poison pill.

That said, you may stare down the barrel of an AK-47 in Giant Sequoia national park anyways, the gun being held by a Mexican Mafia peon protecting the crops.

That said, you may stare down the barrel of an AK-47 in Giant Sequoia national park anyways, the gun being held by a Mexican Mafia peon protecting the crops.

Hmm Good Point and Newsworthy

"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke in response to the vote.

And Dems have the nerve to accuse others of fear mongering hyperbole?

So what can you SHOOT in national parks? Bears? Bald eagles? People? herm

What good is having a gun if you can't load it up and fire a few warning shots.

This is a fucking travisty to say the least. Guns do not belong in our National parks.

larry

"National Parks are generally large natural places having a wide variety of attributes, at times including significant historic assets. Hunting, mining and consumptive activities are not authorized. At present, there are 58 national parks in the National Park System."

If hunting isn't allowed, why in the hell does anybody need a loaded weapon?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-19 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Never met a grizzly he didn't like.

'Senate Allows Loaded Guns in National Parks'

Common sense, an unloaded gun is useless.

"an unloaded gun is useless."

#10 | Posted by zulu at 2009-05-19 07:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Tried pistol-whipping a grizzly once.

You might need a loaded gun to shoot a man eating bear, a robber or a nutcase. Remember Screaming Howard Dean has been seen at a few National Parks.

When you are in the woods, you need a weapon to protect yourself, especially in the deep woods.

Unless of course, you know some form of Judo against bears, cougars, snakes, coyotes that I'm not aware of existing.

Being "one" with a coyote would probably mean deep inside that coyote....

Or in the Everglades those gators, you know, like to convert people to poop.

Tell ya what...you don't want to carry in a national park, don't. I'll feel safer if you don't and I do, that's for sure.

And don't start in about all the "shooting" that will go on...that hasn't happened in Florida..the "Gunshine State" where I live.

So you can't trust yourself with a firearm...I get that. Good luck using your wits when you are scared out of them. The rest of us actually do have a clue as to what happens in the woods.

Jesus, the next thing they will do is make people remove their car antennas when they enter the park.

commies

"Never met a grizzly he didn't like.

www.firstpeople.us

#9 | Posted by Zatoichi"

LOL. When's the last time someone successfully defended themselves against a grizzly with a gun? Yeah, that's a real fucking-good reason to allow weapons in national parks.

The National Parks are supposed to be places where the WHOLE FAMILY can go and feel safe. How can You feel safe knowing Gun Weilding Drunks are in these National Parks. Americans are becoming stuider and stupider by the day.

Larry

PS Zatoichi Yes I know stupider is probably not a word so don't even think of getting a massive Hard On pointing that out. THANKS

Larry

Guns in parks?

Yes.

Next question please.

Be Well.

"When you are in the woods, you need a weapon to protect yourself, especially in the deep woods."

You should stay out of the woods and hide under your bed. Other than possibly some bear-repellent in grizzly country you don't need jack, wuss.

You might need a loaded gun to shoot a man eating bear,

The safest thing you can probably do is just DON'T FEED THE BEARS!

"The safest thing you can probably do is just DON'T FEED THE BEARS!"

That and don't get between a mother and her cubs.

Of course people should be allowed to carry guns in national parks.. its public land and the second amendment guarantees that right to Americans.

Don't like that? Then petition your fed and state reps to repeal the 2nd amendment..

I just returned from a week in Yellowstone.. I've been going there almost every year since I was a teenager.. I hike primarily, and I especially love it this time of year when there aren't any crowds.. I saw two grizzlies, several moose, more elk and bison than I could count, and more big horn sheep than I've ever seen before. I'm glad the park was set aside for preservation by the Roosevelt administration.. but the big stone arch at the parks original (North) entrance says "For the enjoyment of all the people".. its the people's park.. it doesn't belong to the Park Service, the current administration, or even to the animals, it belongs to us.. all of us. Of course the second amendment applies there.

Guns kill.
P-E-R-I-O-D.

Be Well.

Of course people should be allowed to carry guns [in public parks and public libraries and public schools].. its public land and the second amendment guarantees that right to Americans.

There I fixed that for you, dummy.

The National Parks are supposed to be places where the WHOLE FAMILY can go and feel safe.

Honestly Larry! Think it through. If you try to make it illegal then only criminals will have loaded guns!

I am not a huge gun advocate but you cannot un-invent them.

It is Public Land.

And I would feel much safer if I had my own (loaded) gun if the criminals have them. And it is true that if you can't keep it loaded when ya need it then it is sorta worthless.

Isn't the National Park land where the Mexican Cartel is doing all the big marijuana grows? The criminals are already there and it is OUR LAND.

Unless of course, you know some form of Judo against bears, cougars, snakes, coyotes that I'm not aware of existing.

Now I'm not a mountain man, but if you run across a bear that's decided you're dinner, your actions depend the species of bear.

Some bears will run away if you stand your ground, others will run right for you. If you run, you're doing what food does.

Don't do what food does.

LOL. When's the last time someone successfully defended themselves against a grizzly with a gun? Yeah, that's a real fucking-good reason to allow weapons in national parks.

here's one

So far the major argument here pro loaded guns in parks is that you might be able to shoot Howard Dean with one. Any rightie words of wisdom matching Thommy's? herm

Honestly Larry! Think it through. If you try to make it illegal then only criminals will have loaded guns!

I am not a huge gun advocate but you cannot un-invent them.

It is Public Land.

And I would feel much safer if I had my own (loaded) gun if the criminals have them. And it is true that if you can't keep it loaded when ya need it then it is sorta worthless.

Isn't the National Park land where the Mexican Cartel is doing all the big marijuana grows? The criminals are already there and it is OUR LAND.

www.vdare.com

Posted by donnerboy at 2009-05-19 08:06 PM | Reply

I have thought it through and it's a pathetically dumb idea. How many Deaths have occured in the National park system since they outlawed Guns in them?? You don't hear of that many do You?? This is a stupid idea thought up by stupid people. There is no need NO NEED for a Weapon in a National Park.

