There’s concern that lifting the ban on firearms in national parks will result in a bunch of irresponsible yahoos taking potshots at any animal that looks at them with even a hint of hostility. Give me a break. Most people licensed to carry a sidearm understand the responsibility involved in doing so. People who have permits to carry guns commit very few crimes. They also understand that most concealed-carry handguns are chambered in calibers and come in designs that are not suitable for “hunting” animals. I believe most people licensed to carry handguns are reasonable and disciplined individuals. These are not the kind of people who will start shooting up animals or each other in national parks. The main reason I support letting permit holders carry in national parks has to do with two-legged predators. Robberies, rapes, murders and drug-related crimes are on the rise. Think about it. A young couple enjoying a nature hike comes across four thugs who don’t care about park rules in a remote area. Without a way to protect themselves, that’s a recipe for tragedy. — Joseph Smith, AmericanThinker.com
Like many other Americans, every time I take my family to a national park I find myself thinking: “Wow! If I only had a gun.” Now, thanks to Congress and President Obama, all of us will soon be able to carry loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. Even concealed weapons will be allowed, for those who have state permits. It’s about time. The one element that’s been missing from the outdoor experience in Yellowstone and Yosemite was the adventurous possibility that the drunks at the next campsite might be fooling around with a loaded .357. The battle to put loaded guns back in the hands of American vacationers wasn’t easy. Efforts to revoke the Reagan rules fell short even when Congress was controlled by the Republicans and George W. Bush was president. But Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., slyly attached the controversial parks measure as an amendment to the credit-card reform bill, which he knew was certain to be passed and sent to Obama. The president was pushing to sign it by Memorial Day. Democratic leaders couldn’t figure out how to separate the gun issue from the credit-card issue, and again found themselves outfoxed and outmaneuvered. — Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald
243 Comments
Gun nuts are scared of everything.
Most people who have a driver’s license know better than to drive drunk.
So I guess there shouldn’t be a law against it.
Frankly, I don’t care if people who have proven themselves competent, capable, and responsible carry guns anywhere.
But as soon as tourists start popping off rounds at bears, moose, and badgers in national parks, there should be huge sanctions against them. Is that a part of Inhoff’s bill?
Didn’t think so.
“But as soon as tourists start popping off rounds at bears, moose, and badgers in national parks, there should be huge sanctions against them.”
_______________________
Is that like the blood that was going to run in the streets when they passed CCW?
Like CCW, I doubt if we’re going to see any difference. Think about it. If you screw up, you’ll probably lose your license to carry. There’s the motivation NOT to go blasting the wildlife without a good reason. Also, the vast majority of people who carry don’t carry a cannon. If you shoot a bear or a moose with your .38 Special, you’re probably fixing to have a Darwin moment.
Good points, “XXX” –
Until some idiot shoots a bear for breaking into the food cooler.
Then the gun-nuts will claim it’s “an isolated example and shouldn’t represent the vast majority.”
Most laws are on the books precisely to protect us from the vast majority.
The vast majority wouldn’t kill people or rob liquor stores or rape babies. But we still, a civilized people, think there ought to be laws against it.
The whole “blood in the streets” canard has always been a CON straw man. No one who’s diffident about adding more guns to any situation ever claimed there’s be “blood in the streets.”
Speaking of the Darwin Awards, they exist simply because there are plenty of fools out there. And this particular piece of more-or-less meaningless legislation only serves to bring out that sub-culture of people whose gun fetish seems to dominate their lives.
If gun laws are that important to you, you should consider a review of your priorities.
I and my wife have spent many a vacation tent camping in some rather remote areas of Colorado and New Mexico. Many times we have been far removed from help if needed, and with the advent of cell phones out of range or blocked by terrain from a tower. Even with a cell phone it is foolish to rely on one totally because of the time element. We had to provide our own protection if needed, which is in reality ALWAYS the way it is.
True story; Once recently we hiked for several hours through Colorado State Park, where my concealed permit was legal for carry, but came to the boundary with Rockey Mountain National Park where it wasn’t. Right there before our eyes, unbelievably, were two signs, one indicating no firearms allowed in the National Park, and the other a sign in big red ominous letters saying;
“Warning–Big Cats Sighted In This Area.
Do not allow children to wander from your immediate presence.
DO NOT RUN if one is sighed
Do not carry food….”etc.
What idiocy is that! Enjoy your Park but watch out so you aren’t eaten.
My 180 grain .40 S&W was not what I would choose against a wild animal but it sure gave me more confidence and enjoyment in my hike than a pointy stick.
Once we had a bull moose charge us, fortunately it was a bluff charge and we were close to a outhouse to temporarily hide in.
Alaska requires, it is the law, that folks entering many remote areas be armed for protection and at least the option should be available everywhere.
Gun racks may make a come back. :)
Oh, and the animals are the least thing to worry about, it is the deranged criminals, probably DimLibs, that really scare me.
“Boxlock20″ shares –
“…we were close to a outhouse to temporarily hide in.”
Thereby preventing a stain in your khakis.
Who were you wanting to conceal your handgun from, “Boxloc20?” Pumas?
Good strategy.
Then you admit your “…180 grain .40 S&W was not what I would choose against a wild animal.”
So, apparently, you chose that weapon for shooting something else, right?
I dunno.
Sometimes I think my idea of wilderness is a parking lot without stripes painted on the asphalt.
But if I were hiking around the wilderness in cougar country, I might choose to carry appropriate weaponry… or not go.
Since that man-eating moose turned out to be more territorial than lethal, I might pick up on the hint that packing heat everywhere you’re afraid might not be the wisest option.
But I’ve long ago stopped expecting wisdom from gun fetishists.
It’s not guns that bother me, it’s all you crazies for whom guns are a big deal.
It’s odd.
That’s all I’m saying.
Odd.
“Who were you wanting to conceal your handgun from, “Boxloc20?” Pumas? “—Monkey you are truly a dimwit, ya know that.
It is illegal to carry open in the State Park numskull. And try hiking mountains with a long-arm. You carry what you can, and a dozen 180 grain .40s are still quite a bit of firepower, but then a numskull wouldn’t know or be able to figure that out without mouthing off first.
That’s what amazes me, how you can spout off yet be so ignorant.
Yeah, “Boxlock20″ –
I guess I choose to be ignorant of stuff that always gets your dander up.
Your idea of a great family vacation is cowering in a a Port-a-Potty for fear of a moose. I like dinner and a Broadway show. Different strokes & all that….
I don’t need to call you names such as “numskull.” Twice. Doesn’t mean I don’t think you gun fetishists aren’t silly with your obsessions.
Anyone who spends as much time as you obviously have, worrying about pumas and grizzlies and moose, might consider other vacation options.
We like the outdoors Monkey….know why, there aren’t people like you capable of being out there. That makes for a much more enjoyable vacation.
And I only call you a numskull because you are on a lot of things you know little or nothing about yet mouth off about.
We weren’t “cowering in a a Port-a-Potty for fear of a moose”. I stalked it in Chaparral like shrubs to ’shoot’ it with my camera. He didn’t much like being whistled at to get him to raise his head and look at us. He made a false charge of ten or fifteen yards and I got a great picture before retreating to a concrete based wood National Park outhouse. A moose isn’t much smarter than you are Monkey, and with him it was ‘out of sight–out of mind’. Once in the outhouse he forgot all about us but was closer for better pictures.
Another time, in the same remote area of north-central Colorado, had a black bear decide he wanted in our pickup at 2:00 in the morning to get the trout that I thought I had completely sealed in plastic and in the cooler. The pickup was within five to seven feet of the tent and he made a lot of noise and expended considerable effort trying to get in until I yelled him away. I didn’t shoot him Monkey, I enjoyed the experience until he started tearing the seal off the hard Tonneau Cover of the pickup and that got me yelling.
You ought to try the outdoors instead of ridiculing when you have little or no knowledge.
And in neither of those occasions, “Boxlock20,” would carrying a concealed handgun had improved your situation.
Which, if you’ll recall, is the topic of this thread.
Go ahead and do it, “Boxlock20.”
You like camping in the wilderness where a bear outsmarts your ability to preserve your trout.
I’d rather have a 3-star chef prepare the trout in a small bistro in SoHo.
As I said. Different strokes.
I’m not sure how you somehow think my comments are personal attacks, “Boxlock20.”
I don’t care if you go hunting for bull moose with a handgun (so long as there is a government-financed outhouse for you to hide in when your little adventures turn sour). Go for it!
I just think your priorities are silly.
Carrying a gun in the woods makes a lot more sense to me than carrying a gun in downtown Wichita. In the woods, a human isn’t at the top of the food chain.
There’s not much need to shoot an animal in the woods. Discharging a firearm into the ground is usually enough to send most animals packing. I worry more about poisonous snakes.
Who cares what you think Monkey, you seem incapable of even realizing that…..who the hell cares what you think.
Those situations didn’t require my using a firearm and I hope we never encounter one that does, but who knows when that might happen. It’s too late to decide after the fact, or had you not considered that. Being prepared is not being paranoid.
And our little adventures most certainly did not turn sour, those experiences are exactly what make for lasting pleasureable memories and are exactly what we are out there for.
