyites harp about "concealed" all the time because, as we all know, it's what you CANT see that is most frightening (and also easier to make stuff up about). Thus the Washington Post blathering about "concealed weapons in parks" and all of it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but during the debate of "shall issue" for CCW in Missouri, was it not Hillary Clinton who chimed in by saying such a law would authorize "pedophiles at playgrounds with concealed guns" ? See the little game? "carry" = "concealed"; "concealed" = "hidden"; "Hidden"= nefarious. They never once mention that maybe "pedophiles at playgrounds" ought to need to worry about PARENTS with "concealed guns" (Or better still notice that parents are openly carrying them); but as it stands it is illegal to have guns around kids in public in many cases, so advantage goes to the armed pervert, who - it should be obviously - doesn't care a whit about laws, period.
Well, then again you have to wonder which side the antis are on in the first place when Obama's "safe schools Czar" turns out to be a guy who enabled and encouraged one or two boys tohave sexual relationships with grown men and who was moreover a good friend of the late NAMBLA advocate Harry Hay. (side note: In FranCrisco's "gay pride parade" Nancy Pelosi marched holding hands with this Hay fellow). And then they turn around and say they are concerned for the safety of YOUR KIDS?? :cuss:
The hypocrisy of these jerks is absolutely boundlless. We and all of us have got to take off the damned gloves and get as nasty as they are in the arena of political debate. Remember the TV miniseries "V" wherein ghastly alien lizards wore kindly human faces to reassure the folks who were their intended dinner?? It is damn time to pull those phoney faces off these predators. So let' get busy. I have for some time now.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

What is it about what I wrote that is schizo? It is the absolute truth. Lemme boil it down: The antis play word games. The antis pretend they are concerned for the safety of "the defenseless". The antis don't give a rip about "the defenseless". And then, when we point this out, they twist it to make US look as though WE don't care about the defenseless, and they are a pack of filthy hypocritical lying SOBS for doing so. And THEN when we point this out WE are being "insensitive" or some other garbage; and sez me it is high time we turned their filthy tactics against them. What do you mean "Schizophrenic"?
 
Top