Larry

The National Parks are supposed to be places where the WHOLE FAMILY can go and feel safe.

"www.fieldandstream.com

I'm sure if you used "teh googles" you could inform yourself of the other times that it has occurred. That way you don't look so silly."

One anecdote out of millions of encounters with wild bears doesn't prove shit. It certainly doesn't prove that some wuss needs to carry a gun to protect himself.

Don't scoff at the idea guns are now unfortunately needed within some of our national parks. Anyone who thinks coming across some mama bear protecting her cubs as the biggest danger they'd encounter when hiking deep within our national parks is just plain not thinking at all. Or closing their eyes to reality.

Thanks to the open border zealots, the Mexican and other international drug cartels have become entrenched in this country -- particularly in California -- and have now taken over our U.S. national parks destroying the peace and tranquility Americans used to be able to take for granted when hiking in parts of the Sequoias and elsewhere in the backwoods.

Gang graffitti is now found scrawled on rocks in once pristine forests. It's sickening to read about what's been happening inside my beloved Yosemite.

Remember the woman and the 2 girls who disappeared several years ago in, I think it was, Colorado?

Kidnapped, killed and burned in the trunk of a car by a guy working at a lodge nearby?

#28 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-05-19 08:12 PM

He also killed a female park ranger too. It happened in Yosemite. I remember the case well.

Leave it to Chris to try to turn this into a illegal alien bashing thread.

to answer the other question, in post number 27.

In 2006, 11.

I am with Nulli & Larry, I don't understand the need for this type of legistlation/reinstatement.

I agree with citizens having light weapons(AK-47's), for hunting, hobbies and the like. But what is the point within the confines of a National Park?

What is the policy on discharging a weapon in a National Park?

The craziest thing I have ever seen hiking was in the Golan and running into 10, 19-22 yo girls with M-16's, out on a hike, freaky.

One anecdote out of millions of encounters with wild bears doesn't prove shit. It certainly doesn't prove that some wuss needs to carry a gun to protect himself.

That wasn't your question. You asked the question and formed it in a manner that suggested that a gun would be totally useless and has never, ever saved anyone's life in a grizzly bear encounter.

Use 'teh googles'. If you're going to make an outlandish claim, at least bone up on the material.

Or do you prefer to handle this like Bob and AmericanUnity where you make broad, generalized statements and apply them to everything?

"The threat of violence on trails like the AT are only a worry when you're around one of the small trail towns. "

You have a point. Having seen Deliverance, I wouldn't go there without a couple of AK-47s and grenades.

Anyone who thinks carrying guns in the woods is a bad idea hasn't ventured past the parking lots.. I went all over the west and backpacked miles and miles with a gun. That was 10 years ago. Guess what , I didn't need to shoot anyone. Better to be prepared than a sitting duck for some freak who's not going to abide by ANY laws anyway. Like killing, raping and kidnapping people,that's illegal too. I can't think of a better way to protect my wife and young girls than a concealed .45.

The whole problem with national parks is they are public. If it were private land sickos wouldn't be there...

All you,"if you need a gun you're a pussy with a little dick" crowd haven't made it past the outdoor store in your suburbs driving your Prius.. Try getting shot at and robbed at gunpoint int the woods, then you'd rethink your antigun stance.

Also, no one is going to carry an AK47 with a 65 lb backpack 10 miles. It would be a small,concealable pistol you fools.......... Concealable, no one knows you have it and it remains hidden unless you have to defend your life and the lives of your family...With a reciprocal carry permit for the state you're in WTF is wrong with that?

"that suggested that a gun would be totally useless and has never, ever saved anyone's life in a grizzly bear encounter."

I didn't suggest that it "never, ever saved anyone's life". I said "When is the last time". The point is is that it is extremely rare. In close encounters, you're probably better off with pepper spray. Just getting off a shot, much less an accurate one capable of stopping the animal, is extremely unlikely if a grizzly rushes you.

You might get lucky though, and it'll start it's rush 100 yards away.

Leave it to Chris to try to turn this into a illegal alien bashing thread.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-19 08:16 PM

I see you're playing the usual racebaiting a-hole again -- what else is new. Tell me then, just WHO are the ones who belong to the international drug cartels now taking over our national parks? It isn't the Boy Scouts, idiot.

Oh happy day for me if the next time Nullifidian goes to Sequoia or Yosemite on a backwoods hike and gets his sorry butt riddled with bullets from some drug cartel member's AK-47. Don't come to me for bandaids, kumbaya boy.

You have a point. Having seen Deliverance, I wouldn't go there without a couple of AK-47s and grenades.

Deliverance was actually filmed on the Chatooga river. That's mostly in South Carolina.

The point is is that it is extremely rare. In close encounters, you're probably better off with pepper spray. Just getting off a shot, much less an accurate one capable of stopping the animal, is extremely unlikely if a grizzly rushes you.

It's frequent enough in certain parts that people carry regardless of the rules. There are stories of some problem bears being unaffected by the pepper spray.

Point is, do you want to risk it? Neither method is fool proof, but I'd rather have 2 options as opposed to 1 or ending up food.

"Anyone who thinks carrying guns in the woods is a bad idea hasn't ventured past the parking lots.. I went all over the west and backpacked miles and miles with a gun."

I've backpacked many miles in the High Sierra. Many bears, no guns, no problems. Why are all you rtards such pussies? You're afraid to be in your home without a gun, in your car without a gun, and in national parks without a gun. What a bunch of pansies.

Check out this bipartisanship!

To the surprise of many, the amendment easily passed, winning support from 67 senators including 27 Democrats. Among those who voted "yes" was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had blocked Coburn's amendment from coming to the Senate floor for more than a year. Seven other Western Democrats voted with Reid to support the Republican senator's amendment, which allows a range of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law.

Bears do not eat people. They find humans untasty.

As someone said earlier, don't feed the bears and don't get between them and their cubs and you'll never have a problem. They do not seek us out to attack us.

Wounding a bear is a sure way to greater danger. Lay on the ground and do not look at them. I've camped out in dozens of national parks over the years and have never ever had a problem with wildlife. They are more afraid of us than we are of them.