XXX,
Actually many more people are hurt in ‘civilized’ situations than in the wild.
Carrying a firearm for me is quite natural in either and is simply doing what I can to be a little more capable of defending myself and my loved ones if the situation necessitates and I can rise to the occasion and do so.
Boxlock20
Posted June 6, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
XXX,
Actually many more people are hurt in ‘civilized’ situations than in the wild.
Carrying a firearm for me is quite natural in either and is simply doing what I can to be a little more capable of defending myself and my loved ones if the situation necessitates and I can rise to the occasion and do so.
_______________________
And I don’t question that, nor do I question your right to carry in either instance. It’s just that my experience is quite the opposite.
Most people who would stick a gun in your face (criminals) don’t know what they’re doing.In my lifetime, I’ve disarmed several dingbats with guns, not that difficult to take a gun away from someone who doesn’t know how to handle a gun. But hand-to-hand isn’t a good idea with a bear or a big cat.
I’d rather have a 3-star chef prepare the trout in a small bistro in SoHo.
______________________________
LOL!
Unless you’ve had a fresh caught native Brook Trout from a Beaver pond in Idaho cooked over a camp fire. . .
Well, I pity you. You’ve probably never really had a trout dinner.
And that’s just groovy for you, “Boxlock20″ –
I just think it silly.
I just think your priorities are way outta whack with reality.
This thread started with a question on firearms in national parks and you stepped up with your story of being terrorized by a bull moose while you were hiding in an outhouse.
I couldn’t have made that up.
And then the bears attacked your trout!
And in both cases you volunteered that your piddly little handgun would have done nothing to improve your situation.
And THAT’S your justification for packing your little Lady Wesson pistol into the wilderness, secretly hidden in your fanny pack.
O-o-o-kay….
If that cooks for you, solid.
I’ve known a lot of silly people in my life and you probably don’t measure in the top ten. But you keep trying to climb the list.
“HLP” –
Actually, I’ve caught and cooked trout in the woods and it’s okay.
I still prefer the 3-star chef.
It’d be that much better if the 3-star chef were cooking the fresh-caught trout on the bank of a mountain stream, I suppose.
But I stand by my original statement.
Moving through the woods with all that beer and ammo hopefully won’t be too cumbersome. This whole thread just cracks me up.
So, where is the con?
That rambling paragraph posted as the “con” didn’t even mention any “con” to the law….
MonkeyHawk,
It is no strawman either. The left never actually said there would be “blood in the streets” but that is the type of argument that the left routinely came up with opposing concealed carry:
-There would be shootings in the streets by people getting mad
-There would be road rage with people shooting each other
-There would be people at sports events shooting each other
-There would be people mistakingly shooting each other because they see them carrying concealed
Those types of arguments went on and on and on opposing concealed carry.
They are what we call the “blood in the streets” arguments.
Which never came true and don’t happen.
The media doesn’t report this as, “The fewer than 10% of Americans who have for years been licensed to carry firearms will now be allowed to carry those in National Parks.” Instead, they report “People (implying everyone)can now bring weapons of all types into the National Parks.”
So who’s guilty of exageration, fear-mongering, and alarm? Who then, would be responsible if an UNLICENSED person, after reading the news, thinks it is now OK, and brings a gun into the forest?
The virgin prophet “Nathaniel” posts –
“…Those types of arguments went on and on and on opposing concealed carry.
They are what we call the “blood in the streets” arguments.”
In other words, you made up the whole “blood in the streets” straw man.
Hey, if I were running a bar and thought I didn’t want customers packing heat, that should be my choice, right?
I’ve seen parents at youth soccer games and have been glad the word got out that carrying firearms is not welcome.
So don’t go to little girls’ soccer games, boy. It might put a crimp on your social life, but you have your priorities, damnit!
All I’ve said in this thread is I think those who think guns are that important in their lives have pretty silly priorities.
I’m a “libruhl,” so I can live with that.
We “libruhls” tend to be a live and let live sort of people.
But if your gun is so important to you, I think you’re being silly. And I’ll say so.
To your face.
Like that time your Father said he’d meet me for lunch and I encouraged him to bring you along.
He crapped out on that promise. As he did with his previous promise.
So forgive me if I don’t put a high price on Price within the confines of this forum.
Take your guns anywhere, boy. And boycott every place that’s decided, y’know, they’d just like to stop encouraging clientele who aren’t comfortable in public unless they’re packing heat.
Fair enough?
Carl Hiaasen finally admits what we have known all along. Senator Tom Coburn (R.) Oklahoma is smarter than all the Senate Dems combined.
MonkeyHawk,
Once again, it is not a strawman argument.
A strawman argument is an argument which mischaracterizes or completely fabricates something your oppoinent never said, while attributing it to him, and then arguing against it.
How would you know if someone is or isn’t carrying concealed at those soccer games?
And, yes, anyone can say they don’t want people carrying guns into their establishment if they choose. Again, how would they know if someone was or wasn’t when they are carrying concealed?
Having a live and let live attitude has nothing to do with being prepared to protect yourself or your family.
You are the one who is mischaracterizing why people carry concealed by constantly saying their motives involve fear or being uncomfortable in public or that a gun is “so important” to us…
This is so much like the debate over concealed carry on college campuses. Millions of Americans with Concealed Carry permits go through each and every day without doing something stupid. Simple irrefutable fact. Yet logic-free brains like Monkey”boy” seem to think that when these normal rational human beings step across a street(to a college campus) or across an invisible border of a national forest they will devolve into unstable blithering idiots and start mindlessly blowing away wildlife or coeds.
Their arguments lack both fact and logic so they try to scare people and ridicule the good judgment of one of the most law abiding demographics in the whole freaking world.
just mindless.
Say Box, the Glock 23 has been in my backpack frequently when hiking the Rockies in bear and mountain lion country.
Have been there winter hiking/camping and those Elk are a little more threatening during the rut, then they are in the summer time.
40 S&W isn’t really big enough, but I agree, it’s better then nothing.
.454 Casul or higher is recommended for Bear, though I think 44 Mag would be fine. (Heavy gun though.)
Boxlock20
Posted June 6, 2009 at 8:20 am | Permalink
Oh, and the animals are the least thing to worry about, it is the deranged criminals, probably DimLibs, that really scare me.
———————
Yes, there is more danger from the two-legged critters then the four-legged ones.
In spite of the gun bans, National Parks have seen plenty of crime. Starting next year, law abiding citizens will be able to better defend themselves.
(Why wait for a year though?)
Good points Heckler.
People have already been carrying concealed for up to 20 years all over America now.
Nearly every state has allowed concealed carry.
This law will simply allow those who already carry concealed to continue to do so when they cross that “magical” line into the state parks.
And I can’t figure out why that seems to drive the liberals nuts.
Monkey, again you show that not only do you either lie or simply can’t read.
I never indicated, or implied in any way, we were “terrorized by a bull moose while you….hiding in an outhouse.” We weren’t terrorized at all, in fact we were having the some of the times of our lives and thankful for the experience and the adventure, and the pictures I might add. And we wisely retreated to the outhouse to ‘defuse’ the situation with an angry bull moose. Same with Mr. Black Bear in our camp, it was exciting and quite memorable. Both situations could possible need defending if they got out of hand though.
And a Glock 23 chock full of .40 S&W 180 FMJ is not a “piddly little handgun”, but it is obvious you have no knowledge whatsoever. That handgun could have handled both situation quite handy if needed. That doesn’t make it my choice for hunting either animal, simply for convenient carry defense with a lot of firepower in a small light handgun.
Why am I wasting my time with someone so uneducated and so unwilling to learn.
Sorry to call names but you simply are a dunderhead or just like to lie.
Yeah Jim, that is my normal concealed handgun for backpacking and hiking, the Glock 23. It’s been with me to the top of both Mr. Elbert (14440 feet) and Mt. Massive (14421 feet) and much in between, and all over Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming and even a little in Texas.
I load it with 165 or 180 grain FMJ for better penetration if needed in the mountains and one of the hollow points for everything else.
A heavier handgun, ie. a large frame and cal. revolver is just to big and heavy to pack and can’t be concealed except in a backpack and that’s too slow to access.
#
HLP
Posted June 6, 2009 at 11:16 am | Permalink
I’d rather have a 3-star chef prepare the trout in a small bistro in SoHo.
______________________________
LOL!
Unless you’ve had a fresh caught native Brook Trout from a Beaver pond in Idaho cooked over a camp fire. . .
Well, I pity you. You’ve probably never really had a trout dinner.
———————–
I agree. Fresh trout cooked over a camp fire is far superior to anything one can get in a restaurant. The freshness and taste cannot be beat.
Maggotpunk,
You are the only one scared, scared of normal law abiding citizens having the means to defend themselves.
“.454 Casul or higher is recommended for Bear, though I think 44 Mag would be fine. (Heavy gun though.)”
________________________
The Casul, maybe. A .44 mag….a little light. Many years ago, I ran into a guy in the Denver airport that took on a bear with a .357 mag. That didn’t work out so well. he shot the bear and still got badly mauled.
For bear, I highly recommend a 4 gauge shotgun with heavy carved steel ball ammo. :D
Box, I always wanted one of these for the mountain trips:
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=233&category=Revolver
48 oz unloaded! (5 shots)
As compared to 21 oz for the G23 unloaded. (13+1)
Oh I agree on the 44 mag is on the lite side.
If I knew I would be in grizzly country, there’s no question, 454 Casull or a 500 S&W would be my choice.
I know there’s now a 460 S&W and 480 Ruger too!
I suppose the Desert Eagle 50 would work, but I wouldn’t want a semi-auto for bear. Too much risk something would jam.
Jim, that would be a very uncomfortable handgun to fire but certainly effective. If the bullet didn’t stop a charge the blast and report surely would, ha.
I have a Ruger Vaquero in 44 Mag. but it is too heavy to hike with and conceal. I wore it in south Texas hunting hogs but did so in a open holster and even in that I prefer subsonic hot 44 Special loads, though would choose 44 Mag. loads for wilderness defense.
Actually, I have a rifle sighted 20 inch. barreled Rem. 870 with a rifled choke tube and I handload a .69 cal. ball weighing 492 grains
in a plastic wad column over 37 gr. of Hodgdon’s Longshot for approx. 1550 feet/sec. Now that is moose and bear protection, and I took it once….but not concealed, ha.
JimJohnson,
Semi-automatics are very reliable. The risk of one jamming is not that great.
If we are talking about risk, there is just as much risk your cylinder on that revolver will lock up…
Well this has been fun, but got’a run.
Off to a much more dangerous place than the wilderness….downtown Wichita.
Back later.
The virgin prophet “Nathaniel” obviously has comprehension problems –
Boy, I’m not scared of anything.
I’m certainly not so afraid of life I have to strap a gun to my hip every time I venture outside.
You CONs always whine when you perceive us “libruhls” are ganging up on you. But you have no problem leaping on the ol’ Monkeyhawk when he says he doesn’t give a rat’s ass that you choose to pack heat anywhere and everywhere; the ol’ Monkeyhawk simply thinks your priorities are skewed.
Sorta like –
I’m not gonna ban kids from getting pierced and tattooed to within an inch of their lives, but I reserve the right to think them ridiculous.
If your junk is so small you need to drive a monster truck to the Kwickie-Mart for a bundle of diapers, fine with me. But I might question some of your life choices.
“Boxlock20″ started upthread about how his encounters with a bull moose and a black bear left him woefully at a disadvantage, then comes back to brag about his Glock (which his German for “cock”), and I think he’s been pretty consistently absurd throughout this morning.
All I’ve said today is this:
If your guns are THAT important to you, I think your priorities in life are skewed.
I don’t need your approval.
I’m not out to convert you.
There will be no altar call and I’ll not pass out the collection plates.
I simply think so many of you CONs have a fetish for guns that’s…weird.
You’re on a par with those people who support beauty pageants for toddlers and who book weekend conventions at Holiday Inns for “Furry” orgies.
Different strokes….
But odd.
If your world-view is such you can’t walk a couple of block to a coffee shop unless you’ve hidden a Glock on your person, okay. But I question your perception of reality.
That’s all there is, boy.
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Shoot me?
Nathan, that Desert Eagle is a bit on the heavy side to even cycle the action to rack a round!
As for the more common 9, 40, or 45 versions, I’m very comfortable with those.
Monkey makes the arguments typically made by the gun-banning types.
Note the difference in approach and rationality.
JimJohnson
Posted June 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
Box, I always wanted one of these for the mountain trips:
___________________
I have the 8 inch version. It kicks as hard as my S&W Mod 500.
It’s funny to watch the Monkey start to disintegrate right here before our eyes.
It must be obvious even to himself he is quite a bit shy of normal.
And again Monkey what is it, can’t read and comprehend, or just a liar, which is it.
I never said I was “woefully at a disadvantage” in my animal encounters. Quite the contrary, I was having a ball and quite comfortable with the situation, but that’s not to say it couldn’t have changed, and if so I had a plan B.
Why don’t you take a break and go to lunch, you are looking increasingly ridiculous and that’s hard to do over what you do already.
“I have the 8 inch version. It kicks as hard as my S&W Mod 500.”
Wow…I’m jealous.
MonkeyBallsinMouth,
I didn’t say you were scared of anything. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion.
However, your opinion is based on mischaracterizing the motives of those who carry concealed and to basically mock them for carrying concealed.
You might not care if they do carry concealed or not, but that doesn’t mean you can make any coment you want to in regards to those that do without being called on it.
You go beyond simply saying you don’t care if someone carries concealed or not and choose to make it personal about those who do.
Then you come back and whine about it when someone points out how you are wrong.
JimJohnson,
If you are talking only about the DE, ok. Your comment at first was about semi-auto’s in general.
Aha!
We’ve now moved on to name-calling!
The virgin prophet “Nathaniel” gives us –
“MonkeyBallsinMouth….”
You don’t have anything to disagree with, boy, except I’m the one who said it.
For Monkey:
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/19110008.jpg
Look out Monkey, duck & cover!
http://www.huskerboard.com/mods/pics/funny/flying_basset.jpg
And if that doesn’t work, try this:
http://usforting.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/fort-casey-battery-worth-24.jpg
“JimJohnson” contributes –
For Monkey:
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/19110008.jpg
Thanks for sharing!
If I were a bull moose I’d have to break into “Boxlock20’s” Port-a-Potty to see something like that.
XXX
Posted June 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
JimJohnson
Posted June 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
Box, I always wanted one of these for the mountain trips:
___________________
I have the 8 inch version. It kicks as hard as my S&W Mod 500.
——————–
Might as well get the 500 then?
ImaMonkey,
Just returning the favor. Figuring you begin everyone of your replies to me by calling me names.
Nathaniel
Posted June 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm | Permalink
JimJohnson,
If you are talking only about the DE, ok. Your comment at first was about semi-auto’s in general.
———————–
I am a pistol guy. I know better then to argue with a revolver guy because neither side will give up.
And hey, both work!
The 1:38pm model is the scariest of all.
Monkeyhawk
Posted June 6, 2009 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
“JimJohnson” contributes –
For Monkey:
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/19110008.jpg
Thanks for sharing!
If I were a bull moose I’d have to break into “Boxlock20’s” Port-a-Potty to see something like that.
————————-
That was actually pretty funny…
Subject already done. Law already done. Too late. The hoplophobes never change; they only seek to disarm you.
Why? Gotta wonder . . . .
Trying to run up the hit numbers again, Eagle?
GMC70,
I was wondering that myself. Figuring this already took place.
Where was the debate before hand and just after?
What a shame.
Even the nature in national parks cannot be isolated from the narrow minded stupidity of people.
“There’s concern that lifting the ban on firearms in national parks will result in a bunch of irresponsible yahoos taking potshots at any animal that looks at them with even a hint of hostility.”
Make book on it.
“I didn’t WANT to shoot the wolf. But he was coming right for me.”
#
BlueJay
Posted June 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink
“There’s concern that lifting the ban on firearms in national parks will result in a bunch of irresponsible yahoos taking potshots at any animal that looks at them with even a hint of hostility.”
Make book on it.
“I didn’t WANT to shoot the wolf. But he was coming right for me.”
————————————–
If it was a 150 pound Timber Wolf charging at you, I’m very sure you wished you had a gun. :)
Wolves avoid people. Or at least they try to.
This likely means the end of the wolf population in Yellowstone.
#
BlueJay
Posted June 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
Wolves avoid people. Or at least they try to.
This likely means the end of the wolf population in Yellowstone.
—————————–
Ahhh,
You just contradicted yourself. Nice job…
Pretty easy to understand why you don’t care about the environment there Regular.
Yours being no bigger than a basement.
#
BlueJay
Posted June 6, 2009 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
Pretty easy to understand why you don’t care about the environment there Regular.
Yours being no bigger than a basement.
—————————————
Basement eh?
Too bad you can’t dialogue with other people without making insults.
Go join MonkeyHawk in the corner.
And the Elk.
And the Bears.
And the Birds.
They will all die now!
With the sound of gunfire returning to the national parks, the animals not now afraid of man will retreat again to the deep wilderness.
This is a terrible decision.
Can someone both care about the environment and for their own safety?
*Drum Roll*
YES!
20 years of nearly every state in the Country allwoing concealed carry and the liberals are still arguing that these same people who have not been stupid for the past 20 years are now all of a sudden going to start gunning the animals down in parks.
Based on fact? Nope
Based on reason? Nope
Based on logic? Nope.
Just the same old tired liberal argument which didn’t happen every other time they have opposed concealed carry.
“But Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., slyly attached the controversial parks measure as an amendment to the credit-card reform bill”
Yup, that’s Republicans. Dishonest and haters of the environment.
Sharpshooters prepare to cull RMN park’s elk herd
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/26/sharpshooters-prepare-cull-rmn-parks-elk-herd/
There are so many Elk, Fences are being put up in Rocky Mountain Park.
That fence will be a lovely part of nature at RMNP.
http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/elkveg_fact_sheet.htm
Fencing
A prototype elk-proof fence was constructed to protect a restored area in the Endovalley area that was damaged by the 1982 Lawn Lake flood. This elk-proof fence minimizes viewshed impacts, maximizes protection of vegetation from elk, and provides for visitor and other wildlife access. Three more fences were constructed this fall, two in Horseshoe Park and one in Moraine Park.