"I see you're playing the usual racebaiting a-hole again --"

Bullshit, Chris. I pointed out that you were diverting the thread to focus on illegals. That's not racebaiting, it's reporting.

Hopefully it stays in the final version of the bill and 0bama signs it.

It's scary to see the antigun crowd getting all bent out of shape over simple commonsense like they always and throwing around the BS they do. Unless they're hunting most folks pack 9mm's, 45 Colts and 357's (my preference) for personal protection when they're in the wilderness/desert not AK-47's.

You should stay out of the woods and hide under your bed.

Sounds like you are the one that should be hiding under your bed.... from (as one poster said) all the "gun wielding drunks".

It is legal to carry. Get over it or at least change your panties.

"It is legal to carry. "

Everywhere, cowboy? You throw on a holster and make sure your six-shooter is loaded before going downtown?

It is legal to carry. Get over it or at least change your panties.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-19 08:45 PM | Reply

So I can carry a loaded gun in a Courtroom?? That's a public place. How about the Library?? Hey the Smithsoniun is public property so how about there?? How about Arlington National Cemetery?? Utter bullshit and You know it.

Larry

Don't come to me for bandaids, kumbaya boy.

#40 | Posted by CalifChris

FF for CC

Everywhere, cowboy?

Bwahahahaha... is that the best "insult" you could come up with?

Nope, but this law would be one step closer.

You throw on a holster and make sure your six-shooter is loaded before going downtown?

If I have the proper permit, I most certainly can. Many places you only need a permit for concealed and open carry is legal without a permit.

You better be hiding under that bed with some panty liners in place. Those big bad gun wielding drunks might get you.

Larry--there are no bears at Arlington or the library. This applies to the parks.

Remember the vast majority of Yellowstone is in Wyoming. The rest is in Montana and Idaho. So the premise that nobody is packing loaded pistols, rifles (and maybe the occasional RPG) into the park because there is a 'law' is wishful thinking.

It's also illegal to pack a pistol in Boston, Chicago or LA, but it still happens.

People in Wyoming carry guns, and aren't overly keen on asking for permission from some sap in a smokey the bear hat for permission.

So take a deep breath all ye who tend to panic. And if a rabid moose takes a run at you just remember to lead the crazed varmint and pray.

And how about a mountain lion in Lake Forest while riding your bike?

I've backpacked many miles in the High Sierra. Many bears, no guns, no problems. Why are all you rtards such pussies? You're afraid to be in your home without a gun, in your car without a gun, and in national parks without a gun. What a bunch of pansies.

OK, I should clarify. I have hiked with guns but only after I was 21 and able to purchase a handgun and obtain a permit. Before that I carried a stick and large knife. I still have those but the pistol too..
And I'm NOT a republican ....

Also, with the instances of mass shootings becoming very frequent why would you not want to be armed and able to save yourself and others should some fool start shooting at the mall, trail, post office or Burger King?

You get the permit and carry the gun. It's legal and a safety issue quite frankly.

Being Canadian, carrying weapons in the parks will never be an option for me, so I keep my hiking and camping activities to areas ouside the parks.

Fortunately I live in BC so I don't really need a park... too much traffic in parks anyway.

I wouldn't allow a loaded gun in my house or my car but I sure as Hell don't go far into the trees with out a loaded 12 Gauge. I carry pepper spray as well, but I don't have a lot of faith in it. I have thought about packing my .45, but it's grossly illegal and I doubt it would be very effective anyway. Might scare them off with the noise but it's too weak to actually stop anything like a griz.

As far as people successfully using firearms to defend against bears? Happens here probably once a year. I know of one guy who turned back a charge with pepper spay.

...Many places you only need a permit for concealed and open carry is legal without a permit.

You better be hiding under that bed with some panty liners in place. "

#51 | Posted by moomanfl

I'm not the one afraid to take a walk in a park without a gun to defend myself against cougars. LOL. That would be your side.

There are no Grizzlies in the Sierra Nevada mountains. I think they were pretty much taken care of by ranchers. Yosemite and Grand Tetons are another matter.

Black bears are like overgrown dogs, not man eaters by any means.

Just looking at the comments here and LOL. Why are some people so afraid of firearms?

'Black bears are like overgrown dogs, not man eaters by any means.'

Sure, you keep telling yourself that.

Adult black bears can reach 660 lbs, but exceptionally large males have been recorded from the wild at up to 800 lb. (wikipedia)

Although 16 North Americans have been killed since the year 2000, it is estimated that there have been only 56 documented killings of humans by Black Bears in North America in the past 100 years. (wikipedia)

Have I ever shot one? No. For the most part I am disinterested in killing anything that isn't bothering me (including spiders).

But don't underestimate how quickly even a small bear could really ruin your day. I advocate pepper spray, but when push comes to shove it's Ruger Redhawk 44 mag time.

"but I sure as Hell don't go far into the trees with out a loaded 12 Gauge"

Boo!

What in the hell kind of woods do you scared little pants pissers hike in, anyway? New York central park?

So I can carry a loaded gun in a Courtroom.... blah blah blah

What is utter bullshit is that you seem to think that just because it is banned some places that it should be banned in more.

Sorry you don't like that fact that people can own and carry. As I said to NullNVoid... it might not ok to carry everywhere but this law would be one step closer.

The policy when restricting Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms should ALWAYS be to restrict as little as absolutely necessary, if at all.

Now crawl back under your bed and hid from the gun wielding drunks. I would say change your panties, but I doubt you have graduated to "big kid" underwear yet.

A gun is sort of like a condom, if you need one it's to late to go buy one.

'm not the one afraid to take a walk in a park without a gun to defend myself against cougars.

No, you are just the one afraid of the gun wielding drunks.

I can guarantee that you will find more bears and cougars in a typical National Park than you will gun wielding drunks.

Now crawl back under your bed... they are coming for you don't you know.

Adult black bears can reach 660 lbs, but exceptionally large males have been recorded from the wild at up to 800 lb. (wikipedia)

Indeed. I remember going down I-95 in South Carolina a few years back. I saw a bunch of broken glass on the side of the road and a dead black bear laying on it's side in the median. That sucker was HUGE.

Hell, coyotes are nothing but normal sized dogs.... but run into a pack of hungry ones and I can guarantee you will be wishing you had a gun.

You can tell that the people that are pooh-poohing the dangers of wild animals are people that haven't ventured away from city lights in their life.

I can guarantee that you will find more bears and cougars in a typical National Park than you will gun wielding drunks.

Bullshite.

Drunks outnumber cougars and bears by a mile. as far as GUN-WIELDING Drunks, wait and see.

Or maybe you haven't been to a Natl. Park lately. I have.

"No, you are just the one afraid of the gun wielding drunks."

I didn't say anything about gun-wielding drunks. What I said was that you pussies who are afraid of...LOL...man-eating cougars are pants-pissing girlie boys.

p.s. Boo!

as far as GUN-WIELDING Drunks, wait and see.

Hahahaha... own your fear, pantspisser.

I betcha in a Year or two those that support the Guns in the National Parks are gonna reverse themselves PDQ.

Larry

Number of Cougars in Yellowstone Park as of January 2008

14-23 residents on the northern range, other's in park seasonally.

I didn't say anything about gun-wielding drunks.

Well then, if there is no fear then you should have no problem with it being legal.

Nah... you are just a scared pantspisser.

BTW... my advocating this law is based more on 2nd Amendment rights.

I betcha in a Year or two those that support the Guns in the National Parks are gonna reverse themselves PDQ.

I doubt it, ankles raised is mostly permanent.

Fuck it must suck to go through life being scared shitless of anything that moves around you..I have spent my whole life in the bush and have NEVER felt the need to carry either short nor long weapons for protection.

Bend over America!

WHEW!

Glad to know I'm legal now.

rwd

Bend over America!

Bending over is when you let them needlessly restrict your Constitutional rights.

The default should be freedom, not restriction.

So, those that advocate massive bans are pontificating with KY jelly in hand.

#69 | Posted by LarryMohr

Jag off,did I ever tell you I killed two German Shepherds that were attacking me?

rwd

How many people are kills at state parks by gunfire?

NONE. WHY? Almost all gun owners don't use a gun as a status symbol or to project power.

A gun is like a car, boat, motorcycle, etc.

If you treat it right, it will treat you right.

NULLIFIDIAN, regarding your #61?

I live in British Columbia in the Canadian Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. My front lawn is at 4200 feet ASL. Call it about 80 Miles north of western Montana. I'd no more to to New York than I'd go to Myanmar, frankly.

I've lived here for 27 years and I've seen probably 100 G-Bears but only three up close. I've seen them (by GPS) inside 3 Km of my driveway.

I know people who have been charged, and I know people who have used very powerful rifles to stop charges.

Carrying a defensive weapon in the bush here is simply pragmatic, not "pants pissing". No one "carries" anywhere else. Kinda funny since I'd be classified as a "flaming lib" on this board.

Close border, way different gun culture.

"Carrying a defensive weapon in the bush here is simply pragmatic, "

You may be right, just as you would be in the African bush. That's not exactly Yosemite National Park.

I go to the woods for peace not gunplay. never had a weapon in the woods and never needed one. just a fishing pole and a knife. and joyweed. KEEP GUNS OUT

"Almost all gun owners don't use a gun as a status symbol or to project power."

Yeah, those gun racks don't mean anything at all. Naive tard.

" just a fishing pole and a knife. and joyweed. "

Amen, Stickman. Plus cannabis is a cougar repellent. LOL.

Carrying guns in the national parks is no different then carrying them anywhere else.
The pants pissers just want to hear themselves squeal....like screaming weenies on a stick, roasting, over an open flame.
Makes no difference.

rwd

Yeah, those gun racks don't mean anything at all. Naive tard.

#81 | Posted by nullifidian

Nulli, I know tons of gun owners.....none of them have a gun rack. They also don't have bumper stickers that say "this vehicle insured by smith and wesson" etc...

Some of them do suffer from "small man's syndrome" though.

NULLIFIDIAN re #78

Yosemite is a different game... just keep in mind there are places out there where people still need to use guns to defend themselves against critters.

Both sides of our Border need to get a grip on that idea.

I'll deal with human critters by living where I don't have to worry about them.

Salute!

" I know tons of gun owners.....none of them have a gun rack. They also don't have bumper stickers that say "this vehicle insured by smith and wesson" etc..."

Sure. I don't have a problem with those folks. Don't have a problem with gun ownership in general. Just keep them at home where they can only harm you and your family--more statistically likely--or intruders.

LOL . . . Nully is afraid of guns!!! Haha!! I don't need a reason to carry a firearm.

Nulli,

Please read the Constitution and tell me what it says. Never-mind, you are too dumb to understand it.

Ever notice the rightie obsession with folks urinating on themselves? herm

nulltard...Gunracks? Are you that out of touch.

The comment was about responsibility. Why do I have to explain it?

"Please read the Constitution and tell me what it says. Never-mind, you are too dumb to understand it."

Ouch. That hurts, man. You must be the new "deep thinker" on Drudge that everyone's talking about.

You must be the new "deep thinker" on Drudge that everyone's talking about.

#91 | Posted by nullifidian

Well, all things are relative. I mean, he's not as stupid as Oozie, as faux-pious as Tacky or Theo, as unoriginal as Frito, or as verbose and predictable as the Johnson. So maybe he has the "deep thinker" role sewed up for the righties.

Watching the biggest one-trick Obama ball-licker talk about "deep thinking" and "predictable" people is a real knee-slapper. You may as well not even bother posting and just link us to Obama's press releases.

Ever notice the rightie obsession with folks urinating on themselves? herm

#89 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-19 11:00 PM

Yeah, Herm. Like the first person to bring up urinating in this thread. What an "obsessed rightie" they are:

What in the hell kind of woods do you scared little pants pissers hike in, anyway? New York central park?