I am still trying to figure out how carrying concealed in the National Parks = hating the environment???
Duties:
This position, as a volunteer for the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, is within the division of Resource Stewardship
at Rocky Mountain National Park.
Volunteers will be members of teams and assigned specific duties each day they are directly related to the success of the elk and
vegetation management program. Specifically, the duties are:
1. to field-dress animals in a manner which will preserve the meat for human consumption.
2. to lift, drag, haul, skin, and generally process carcasses.
3. to lethally remove individual elk with a firearm as directed by NPS personnel.
http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/upload/vol_team_elk_cull_job_description_oct08.pdf
It’s OK when the Government Kills Elk.
They Kill Humanely, and I’m sure that Elk feels better about that.
Gunfire will return?
As JimJohnson pointed out, gun fire already exists in National Parks.
Nevermind that many states have and do allow hunting in National Parks already.
Gunfire can’t “return” somewhere it already existed in.
Well I spent a lot of time in our national parks.
I never once felt in need of a gun. I guess I’m just a little more…evolved than some.
BlueJay,
I have spent a lot of time in our National Parks as well.
I never once felt the need for a gun either. I still want to carry one though.
Just like I have spent a lot of time in my home and other peoples homes. Never once had the need of a smoke alarm, fire extinguisher, or carbon monoxide detector. Still have them though.
Carry a fire extinguisher with you, do ya?
Hey, you won. The national parks experience is about to be destroyed in order to accommodate your paranoia.
And probably your inner Daniel Boone as well.
Congratulations. At least I go to show my son the National parks before you and yours ruin them.
BlueJay,
Just as I asked before, about how carrying concealed in National Parks = hating the environment…
How is carrying concealed in the National Parks going to ruin them or destroy the experience?
The only paranoia here, is yours, towards carrying concealed in the National Parks.
Still, there is an upshot.
My son has another reason to dislike Republicans and guns.
Guns are just a tool.
You might as well teach your kid to hate swords…
Did concealed carry ruin or destroy any experience in any of the 46 states that have allowed it over the past 20 years?
Did concealed carry ruin or destroy any experience here in Kansas when it was allowed over 2 years ago?
Has concealed carry done any of the things the liberals claimed would happen: road rage shootings? Sporting event fights resulting in shooting? Drunks in the bar shooting each other? Concealed carry holders shooting each other? Police shooting concealed carry holders? Concealed carry holders going crazy and shooting others?
Yet, here is BlueJay, claiming that now, all of a sudden, allowing concealed carry in the National Parks is going to ruin them? Destroy the experience?
The absurdity of liberals never ceases to amaze me.
They have no clue who is carrying illegally in the National Parks today.
When it is legal next year, they will have no clue as to who is carrying legally or illegally in the National Parks.
The elimination of animals and loss of ambiance argument has already been shot-down. It’s our wunnerful Government that is shooting and killing animals in the National Parks now.
XXX had it right earlier, no law-abiding citizen legally carrying with a permit is going to go around shooting animals just for fun, and risk:
1. Loss of their firearms.
2. Loss of their carry permit.
3. Hefty fine.
4. Possible jail time.
And for those who don’t care about the law, well, they are just as able to go around illegally shooting animals in the National Parks today as they will be tomorrow.
What’s the change? Law-abiding people will be give a choice (that happens in a Free Country) to arm themselves for personal protection from 2-legged and 4-legged varmits.
Nathan, did you say sword?
Isn’t a sword a more humane type of weapon? That and Louisville Slugger?
Both perfect for home defense, somebody once said something like that….
“XXX had it right earlier, no law-abiding citizen legally carrying with a permit is going to go around shooting animals just for fun, and risk:
1. Loss of their firearms.
2. Loss of their carry permit.
3. Hefty fine.
4. Possible jail time.”
Uh huh.
“But Mr. Ranger! It wasn’t ME who fired my gun! It must have been someone else!”
Once gun people get their nose under the tent, they ruin it for everyone else.
Happily, President Obama DID reverse the actions of george bush as to building roads into wilderness areas.
So, the gunnies will have to get out and walk to kill and otherwise harass the wildlife. I fully expect that the temporary halt on the road building will be made permanent.
BlueJay
Posted June 6, 2009 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
So, the gunnies will have to get out and walk to kill and otherwise harass the wildlife. I fully expect that the temporary halt on the road building will be made permanent.
—————————-
What’s so difficult about walking BJ? Is that a challenge for you?
Maybe their should be handicapped trailed paved through the National Parks?
Never mind, they are there already.
If you want a really great experience in nature, I’d suggest getting a back-country hiking permit in the National Parks.
Get off the trails and deep into nature.
It’s a challenge though, and some like BJ may not be up to that, since walking is difficult.
But if you really care about nature, you might have some interest in getting off your lazy a*s if you can.
My post celebrated the decision to stop road building in wilderness areas “Jim”.
Idiot.
I’m sure3 glad bluejay’s and monkeys don’t5 carry guns, then it wouldn’t be safe out there.
So BJ, why limit the destruction of the planet to wilderness areas?
Why not stop road building everywhere?
Obama’s stimulous bill thru BILLIONS of dollars at building more freeways for more cars for more pollution for more global warming.
Why keep tearing up the topsoil and covering it with concrete?
And why stop with highways? Stop building new houses and buildings and destroying the land!
And semi-trucks, 90% of truck miles could be eliminated by building a National Interestate Rail System. 1/3 of US Oil is used for trucks. 1/3 of US Oil Global Warming pollution comes from trucks. Why are you all opposed to fighting the Teamsters on this?
Come on BJ, if you are going to support the environmental cause, then you have to go balls out, as Yeager would say.
Some idiot upthread……………..
“The left never actually said there would be “blood in the streets” but that is the type of argument that the left routinely came up with opposing concealed carry:”
So show us some examples of the Left…………. because to my recollection, no one on the left said anything close to that.
Actually, this is a non-issue. Ya’ wanna have a bazooka for deer hunting – go for it – the venison may not be to your liking.
WS Clark,
“Some idiot upthread…”
Remeber my post to you when you called for civility? And end to the divisiveness?
Well, here you are proving me right. I knew you wouldn’t follow your own words, that your words meant nothing.
Your words were empty. I have said nothing to you on this thread or since your post and you are calling me an idiot now.
Where is that civility you called for?
Where is that end to the divisiveness?
“Remeber my post to you when you called for civility? And end to the divisiveness?”
Sorry “Nathaniel” I did not realize that it was your post.
My bad.
I didn’t mean to respond to you – if I had caught it I would not have returned a post.
I am sorry.
Go back to your business.
WS Clark,
Being sorry that you responded to me isn’t being sorry for making such an uncivil and divisive comment.
Something you were preaching against.
But, alas, your words were empty.
“But, alas, your words were empty.”
Sorry Nathaniel, I am trying to watch a very important hockey game and I could care less about your opinion on ANY subject.
I failed to realize that it was your post – again – my bad.
Wings up by four – that is what is important to me right now.
WS Clark,
Just stating facts, not opinion.
You came here calling for civility. I made a bet that you would not be.
And here you are to prove it.
Those are the facts. How long till you come back again talking about civility while offering none?
Up by five – end of second period – go Red Wings!
For Monkey:
http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/19110008.jpg
“Thanks for sharing!
If I were a bull moose I’d have to break into “Boxlock20’s” Port-a-Potty to see something like that.”—the monkey
Again, Monkey you don’t know ’sh*t from Shinola’.
Would you rather duck out of sight for a moment to relax a wild animal or escalate the situation?
Dumbass you better not escalate it because the image in the link shows a firearm with NO round in the chamber. But you are too dumb to know that.
“Well I spent a lot of time in our national parks.
I never once felt in need of a gun. I guess I’m just a little more…evolved than some.”—Blowhard
You never got out of the visitor center either. In fact I doubt you ever got out of the car….you’re too lazy to walk.
By the way….few, and I mean very few, with any experience in the remote outdoors, and with firearms, ever paid much attention to not carrying a firearm in a park if they were were going far on foot.
As someone said, no one knew then, and no one will know now.
“By the way….few, and I mean very few, with any experience in the remote outdoors, and with firearms, ever paid much attention to not carrying a firearm in a park if they were were going far on foot.”
Funny. My son and I hiked extensively in several National parks.
We never carried guns and felt no need to do so.
Republicans appear to be afraid of nature AND other people.
I don’t wonder why.
When you are a jerk with nature and other people, you probably have good reason for fear.
“Another time, in the same remote area of north-central Colorado, had a black bear decide he wanted in our pickup at 2:00 in the morning to get the trout that I thought I had completely sealed in plastic and in the cooler. The pickup was within five to seven feet of the tent and he made a lot of noise and expended considerable effort trying to get in until I yelled him away. I didn’t shoot him Monkey, I enjoyed the experience until he started tearing the seal off the hard Tonneau Cover of the pickup and that got me yelling.
You ought to try the outdoors instead of ridiculing when you have little or no knowledge.”