#61 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-19 09:35 PM

And the second one to use it... wow... those obsessed righties....

I didn't say anything about gun-wielding drunks. What I said was that you pussies who are afraid of...LOL...man-eating cougars are pants-pissing girlie boys.

p.s. Boo!

#67 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-19 09:49 P

You truly are a moron, Herm.

I didn't think it was possible but nullifidian makes me wish that Buffoon_Boob was here giving his brand of wearisome BS instead at least Boob is a somewhat creative troll

Well, all things are relative. I mean, he's not as stupid as Oozie, as faux-pious as Tacky or Theo, as unoriginal as Frito, or as verbose and predictable as the Johnson.

And not a whiny loud-mouth like Losertarian Joe.

And not a whiny loud-mouth like Losertarian Joe.

Sure you are NullNVoid. You are just too biased to notice.

Now crawl back under your bed before the big bad gun owners get you.

moonman I am moving from GA at the end of next month. I think we should get together for beers before I do. What do you think? I know a great spot in Forrest Park.

#98 | Posted by rastaninja

If you do moomanfl keep your drink outta his reach lest he slip you a mickey to save himself his usual $30 "donation" for the ensuing funsies

You can tell that the people that are pooh-poohing the dangers of wild animals are people that haven't ventured away from city lights in their life.

Bull, I've been camping and backpacking since before I could walk, in the Sierras, with many many run-ins with bears.

56 documented killings of humans by Black Bears in North America in the past 100 years.

Wow, a whole 56 deaths in a CENTURY. How many campers interacted with bears in the last century? Bears walk around packed campgounds in Yosemite nightly. Bears and their cubs walk around Yosemite valley in broad daylight. Bears go through peoples food in the back country all the time. I met a female ranger whose job it was to chase the bears off on foot. You guys need to get a clue or a diaper.

'I met a female ranger whose job it was to chase the bears off on foot. You guys need to get a clue or a diaper.'

Wow. Well, clearly you are one tough hombre and in no need of a firearm. Hell, I feel sorry for the misbegotten carnivore that crosses paths with you.

And that ranger, a female ranger no less, must be commended for running bears off while on foot. Tough lady running after bears.

You two should mate and your offspring could rule the forests!

Bull, I've been camping and backpacking since before I could walk, in the Sierras, with many many run-ins with bears.

Yes, so you say.

Wow, a whole 56 deaths in a CENTURY.

You are full of shit with this number. The reason is, you got that number from the USGS report on brown and black bear attacks in the last century... in ALASKA ONLY.

moonman what about my invite to go have beers before I leave?

Let the previous rebuttal show for the record the disingenuous methods used by pants-pissers use to justify restricting our Constitutional freedoms.

"Now crawl back under your bed before the big bad gun owners get you."

You're the one that needs a gun to protect you against lions and tigers and bears...

In a real encounter most of you wannabe cowboys would probably just drop your guns anyway and run for your life.

Rasta, email me and I will consider it.

moonman is a coward. He won't even meet me for beers.

ok will do

You're the one that needs a gun to protect you against lions and tigers and bears...

I was worried about lions and tigers running loose in the woods of America... maybe. However those are just too rare in my area. Bears... not so much.

And yes... if dealing with any wild animal capable of killing a human with a minimum of effort, yes, I would prefer to be armed.

However, it seems you are so scared of gun owners that you feel your only option is to take them all away. If I were as scared of bears as you are of guns, I guess I would want to just make bears extinct and get it over with.

Now go change your panties. You make the Cowardly Lion look like Audie freakin' Murphy.

Cange "I was worried" to "If I was worried".

CHANGE, dammit, not "Cange".

Damn.... can't type for shit tonight. Maybe my fingers need a rest. Was up all night typing out a story outline for an idea I had, most of tonight has been split between revising that, IMing, and posting here. No wonder I am having trouble.

Now go change your panties. You make the Cowardly Lion look like Audie freakin' Murphy.

#109 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 12:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

There's a brilliant "I know what you are" retort.

Bottom line, you're the one that feels a need for a gun. I don't. Not even in those scary woods with man-eating cougars.

Boo!

There's a brilliant "I know what you are" retort.

How nice of you to agree.

Bottom line, you're the one that feels a need for a gun. I don't.

No, you just feel the need to keep guns away.

When I cross the Atlantic I also prefer to have a boat. Maybe I could make it without one, maybe not. Does wanting to have a boat mean I am scared, or just that I am smart to be cautious?

And how about all those pants-pissers that "need" cages to dive with great white sharks. I guess not everyone can be Stever Irwin. Oooopps... I forgot... he died from a wild animal attack.

Boo!

Don't do that. I may laugh at you when you do that, but you are likely to scare yourself into a heart attack. Just looking out for your well being.

"When I cross the Atlantic I also prefer to have a boat. "

Yeah and I prefer to have a car on the freeway. I don't need a gun with me. What a dumb analogy.

Yeah and I prefer to have a car on the freeway. I don't need a gun with me.

114 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-20 01:31 AM

Besides, in your car you'd always have your car antenna close at hand so who needs a gun. : )

Yeah and I prefer to have a car on the freeway. I don't need a gun with me.

Good for you. I guess you would rather be cautious than dead trying to walk down it.

But a gun??? Talk about a stupid analogy. A gun wouldn't save you from a car hitting you, idiot. At least my analogy involved the proper tool for the proper job.

Job: hiking around large wild animals
Tool: gun for protection

Job: crossing a large body of water
Tool: boat

Job: travelling a freeway
Tool: car

See how that works? So your analogy of:

Job: travelling a freeway
Tool: gun

Well... that just doesn't fit now does it? Dumbass.

Besides, in your car you'd always have your car antenna close at hand so who needs a gun. : )

I would take my CB antenna against your car antenna any day of the week, Chris.

National Parks are supposed to be Paradise on earth. In Heaven I am sure no one will be packing heat. You destroy the pristine beauty to Our National Park systems when You inject lead into the equation.

Larry

National Parks are supposed to be Paradise on earth. In Heaven I am sure no one will be packing heat. You destroy the pristine beauty of Our National Park systems when You inject lead into the equation.

Larry

"Besides, in your car you'd always have your car antenna close at hand so who needs a gun.

- Califchris"

I would take my CB antenna against your car antenna any day of the week, Chris.

#117 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 01:48 AM

A duel?

Hey, I've seen CB antennas before. My car antenna wouldn't stand a chance! I'll pass.

National Parks are supposed to be Paradise on earth. In Heaven I am sure no one will be packing heat.

I am sure in Heaven there also won't be venomous snakes, carnivorous animals, etc.

Seriously dude, yours was the lamest argument I have ever seen on the DR outside a BBob thread about the moon.

A duel?

Hey, I've seen CB antennas before. My car antenna wouldn't stand a chance! I'll pass.

Wise choice.

Seriously though, try an XM radio antenna some time. Not the little magnetic ones, but the big ones with the dome on top. Those things would be lethal if used as a club.

I am sure in Heaven there also won't be venomous snakes, carnivorous animals, etc.

Seriously dude, yours was the lamest argument I have ever seen on the DR outside a BBob thread about the moon.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 01:59 AM | Reply

Meet Me back here in a couple of Years and You will change Your tune. Mark My Words.

Larry

"See how that works? So your analogy of:"

You're retarded. But I'm bored with you, so you can have the last word, pants pisser. :)

Attacks by beer drinkers are a far more ominous threat than bear attacks. I'd guarantee you there are more on any given night than bear attacks in all recorded history.

Meet Me back here in a couple of Years and You will change Your tune. Mark My Words.

....and then you woke up...

You're retarded.

Funny, I was just thinking the same about you.

BTW Larry... don't feel too bad. His reply is the second lamest comment outside a BBob moon thread.

Attacks by beer drinkers are a far more ominous threat than bear attacks.

Sure... I guess we will be seeing you on the news soon as you jump the fence to pet the cuddly bears at the zoo soon too. After all, at least they aren't drunk rednecks... right? You should be safe.

I am sure in Heaven there also won't be venomous snakes, carnivorous animals, etc.

Seriously dude, yours was the lamest argument I have ever seen on the DR outside a BBob thread about the moon.

Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 01:59 AM | Reply

Oh and if I am not scared to walk into a forrest without a Gun and You feel the need to. Who really is the Pants pisser here??

Larry

Only someone drunk on their ass would jump the fence at the zoo. On the other hand, avoiding redneck beer drinkers is a must for personal safety and the sober thing to do.

Do you deny there are thousands of alcohol related assaults and deaths and 100 or so bear attack deaths since 1895?

Take your gun wherever you see rednecks and beer - and hope they aren't doing the same.

Seriously dude, yours was the lamest argument I have ever seen on the DR outside a BBob thread about the moon.

#121 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 01:59 AM | Reply | Flag

What was your explanation for the Smokestack on the Moon that makes you feel so superior? I must have missed it. Please enlighten the rest of us who are so far below you in intelligence and knowledge. Thank you in advance for imparting this great knowledge.

Bears and rednecks.

Teddy Gentry, half of the redneck, Republican, "God, Guns, and Flag Waving" country duo "Montgomery-Gentry" shot "Cubby", a tame bear raised in captivity from a cub, with a bow and arrow from a distance of 15' in an enclosed pen. Then, he tried to claim he shot it in the wild.

Rednecks are a worse and far more dangerous breed than bears any day of the week. That asshole SHOULD have been mauled by the bear.

Who really is the Pants pisser here??

You, for thinking guns should be banned.

You see, you keep mixing up caution and taking reasonable precautions with fear.

If you cross the ocean you don't just jump in and start swimming. That would be stupid. You take a boat. It reduces the risk of drowning.

You want to travel the freeway, you don't just put on your Nikes and get on the entrance ramp. You take a car. It reduces your risk of getting squashed by a 1 ton (or greater) vehicle.

You want to see great white sharks in their natural habitat, you don't just put on your swim trunks and jump in the water. You get in a shark cage. It reduces your risk of being mistaken for food.

If you want to walk in deep woods where bears and other animals are known to live, you don't just grab your walking stick. You take a gun. It reduces the chance of being defenseless should a creature not be impressed with your opossum impersonation.

As Steve Irwin tragically proved... you can think you know all you need to about wild animals. You might do everything right when around them. No matter what you do though, they are wild and UNPREDICTABLE.

You can go unprotected your whole life and be safe... it only takes one time of being wrong.

Only someone drunk on their ass would jump the fence at the zoo.

Why is that? If bears are so safe, why shouldn't you be able to? Why not just put them in the petting zoo?

Do you deny there are thousands of alcohol related assaults and deaths and 100 or so bear attack deaths since 1895?

Yes, and human to human contact is much higher too so the raw numbers aren't analogous.

Rednecks are a worse and far more dangerous breed than bears any day of the week.

I would say that people that make broad brush generalizations like that are more dangerous by far than rednecks, bears, or great whites.

I think those types of generalizations were used by the KKK, Nazi's, etc. to justify their actions.

Do you deny there are thousands of alcohol related deaths PER YEAR and 100 or so bear attack deaths since 1895?

I'm all for gun ownership - as long as they aren't owned by rednecks, maniacs, and alcoholic drinkers. They're who we all need protection from. Bears I could give a shit about. I've camped out in national parks from coast to coast for many, many years.

Don't leave your food out and you won't have a problem. If you are attacked by a bear you won't know what hit you until it's too late anyway. You may get a shot off that wounds it, then you'll be in a heap of trouble, boy.

Moomanfl

Next time you need to watch your loudmouth.

Run along boy. Ya bother me.

;-)

I carry so I can protect myself against ignorant drunk rednecks. Bears are the least of my worries.

Beer drinking rednecks are at the top of the list.

Do you deny there are thousands of alcohol related deaths PER YEAR and 100 or so bear attack deaths since 1895?

First of all, many more bear attacks result in mauling (from minor to severe). Trying to focus only on deaths is a dishonest attempt to skew the numbers. After all... who would consider a death bad, but a mauling ok. When you coun't maulings into the mix, the number gets significantly higher.