You can shout away a bear and you are askeered of lil’ ol me?
I call BS.
BlueJay,
I am glad that you never felt the need to carry a gun. Some people do.
Being Pro-Choice that you are, why don’t you support others choice to carry concealed?
The (apparent) virgin and expert on parenting “Nathaniel” just doesn’t get it.
Your obsession with firearms is your problem.
There’s no issue more important to you. Even your twice-born status which you think gives you the power to judge just who is and who isn’t a “real” christian doesn’t rival your cyber-frenzy regarding guns.
You, yourself, even slipped into gun-nut rhetoric when you wrote, “A gun is just a tool.”
Sorry. But if people came on WE Blog obsessing about their insistence in carrying pliers everywhere (“You never know when there might be a loose nut somewhere!”) they go, they’d pretty much be accurately described as nuts.
It’s not your cause that’s disquieting, boy, it’s your obsession with it.
Nathaniel
Posted June 6, 2009 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
WS Clark,
Being sorry that you responded to me isn’t being sorry for making such an uncivil and divisive comment.
Something you were preaching against.
But, alas, your words were empty.
===========================
He’s just another Lib Hypocrite. Right after the call for bi-partisanship and civility, they stab you in the back.
Imagine that! A blog about concealed carry and I am talking about concealed carry.
MonkeyNutsinHisMouth thinks I’m obsessed?
Well what does that make you when you are constantly posting about me and my personal life in nearly any thread we both happen to be in?
Is there another word which goes beyond obsessed? If there is, you are definately it.
“BlueJay,
I am glad that you never felt the need to carry a gun. Some people do.”
Yes I know.
Your father says, and has no doubt taught you:
“I carry a gun in case I need to kill someone.”
This ruling allows folks like you and your father to carry in National parks….
“In case I need to kill someone”
OR something.
Your father, Hank Price, has loudly here wished for a chance to kill a Polar bear and her cubs to decorate his living room.
You yourself once intimidated a social gathering by threatening to bring a gun.
I think the why as to why you and yours need to go about constantly armed to kill is better addressed in your answers as to why.
Boxlock20
Posted June 6, 2009 at 11:24 pm | Permalink
“Well I spent a lot of time in our national parks.
I never once felt in need of a gun. I guess I’m just a little more…evolved than some.”—Blowhard
You never got out of the visitor center either. In fact I doubt you ever got out of the car….you’re too lazy to walk.
By the way….few, and I mean very few, with any experience in the remote outdoors, and with firearms, ever paid much attention to not carrying a firearm in a park if they were were going far on foot.
As someone said, no one knew then, and no one will know now.
=====================
Several times I ran into rangers in the backcountry, and guess what, they were carrying.
Course they couldn’t tell if I was or not, and as far as I could tell, they didn’t care.
Sometimes I don’t wear my seat belt. I hardly ever get into a wreck.
Just tonight, I ran a quick trip to the store without a seat belt, and had no problem.
I don’t know why some people think they need to wear a seat belt all the time.
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:29 am | Permalink
Imagine that! A blog about concealed carry and I am talking about concealed carry.
———————-
There was actually a discussion about what to carry earlier today.
.454 Casull or larger caliber is what I’ve heard recommended for bear country.
So I need something bigger then my 45 I guess.
This might be a good carry weapon:
http://www.huskerboard.com/mods/pics/funny/flying_basset.jpg
I think the question we must ask of those who feel the need to defend themselves with deadly force against deadly force is…
WHY are you so afraid?
What is it that you are doing that makes you a target?
National parks are a tiny refuge for wildlife against the incursions of man. When you go there, you are on THEIR land. IF you need to defend yourself with deadly force, you are clearly not respecting their little last bit of remaining turf.
BlueJay,
I see you are out with the blame the victim card again.
Do you think that H.G. did something to make herself a target for the Carr Brothers?
That she brought the rape and attempted murder on herself?
That she just wasn’t that “likeable?”
The question extends of course.
WHY are those who need a gun at all times afraid?
What is it that they are doing that makes them feel afraid?
BlueJay,
Why is it that you can’t argue about the facts and have to mischaracterize the feelings of those who support concealed carry?
I’m going to sleep now without a gun Nathaniel.
You and yours will have to justify why it is that you are all the time afraid.
What is it that you are doing wrong?
JimJohnson,
It all depends. If you are expecting an encounter with a bear, then yeah, take a bigger gun.
A .45 is not going to do much against a Big Bear unless you get your rounds off in the right spot and still have time between yourself and the bear.
It will not “stop” the bear, but eventually it will take effect.
I have read a story about a guy who shot a bear several times with his .45 and the Bear was still on top of him.
BlueJay,
I would like to see you ask HG what she was doing wrong when the Carr Brothers robbed her, raped her, and then tried to kill her.
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:57 am | Permalink
BlueJay,
Why is it that you can’t argue about the facts and have to mischaracterize the feelings of those who support concealed carry?
——————
Libs cannot think rationally.
It’s all about how they FEEL about things.
BlueJay,
Sleep well little sheep. Hopefully the wolf doesn’t come to your home.
It’s like Box said, even a 40 S&W is better then nothing. Last time I was in the mountains, that’s what I had. Got the 45 now.
May get 454 or the 500.
I’m leaning toward the 454 for more flexibility with ammo, and ammo being in short supply makes flexibility especially important. It shoots 454 or 44 Mag. Possibly 44 Spec too, not sure on that.
Nathaniel
Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:06 am | Permalink
BlueJay,
I would like to see you ask HG what she was doing wrong when the Carr Brothers robbed her, raped her, and then tried to kill her.
====================
Just look at the daily crime log if you don’t understand why many people choose to prepare to defend themselves.
Obviously sensitive about his virginity status, “Nathaniel” gives us –
“MonkeyNutsinHisMouth thinks I’m obsessed?”
Yeah, pretty much, boy.
That was the gist of my post which you chose to not address.
No.
You came back with –
“MonkeyNutsinHisMouth”
I’ve never complained about your name-calling except to point out that’s where you go when you’ve been slapped around by logic and reason.
I don’t care that you carry weapons when you go out to check the mail.
I simply think it’s crazy.
It doesn’t bother me that “Boxlock20″ needs a Lady Smith & Wesson when he goes to the toilet to hunt bull moose.
But it seems a little odd to me.
Got a problem with that, boy?
Just because I think you’re a tad goofy?
That’s your problem; not mine.
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 12:43 am | Permalink
I think the question we must ask of those who feel the need to defend themselves with deadly force against deadly force is…
================
Hmmm…so your plan, should the need arise to defend yourself against deadly force is….what exactly?
Don’t feed the Monkey any more bananas Nathan. He’s just trollin again.
Time to return control of the WE Blog to the nightly bottom feeders……
Thanks for your contribution, “JimJohnson” –
The (questionable) virgin “Nathaniel” obviously needs all the help he can get.
I wonder how long MonkeyButt is going to keep crying?
I wonder how long the questionably-virginal “Nathaniel” will reveal he’s run out of new monkey-related name-calls instead of addressing some of the issues I’ve presented.
LOL
What issues?
You keep claiming that you don’t care if we carry concealed you just think were wierd.
So, what issues do you want me to respond to?
Here’s an issue, boy –
Has it never occurred to you that concealed carry of a firearm is a fringe issue?
That making that fringe issue the center of your life might place you, y’know, on the fringe?
LiceCoveredMonkey,
“Has it never occurred to you that concealed carry of a firearm is a fringe issue?”
Of course. Not so much that the issue it’s self is a fringe idea, just that most people probably don’t place the issue very high on their priority lise. It has taken a long time to lobby for it here in Kansas. It has taken over 20 years for almost every state to pass concealed carry.
“That making that fringe issue the center of your life might place you, y’know, on the fringe?”
I don’t place the concealed carry issue in the center of my life.
Any other “issues” you have for me? Well, besides your typical mischaracterizations of my motives and feelings regarding the subject?
Twenty years of your life, boy, to secure your right to carry a gun into a daycare center?
Doesn’t sound a tad extreme to you?
Therein might be the problem.
A poodle might think it perfectly rational to extend effort and energy to hump a coffee table leg. Doesn’t make it any less crazy.
Nathan whines,
“Maggotpunk,
You are the only one scared, scared of normal law abiding citizens having the means to defend themselves.”
This coming from the guy who needs to arm himself against chipmunks.
“I’m leaning toward the 454 for more flexibility with ammo, and ammo being in short supply makes flexibility especially important. It shoots 454 or 44 Mag. Possibly 44 Spec too, not sure on that.”
Jim, the 44 Mag. will shoot the Mag., 44 Spl. and 44 Russian (if you can find them or reload).
The 454 Casull will shoot the 454, and the 45 Colt, or 45 ‘Long’ Colt, and 45 Scholfield.
The 44 Russian and 45 scholfield are just shorter cased rounds from long ago that the Cowboy Action shooters have revived, they are fun reduced loads.
The recently introduced .460 S&W Magnum cartridge has the same diameter as a .45 Colt or .454 Casull, and therefore revolvers chambered for it will also chamber the .454 Casull and .45 Colt.
Well, I see that scooter found the need to bring me into the conversation last night. Why is little scooter so terrified of me?