Secondly, bears are only an example of ONE animal found in the wild in the US and Canada that is capable of causing severe harm.

Third, no, I admit the numbers are lower. HOWEVER, again... the raw numbers are not analogous as there are many more instances per day of human to human contact than there are human to bear contact.

The only thing that would make your point is if you could estimate the percentage of human to human contacts over the last century that resulted in injury or death, and the percentage of human to bear contact over the last century that resulted in injury or death. Then you would get a number that actually meant something.

I'm all for gun ownership - as long as they aren't owned by rednecks

See my previous comment on generalizations.

Don't leave your food out and you won't have a problem.

Unless of course you are invading their territory and they happen to get pissed about it.

Or they happen to be hungry and think you might make a good snack.

If you are attacked by a bear you won't know what hit you until it's too late anyway.

Bullshit. They are not ambush predators. They charge.... and they aren't quiet or subtle about it. If you don't notice them coming before you are attacked, chances are you weren't paying attention in the first place.

You may get a shot off that wounds it, then you'll be in a heap of trouble, boy.

Depends. If you are an idiot and take a .22 yes. If you take a high caliber rifle, or even a .45... you have a better shot.

Of course shooting at it should be the last option, but I would rather HAVE the option should all other precautions fail. At that point, pissing it off with a shot is the least of my worries.

Next time you need to watch your loudmouth.

Or what, BuffaloCotton? You might beat me to death with your car antenna?

I carry so I can protect myself against ignorant drunk rednecks.

Irony.... I love it.

Or what, BuffaloCotton? You might beat me to death with your car antenna?

#140 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 02:48 AM | Reply | Flag

Why are you talking about a car antenna? The OR ELSE is I will make you look like the fool you are every time you open your mouth about anything I have said--like I just did.

I showed you to be talking out your ass as usual.

#141 | Posted by moomanfl

As an educated non-redneck I can tell that you are indeed a redneck.

Georgia? Good guess?

Why are you talking about a car antenna?

Because, you leveled a threat... and we ALL know your weapon of choice. Heh heh

The OR ELSE is I will make you look like the fool you are every time you open your mouth...

Yes, Bob... you are a legend in your own mind.

As an educated non-redneck I can tell that you are indeed a redneck.

Bwahahahahaha.... sure I am.

Keep telling yourself that. Don't forget to leave your light on when you go to sleep... the evil REDNECKS might get you.

Because, you leveled a threat... and we ALL know your weapon of choice. Heh heh

You are not making any sense at all. Lay off the red pills with alcohol.

The OR ELSE is I will make you look like the fool you are every time you open your mouth...

Yes, Bob... you are a legend in your own mind.

Hey--you made a statement your loud mouth couldn't back up. Any imagination of greatness going on here is inside your own tiny head.

#144 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 02:59 AM | Reply

You are not making any sense at all. Lay off the red pills with alcohol.

I will let everyone else be the judge if I made sense or not.... your opinion holds no weight on that one due to bias.

The same with who is the bigger idiot when it comes to moon articles, and for the same reason.

You, for thinking guns should be banned.

Because I do not believe Guns should be in a pristine National Park that makes ME a pants pisser?? Too fucking Hilarious for words.

You see, you keep mixing up caution and taking reasonable precautions with fear.

Keep Your best weapon handy aty all times YOUR BRAIN. As long as You pay attention and are cautious of where You travel in a National Park You don't need a Gun

If you cross the ocean you don't just jump in and start swimming. That would be stupid. You take a boat. It reduces the risk of drowning.

Since I can't swim it would be stupid to cross an ocean without a boat

You want to travel the freeway, you don't just put on your Nikes and get on the entrance ramp. You take a car. It reduces your risk of getting squashed by a 1 ton (or greater) vehicle.

Not necessarily Forrest Gump didn't take a car He ran. Besides You don't NEED a car to travel down the highway/interstate. You can walk it.

You want to see great white sharks in their natural habitat, you don't just put on your swim trunks and jump in the water. You get in a shark cage. It reduces your risk of being mistaken for food.

Not this fellow. If I am ever lucky enough to "Swim" with the sharks I ain't using some pussified cage. I am going in a scuba suit with tank and that's it. Where's the adventure in going into the ocean in a stupid cage?? It's like going to the zoo and looking at the Animals. Sure You can see how magestic they are but You can't get up close to them

If you want to walk in deep woods where bears and other animals are known to live, you don't just grab your walking stick. You take a gun. It reduces the chance of being defenseless should a creature not be impressed with your opossum impersonation.

Les Stroud does it all the time. He manages to keep His wits about Him without need for a gun

As Steve Irwin tragically proved... you can think you know all you need to about wild animals. You might do everything right when around them. No matter what you do though, they are wild and UNPREDICTABLE.

And a gun could have saved Steve Irwin HOW?????

You can go unprotected your whole life and be safe... it only takes one time of being wrong.

No Shit it's called LIFE DEAL WITH IT

#133 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 02:24 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Because I do not believe Guns should be in a pristine National Park that makes ME a pants pisser??

Yes. If you think that people will be shooting up the place... make it a crime to fire the gun other than in self-defense. No need for an outright ban. An outright ban is a product of fear.

Keep Your best weapon handy aty all times YOUR BRAIN.

Yes, that sure helped Steve Irwin. Rule number one around wild animals: they are unpredictable and you never assume you are safe. Hence caution and a healthy level of protection should be used.

Since I can't swim it would be stupid to cross an ocean without a boat

Since you responded that way, it is obvious you missed the point: caution and taking the right tools to ensure safety is not fear... it is smart. THAT was the point.

Not necessarily Forrest Gump didn't take a car He ran.

Forrest Gump was a FICTIONAL character. You know... not real.

I am going in a scuba suit with tank and that's it.

Considering most professionals even use cages when around great whites.... it was nice knowing you. What would you like on your memorial and where do you want your Darwin award sent?