Scooter whines,
_______________________________________________
Your father says, and has no doubt taught you:
“I carry a gun in case I need to kill someone.”
_______________________________________________
I suppose I should clarifiy my remark so that it’s not twisted into something wierd.
I carry a gun in case I need to kill someone.
That, gentle people is the only reason to ever get a Kansas CCH license and carry a hangun concealed. Now reasonable people can say they will never carry concealed and I don’t blame them. The decision to carry is not one that should be made lightly. You need to really be aware of the seriousness of walking around with the capability of using deadly force.
Concealed Carry Handgun, is just that. Concealed carry. You can’t show your handgun in public unless you can legally use it to kill someone. If you and yours are threatened with death or extreme bodily harm you are allowed now by law to defend yourself with a handgun if you have your CCH license.
So, liberals may read my statement, “I carry a gun in case I need to kill someone.” but that is the only reason to ever carry concealed. And it’s legal. 20,000 Kansans have taken the time to get their license and carry concealed. live with it liberals or get the law changed.
Little scooter continues his whine last night with,
__________________________________________________
Your father, Hank Price, has loudly here wished for a chance to kill a Polar bear and her cubs to decorate his living room.
________________________________________________
This of course is just another of little scooter’s lies. I never said ‘living room’. I said family room. My wife would never allow a disgusting animal pelt in the formal living room.
Living room/ family room.
That dumpy community clubhouse. The intent is still the same.
Slaughter a magnificent creature for no purpose other than to make you feel like a man.
“20,000 Kansans have taken the time to get their license and carry concealed.”
Yes the paranoia of a few folks who probably have very real reason in the way they live their lives to fear for them has been accommodated.
We did not have to ruin the National parks to do so as well.
They have no clue who is carrying illegally in the National Parks today.
When it is legal next year, they will have no clue as to who is carrying legally or illegally in the National Parks.
The elimination of animals and loss of ambiance argument has already been shot-down. It’s our wunnerful Government that is shooting and killing animals in the National Parks now.
XXX had it right earlier, no law-abiding citizen legally carrying with a permit is going to go around shooting animals just for fun, and risk:
1. Loss of their firearms.
2. Loss of their carry permit.
3. Hefty fine.
4. Possible jail time.
And for those who don’t care about the law, well, they are just as able to go around illegally shooting animals in the National Parks today as they will be tomorrow.
What’s the change? For the law-breakers, there is no change.
For the law-abiding people, they will have a choice (that happens in a Free Country) to arm themselves for personal protection from 2-legged and 4-legged varmits. And law-abiding people don’t go around shooting animals for fun, or committing other crimes. Law-abiding people will not ruin the ambiance of your National Park experience.
So how BJ, will law-abiding people who legally carry firearms RUIN the National Parks? How exactly? I hear a lot of whining about your lil feelings, but no rational statement showing how the National Parks will be RUINED.
Thanks Box for the caliber clarification.
Noted upthread there “Jim”.
Wait and see if I am not right.
For now, think of it this way.
What if I had the freedom to come take a dump in your church? Never mind whether or not I actually DO it. But what if I had that freedom?
Would the church still feel the same?
The National parks were supposed to be a refuge and preserve from the ills of man. Both for the animals and the people who visit there. It was comforting to know that if someone there was armed to kill, they were breaking the law. Now, that is no longer true. So, on the way to a sad future, they have already lost something of what made them special.
What if I had the freedom to come take a dump in your church? Never mind whether or not I actually DO it. But what if I had that freedom?
______________________________
LOL, WTFO!
What an incredibly stupid and irrelevant analogy!
You can come and take a dump in our church anytime you want to, we even have special rooms set aside for that very purpose!
We strive to keep them clean and sanitary for your dumping pleasure. We provide primo toilet paper, not that comercial crap you get at Sam’s Club! We have soap, hot and cold running water and paper towels. (please wash up afterward)
Little scooter fires a barb right to the heart with,
“That dumpy community clubhouse.”
Hell, me and the boy even cleaned it up before inviting you and others out to eat and drink on my dime. I didn’t hear any complaints when you were taking advantage of my hospitality. (Scooter lowers himself below the average cur, most dogs won’t bite the hand that feeds them)
Dumpy? I’m hurt. Actually, we like to think of it as quaint and rustic. Our little community could afford a much newer and nicer ‘clubhouse’. However, we kinda like the one we have.
The lake was dug by a man named Walt several years ago. The clubhouse dates from that era. Over the years it has hosted many parties and wedding receptions. It has history. It brings back memories. We like it and we want to keep it.
If you don’t like it scooter maybe you can provide a place for the next BLOG get together?
nitwit
I wasn’t there to see you. Don’t worry, I won’t be back.
It’s not safe to publicly call meetups anymore. That must be why the editors stopped.
Cons have a bad habit of bringing guns to them.
#
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:21 am | Permalink
I wasn’t there to see you. Don’t worry, I won’t be back.
___________________________________
Ah, but you were there at my invitation. You ate on my dime. Now you use my hospitality as an attempt to defame me. You are correct, scooter, you won’t be back.
It’s not safe to publicly call meetups anymore. That must be why the editors stopped.
______________________________________
Really? Seems the liberals brought as many guns as anybody. They were safe then, they’d be safe now.
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 10:56 am | Permalink
The National parks were supposed to be a refuge and preserve from the ills of man. Both for the animals and the people who visit there. It was comforting to know that if someone there was armed to kill, they were breaking the law. Now, that is no longer true.
====================================
It was comforting to know that those who carried guns were breaking the law?
THAT was comforting?
Did it stop the law-breakers from carrying? No.
Will the new law change that? No.
What is so comforting to you knowing that those who carried guns were breaking the law?
“Comforting”.
THAT is BJ’s argument against the carrying of guns. How BJ FEELS determines whether something should be allowed or not.
Ah, JimJohnson, it seems we are trying to have a rational discussion with irrational people.
I must leave the discussion and get some work done. I have no credibility on this subject because my community has a ‘dumpy clubhouse’.
It aint me that…feels…under constant threat for their life there “Jim”. Instead of accommodating such folks, perhaps we should get them the help they need.
I don’t see why the wildlife need be made to suffer and retreat further.
Say Hank, wondering what the Libs expect from someone carrying concealed?
If the intent is not to kill someone should that be necessary in order to defend your own life, then what should your intent be?
Just “wing em”? Maybe shoot them in the leg or the arm or something? Only on TV and in the movies folks.
If you are in a self-defense situation requiring the use of deadly force, then you shoot until your attacker has stopped their attack. In order to do that, you shoot at the vitals.
“Winging” someone is very difficult to do, and it does not stop the attack.
And by carrying concealed, one has already decided in advance that you are willing to kill someone, if that’s what it takes to stop an attack on your life or the life of your loved ones nearby.
HLP
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Ah, JimJohnson, it seems we are trying to have a rational discussion with irrational people.
I must leave the discussion and get some work done. I have no credibility on this subject because my community has a ‘dumpy clubhouse’.
=====================================
Yup, almost impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who only makes decisions based on the way he ‘Feels’.
I hope you get some work done on the dumpy clubhouse Hank, and get it fixed up real good!
BlueJay
Posted June 7, 2009 at 11:36 am | Permalink
It aint me that…feels…under constant threat for their life there “Jim”. Instead of accommodating such folks, perhaps we should get them the help they need.
I don’t see why the wildlife need be made to suffer and retreat further.
======================================
I have a rational basis for carrying a firearm BJ. Look at the FBI Crime Stats if you think crime isn’t high enough to justify being prepared to defend your own life or you son or other loved ones.
He11, look at the WE crime reports daily! I don’t just FEEL under threat, there is crime in America and you can’t deny that! I, JimJohnson, have a Rational Basis for my position.
Do you have the same for yours?
As for the wildlife suffering and having to retreat further, that was addressed upthread, numerous times. In short:
1. The Government is already shooting and killing animals in our National Parks. There are too many of them already!
2. Law abiding people carrying firearms are not going to be going around shooting animials for fun or no reason.
So your argument for preventing the animals from sufferring is Pure Bull Sh it.
“So your argument for preventing the animals from sufferring is Pure Bull Sh it.”
We’ll see.
Unfortunately.
To no one in particular,
It’s ‘weird’ not ‘wierd.’
Remember, it’s ‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’ and, apparently, sometimes ‘w.’
Disclaimer: This post was made in a light-hearted manner for educational purposes only and not intended to disparage any poster. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Subject to change without notice. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. Use only in well-ventilated area. Keep away from fire or flame. Your actual mileage may vary. This supersedes all previous notices.
Publik Edukation not good nuf for ya Daniel?
And some say Amerka be dumbed down enuf already. I don’t think so!
Hey shooting enthusiasts, I wonder if handgun ammo is starting to free up some.
I was in Walmart today and the case contained 9mm, .40S&W, .45 ACP and a few others. I haven’t seen any for quite awhile. It was a little more expensive though.
Yesterday Gander Mountain had much more to offer though it was quite a bit more expensive than before ‘Little Barry’ showed up.
I got 250 rounds of 9mm Makarov online though for only about $12/50bx.
BlueJay,
I see you once again can’t respond to what is posted.
You just jump from one random argument to another with each and everyone of them being soundly defeated.
I’ve not been defeated soundly or otherwise Nathaniel.
I say that allowing conceal carry in the National parks will degrade the experience for everyone except that small minority that feel compelled to everywhere carry a gun.
We’ll see.
Unfortunately.
BlueJay,
That is nothing more than your prediction which is based on what?
As I have pointed out several times to you now, the history of concealed carry over the past 20 years proves that your prediction is not based on facts or history.
BJ can’t answer the question no matter how many times you ask.
How will law abiding permit holders carrying guns degrade (or he said ruin earlier) the experience of visitors in the park?
Boxlock20
Posted June 7, 2009 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
Hey shooting enthusiasts, I wonder if handgun ammo is starting to free up some.
I was in Walmart today and the case contained 9mm, .40S&W, .45 ACP and a few others. I haven’t seen any for quite awhile. It was a little more expensive though.
———————-
That’s good news.
Maybe everybody finally has stocked-up. That’s good news too.
There was ammo in Walmart?
Buy it all, every last bit of it.
I will pay you back for the .40 and .45 and those 100 round Federal packs of .223.
“How will law abiding permit holders carrying guns degrade (or he said ruin earlier) the experience of visitors in the park?”
I have told you it already has, at least for me. The National parks will not be special anymore. Just ANOTHER place where humanity brings the worst of its problems and inflicts them on nature.
If you feel you need a gun at all times, every where, you really need to consider therapy.
BlueJay,
Once again, how is someone carrying a concealed weapon going to inflict anything on nature?
And once again, you bring noting to the discussion other than your mischaracterizations of those who carry concealed…
Blue Jay, listen to what you’re saying. If properly-permitted people can’t carry into the park, then it would have a “special” feeling. Do you really think this eliminates guns from the park? Do you feel “special” knowing only criminals will bring their guns into the park? Do you think they don’t? Do you really, really feel safer, or “special,” when signs are posted that give you a fantasy feeling of reality? We all think of parks, churches, and other retreats as “special” places, where we can commune with nature, meditate, pray, or whatever. But a sign is not a magic wand – there will still be guns. Do you prefer the illegal/criminal ones, or only disavow the licensed ones?
It’s all about BJ’s Feelings.
Feeeeeelings!
Feeeeeelings!
Woa Woa Woa Woa
Feeeeeelings!
BJ whines & sniffles:
The (sniff) National parks (sniff sniff) will not be special anymore! (Baaawwwwaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!)
I bet watching those Government hunters mow down hundreds of Elk in the National Parks, gives BJ a Very Special Feeling.
“Watch out son! Don’t trip over those Elk carcasses!”
I guess those 48 states that issue permits to carry guns aren’t special anymore either, to BJ.
Isn’t there anywhere BJ can go where there are not guns?!?
Say BJ, try going to those Gun-Free Malls or maybe even a Gun-Free Church to get that Special Feeling back again.
Well…
What goes around comes around.
You win this round.
You get to ruin the National parks.
I’ll just redouble my efforts elsewhere against guns. Whether I REALLY have any interest in the particular issue or not. I don’t feel a need to carry a gun and don’t see why anyone else needs to. That’s how I’m gonna play it.
BlueJay,
I see. You are not really Pro-Choice then.
You might not feel the need to carry concealed, but why do you want to deny others that choice to do so?
I am more Pro-Choice than you are.
Nathaniel
Posted June 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink
BlueJay,
I am more Pro-Choice than you are.
_________________________________
That may be but you will never be more Pro-Choice than I. You want gun control laws while I want NONE (as the Constitution says).
I could live with None.
Ya know, I was strolling through the comments, laughing at the silliness – at times on both sides – when I came upon something interesting: a profit-generating opportunity. It was this nugget:
—
BlueJay
Posted June 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink
“There’s concern that lifting the ban on firearms in national parks will result in a bunch of irresponsible yahoos taking potshots at any animal that looks at them with even a hint of hostility.”
Make book on it.
“I didn’t WANT to shoot the wolf. But he was coming right for me.”
—-
I’ll take that bet, JR. $100? $200? How ’bout give it, say, a year? I say there will be NO significant change in wildlife shot. You’ll be wrong, just as you were so obviously wrong about the results of CCH in the first place. CCH (and this law just extends a state’s law to NP lands; hardly a radical change) isn’t about protection from wild animals, of course, but from a much more dangerous – and two-legged – animal.
So, JR – willing to put your dollars up?
I doubt it. When push comes to shove, he’ll back down. Words are so easy; backing them so hard. But what the h***, ya gotta ask! When else so you have such an opportuntity to cash in on rampant stupidity and naivete?
“GMC70″ weasels –
“…I say there will be NO significant change in wildlife shot.”
And you get to determine what’s “significant?”
Get back to work.
I’ll take that bet, JR. $100? $200? How ’bout give it, say, a year? I say there will be NO significant change in wildlife shot.
———————————-
As long as you are not counting the hundreds of Elk intentionally killed by our Government, I’d take that bet too.
I don’t care to bet on an outcome I would rather not see happen.
In other words, I don’t want to be right.
But I will be.
ONE place to let nature be and it was too much to ask. You have to go and ruin it too.
Well, that’s it. I am full fledged anti gun from this point on. They can ban the damn things for all I care.
In other words, I don’t want to be right.
But I will be.
That mean you will take the bet?
And you get to determine what’s “significant?”
Then set a % increase and get in on the bet.
Well, that’s it. I am full fledged anti gun from this point on. They can ban the damn things for all I care.
==========================================
Are you going to stomp your feet and roll around on the floor?
“SolDevVB” suggests –
“…set a % increase and get in on the bet.”
A “percentage increase?”
You’ve just bet on an increase.
You lose.
BlueJay,
You have commented in the past that you own a gun. Since you are full fledged anti-gun now, what are you going to do with it?
WTF?
Monkeyhawk
Posted June 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
…
And you get to determine what’s “significant?”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SolDevVB
Posted June 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
Then set a % increase and get in on the bet.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you mental today or what? You whine about who gets to determine what is “significant”. When given the opportunity, you come up with that BS?
GMC70,
As always, you bring reason to the discussion. Unfortunately those we are arguing with don’t want to use reason, they base their arguments on how they “feel.”
Nothing magical will happen by allowing those who already carry concealed to continue to do so into a National Park.
But that doesn’t stop people like BlueJay from “feeling” like it will.
I don’t know how BlueJay survives right now knowing that at any time anywhere he is at in Wichita someone could be carrying concealed right next to him ruining everything…
My son:
“I agree. If they are gonna go this far with it, maybe only the police should have guns.”
!!!
BlueJay
Posted June 8, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink
My son:
“I agree. If they are gonna go this far with it, maybe only the police should have guns.”
!!!
============================================
BlueJay,
I say this with as much respect as I can, your son is a dumb ass.
You’d have to determine the 100-yr average for human caused animal kills in the National Parks, then adjust out the intentional kills made by our Government.
Once you have that adjusted annual average, then you agree as to what would constitute a significant departure from the 100-yr mean kill.
Now one more question needs to be answered. Is the bet based on Total Animals Killed or is there a particular set of speices, or maybe a group like this:
Ants
Insects (excluding Ants)
Birds (exluding Eagles & Turkeys & Grouse & Ducks & Geese)
Eagles
Mountain Lions
Black Bears
Brown Bears
Grizzly Bears
Smokey Bears
Ground Squirels (incl chipmunks)
Turkeys
Grouse
Ducks
Geese
Moose
Elk (not counting those killed by Government)
Coyotes
Wolves
Beavers
Badgers
Marmots
Squirrels
Jackalope
Rabbits
Does this work? Please post any species that I missed.
OK, BJ since this is your bet, you need to look up the human caused death for each type of animal above, by year, by National Park, and National Forest, going back to 1909. Then calculate the average for each species, and an overall total.
This should be fun.
BJ, I anxiously await your report, and thank you in advance for putting this all together. It really is for a good cause.
Oh, add to the list above:
Turtles
Frogs
Fish
They shoot horses don’t they?
Oh and of course, road kill does not count. BJ, only gather the data for human caused kills by GUN.
Post turtles are protected species until they die of starvation.
Skunks. I forgot skunks, or maybe these shouldn’t count.
Also add:
Rats
Mice
Moles
Bats
Jackalope
Bagged me one of those in Texas…
Do we care about Post Turtles? I think they should be excluded.
Speaking of Texas, BJ add:
Armadillos
#
JimJohnson
Posted June 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm | Permalink
Do we care about Post Turtles? I think they should be excluded.
———————-
Well, it’s an iconic figure on back roads.
You know forget it BJ.
I’m going to apply for a US Gubbermint Obama Stimulous Grant to study this matter. $85 Million should cover it.
Does this work?
No. I need the list in alphabetical order.
Ants
Badgers
Bats
Beavers
Birds (exluding Eagles & Turkeys & Grouse & Ducks & Geese)
Black Bears
Brown Bears
Coyotes
Ducks
Eagles
Elk (not counting those killed by Government)
Fish
Frogs
Geese
Grizzly Bears
Ground Squirels (incl chipmunks)
Grouse
Insects (excluding Ants)
Jackalope
Marmots
Mice
Moles
Moose
Mountain Lions
Rabbits
Rats
Smokey Bears
Squirrels
Turkeys
Turtles
Wolves
I would say that a father well versed in the writings of the Founding Fathers of our great country, someone who has studied the history of oppresive dictatorships or other countries which disarmed the public, the classical writings on the theory behind having an armed populace, someone who understands self defense, someone who understands the limited capacity of the police to protect people…
Might share some of that knowledge with his son if his son ever said something like Nathan.
Then there is BlueJay, who proudly posts such a naive thing on a public forum.
……….
Thanks Sol! That should help.
Say, can you also sort by animal type? You know -
Land
Water
Air
Crawling
Hopping
Skipping
Jumping
Prowling
Man-eating
Flying
You forgot:
blood-sucking
and
regurgitating
Say, can you also sort by animal type? You know -
Of course.
But it’ll cost ya ;~>
I wonder if there isn’t a way around this?
I’m not generally in favor of the surrender of US sovereignty. But maybe I need to revisit that too.
Certain of the National parks are among places considered as international protected places.
I wonder if there isn’t a way there to keep at least SOME of our wild spaces safe from the gunfire of idiots. If it means interference from the international community maybe that is what we need.
BlueJay,
So, what are you going to do with your gun?
If it means interference from the international community maybe that is what we need.
========================================
WTF?
Land
- Terrainius dwellus
Water
- Flotillia swimius
Air
- Biscuitus flatuli
Crawling
- Komhomelauts frombari
Hopping
- Frickus toehammeri
Skipping
- Lightlophererus san fransici
Jumping
- Hoopsterus jordani
Prowling
- Basst@rdius window peekeyi
Man-eating
- Wanda cannabali (reminded me a date (cough)
Flying
- Husbandae camehome earlieri
BlueJay,
I don’t know if I should laugh at you or call the men in the white coats to come pick up your crazy ass.
I don’t know if I should laugh at you or call the men in the white coats to come pick up your crazy ass.
The two options are not mutually exclusive, Anti . . .
Thanks Regular for adding the official names.
Great job!
BlueJay
Posted June 8, 2009 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
Certain of the National parks are among places considered as international protected places.
—————————-
Like which ones and by whose authority?
“I went out and shot the maximum the game laws would allow,
Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow!”
-Tom Lehrer-
“I wonder if there isn’t a way there to keep at least SOME of our wild spaces safe from the gunfire of idiots. If it means interference from the international community maybe that is what we need.”—BlowJ
Hey idiot, the law allowing concealed carry in National Parks doesn’t say it allows shooting there.
It simply allows concealed carry.
Are you really that clueless?
The best defense against a bear is keeping your hiking buddy in between you and the bear.
ANTI
Posted June 8, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
The best defense against a bear is keeping your hiking buddy in between you and the bear.
—————–
That’s right. And you don’t have to be faster then the bear.
You just have to be faster then your hiking buddy.
BJ hints at the UN Gun Ban approach, likely something he heard from the DemocraticUnderground.
That’s a big discussion for a later time.
Ant,
There’s an old story among wildlife photographers about two of ‘em filming bears in Alaska when a big Kodiak turns to charge. One asks the other “Whadda we do now?
The other responds “I dunno, but I’d guess one of us is going to get a prize-winning set of pictures!”
“Hey idiot, the law allowing concealed carry in National Parks doesn’t say it allows shooting there.
It simply allows concealed carry.”
People don’t carry what they don’t plan to use.
I can practically SEE bawksy in Yellowstone.
BLAM “That’s right !” BLAMBLAM “I can carry here now! BLAMBLAMBLAM “Can’t stop me! BLAM! “Who’s the man?” BLAMBLAM
“BJ hints at the UN Gun Ban approach,”
No but maybe I should look into that.
Plan to use for Self Defense.
That is why people carry concealed.
BlueJay,
Again, what evidence do you offer that allowing those who don’t cause problems carrying concealed now into National Parks will all of a sudden mean that they will cause problems?
Funny BJ.
Actually it says you can carry a gun in accordance with the state laws where the park is located.
Every gun permit law has some provision for allowing the permit holder to shoot the gun.
What did you think the law said BJ?
“Hold the gun up and say Bang Bang?”
#
JimJohnson
Posted June 8, 2009 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
Funny BJ.
Actually it says you can carry a gun in accordance with the state laws where the park is located.
Every gun permit law has some provision for allowing the permit holder to shoot the gun.
What did you think the law said BJ?
“Hold the gun up and say Bang Bang?”
—————————————
I think BlueJay might have a cleft pallet, so it would be ‘Mang Mang.’
Maybe BJ likes to rape/rob unarmed visitors of National Parks?
That could explain why he is so upset about this law change. I can see how a rapist/robber would feel less special knowing that his intended victims may now be able to defend themselves.
Aw Regular, that was just plain mean!
#
JimJohnson
Posted June 8, 2009 at 5:13 pm | Permalink
Aw Regular, that was just plain mean!
======================
But funny, in an evil sort of way…
At least you didn’t speculate that he might be a rapist and a robber.
#
JimJohnson
Posted June 8, 2009 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
At least you didn’t speculate that he might be a rapist and a robber.
==========================
Or a rapist/robber with a cleft pallet…
“Again, what evidence do you offer that allowing those who don’t cause problems carrying concealed now into National Parks will all of a sudden mean that they will cause problems?”
Wait and see.
Just like pockets crave filling. A gun just itches to be fired.
“Maybe BJ likes to rape/rob unarmed visitors of National Parks?”
No. But I do enjoy experiencing wildlife more than listening to Joe Redneck discharging his stupid gun.
Better hope I’m wrong.
Because our National parks are much loved. If the experience there is damaged by gun nuts, it could go very badly for them.
BlueJay,
“Just like pockets crave filling. A gun just itches to be fired.”
So, you have no facts, no evidence, nothing.
If what you claim is true, then why don’t we see those people who are carrying concealed now out there firing off their guns becuase they are just itching too?
BlueJay,
I don’t have to hope for anything. 20 years of history proves your wild accusations and predictions don’t happen.
“why don’t we see those people who are carrying concealed now out there firing off their guns becuase they are just itching too?”
What DO you all do with all that ammunition you buy down to bare shelves, make end tables from it?
I bet for you a day without gunfire is like a day without sunshine.
BlueJay,
We use that ammo legally at gun ranges. You have NEVER seen anyone with a concealed carry license out shooting off their guns randomly because the were just “itching” to.
Once again, your argument is based on ZERO facts, ZERO evidence, and ZERO history.
Nathan,
I’ve seen a lot of people who did just shoot off their guns randomly because they were just itching to. Now most of that was long before CC licensing, but you can’t convince me that a piece of paper changes their natures. I’ve lived in areas where on New Years Eve, everybody and a few dogs went out and shot firecrackers until the authorities that be took away their firecrackers. So they went out and shot off whatever noisemaker they had. I remember thinking at the time that if we’d had that kind of firepower in Nam…..?
Jed,
Like I said, that was before CC. You simply assume those same people 1. Are the same types who have a CC license and 2. Are out shooting their guns with the same level of disregard.
Nothing but assumptions.
ZERO evidence, ZERO facts, NO PROOF.
You can’t give me one example of someone with a concealed carry license illegally discharging their firearm in Kansas. Not one.
Even if you could find one… that would be all you would find. No pattern of misconduct, nothing to indicate the type of behavior the BlueJay keeps saying is going to happen.
Nathan,
If I run across somebody shooting randomly, I rather doubt that I’ll be going up to them and asking to see their CC permit. I’ll gladly let you perform that chore.
Jed,
ZERO evidence, ZERO facts, NO PROOF.
But this isn’t an issue you obsess over, do ya, boy?
And you don’t obsess over me, do you, SickMonkey?
“Nathaniel” –
Right, boy.
I really obsess over you.
You’re an ex-Marine and wear garters under your dress-up suit.
It makes me hot.
(Now that’s been said and will clipped by CONs for about forever, let me include it was a satirical response to “Nathaniel’s” narcissism which reveals itself, daily, in this forum. It’s all about “Nathaniel” to “Nathaniel.”)
Boy, what really seems to grate you is I basically agree with you on matters of law regarding concealed carry.
My views on gun issues pretty much coincides with the National Rifle Association’s stated policies.
What disturbs me mostly is how some of you are so fanatic about what should be a relatively inconsequential issue.
I think anyone who feels they have to own dozens of guns is just about as quirky as the guy with a dozen lawnmowers in his garage. His priorities are skewed.
And, yeah. The potential of the lawnmower obsessive going berserk and heading out to mow down the neighborhood daycare center is a tad less consequential than if your local gun-obsessed neighbor does the same is a bit disquieting. It makes me consider consequences.
“why don’t we see those people who are carrying concealed now out there firing off their guns becuase they are just itching too?”
And I mentioned the amount of ammo you clowns go through.
I believe I have made my point. If you are not AT a shooting range, you’ll turn where you are into a shooting range.
BlueJay,
Once again there is NO Evidence to back up your absurd claim.