Les Stroud does it all the time. He manages to keep His wits about Him without need for a gun

He is also an expert that does things like that for a living, and even he admits that it is dangerous and could go wrong.

And a gun could have saved Steve Irwin HOW?????

If you had bothered to read the first time I brought him up... it wouldn't have. You also missed the point once again. The point was: being an expert aware of the dangers of wild animals and how to minimize the chance of harm did him no go because wild animals ARE UNPREDICTABLE. You are ALWAYS at risk around them no matter how much you know. This idea of "follow the rules and you will be ok" is a bunch of bullshit, as his death proves.

Let me clarify my first point for you, Larry. I don't say people are "pants-pissers" lightly. I have a reason that I will be more than happy to explain for you.

Our Constitutional rights are there for a reason. The founding fathers saw them as necessary to have the free society they envisioned. Each right was necessary and sacred. Any infringement of rights like that should be only at the minimum level needed for a given situation.

Imagine a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is total freedom for a particular right, and 10 is total infringement of that right. A level of 1 is the default of the Constitution. A level 10 is a total ban.

Going from a level of 1 to a level of 10 is an EXTREME response. The only reason for such a response is fear. Maybe the fear is justified, maybe it isn't. If it is, I ask you to justify it.

Why wouldn't a lesser restriction such as limiting the conditions under which a firearm may be discharged work instead? That kind of restriction would only be about a 3 on the scale.

The point being that with this, or any other right, jumping from a 1 to a 10 on the scale without even trying anything in between IS pants-pissing.

Yes. If you think that people will be shooting up the place... make it a crime to fire the gun other than in self-defense. No need for an outright ban. An outright ban is a product of fear.

Oh now that's just great. Make it a crime to fire a gun in a National Park. What do You tell Mr and Mrs Smith's parents when their 4 Family members come up dead because some idiot thought it would be fun to shoot off a gun in the middle of a National park. Oh I am sorry Mr and Mrs Smith I believed in Guns in a National Park but I made damned sure it was a crime to fire it (ROLLS EYES)

Yes, that sure helped Steve Irwin. Rule number one around wild animals: they are unpredictable and you never assume you are safe. Hence caution and a healthy level of protection should be used.

And You think You would be totally safe with a gun?? What if Mr Pissed off bear makes You EAT that gun huh??

Since you responded that way, it is obvious you missed the point: caution and taking the right tools to ensure safety is not fear... it is smart. THAT was the point.

You don't need a fucking gun to go into the forrests in National Parks. If You need anything a good walking stick would do nicely

Forrest Gump was a FICTIONAL character. You know... not real.

NAHHHHHHHHHH Really?? I thought He was real (ROLLS EYES AGAIN) how many "Forrest Gumps" are out there in the real world that hoof it down the highways and byways to get up close and personal with mother earth

Considering most professionals even use cages when around great whites.... it was nice knowing you. What would you like on your memorial and where do you want your Darwin award sent?

Doesn't matter to me where You send it. My body will be chum

He is also an expert that does things like that for a living, and even he admits that it is dangerous and could go wrong.

And a gun could have saved Steve Irwin HOW?????

If you had bothered to read the first time I brought him up... it wouldn't have. You also missed the point once again. The point was: being an expert aware of the dangers of wild animals and how to minimize the chance of harm did him no go because wild animals ARE UNPREDICTABLE. You are ALWAYS at risk around them no matter how much you know. This idea of "follow the rules and you will be ok" is a bunch of bullshit, as his death proves.

Accidents happen all the time. It's called living in an imperfect world. Deal with it.

#149 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 04:36 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Why wouldn't a lesser restriction such as limiting the conditions under which a firearm may be discharged work instead? That kind of restriction would only be about a 3 on the scale.

The point being that with this, or any other right, jumping from a 1 to a 10 on the scale without even trying anything in between IS pants-pissing.

#150 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 04:51 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Because people are stupid that's why. People do stupid shit like firing a gun in the air at New Years Day. What are You going to tell a Wife that Her Husband died in a National park because some drunk assed idiot got it into His head that it would be fun to fire a Handgun in Yosemette?? You can't bring the Husband back but You would say to Her Oh I am sorry for Your loss but the Guy that fired the gun in the air will be prosecuted. Little comfort for the Wife now isn't it?? National parks are SUPPOSED to be protected places. They aren't the wild west areas they used to be. What happens say a Family of 8 2 Parents and 6 kids are in a National Park and some stupid idiot fires their handgun at them from a distance accidentally because He could not see where He was shooting. What are You gonna tell the Parents?? Oh I believed in Guns in National Parks I don't know how I can make it up to You Folks. You can't bring them back now can You Moomanfla??

Larry

What do You tell Mr and Mrs Smith's parents when their 4 Family members come up dead because some idiot thought it would be fun to shoot off a gun in the middle of a National park.

The same thing you would tell them if it happened in their neighborhood... that is was wrong for the person to do so, and that the person that did it will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. How is doing it in a National Park worse than doing it anywhere else? Are the people more dead?

What if Mr Pissed off bear makes You EAT that gun huh??

What if I make Mr. Bear eat a bullet? At least with a gun there is at least a slight possibility where there would be NONE without it.

If You need anything a good walking stick would do nicely

Tell that to the HUNDREDS of people that have been mauled or killed by animals in the wild over the last century. Larry says all they needed was a good walking stick and they would be ok.

NAHHHHHHHHHH Really?? I thought He was real

Apparently you did, since you seemed to think that using him as an example had any bearing on real life. Using him the way you did would be like me saying "why can't I fly using nothing but my clothes? SUPERMAN does it!"

how many "Forrest Gumps" are out there in the real world that hoof it down the highways and byways

We were discussing FREEWAYS, idiot. You know... interstate highways... like I-40, or I-80. Try to keep up with the discussion before you make moronic comments on them.

Doesn't matter to me where You send it. My body will be chum

I agree. If that is okay with you... that is your choice. Personally I would prefer to take great safety precautions around wild animals... hence a shark cage around great whites, and a gun around bears.

Accidents happen all the time. It's called living in an imperfect world. Deal with it.

I do. It's called a gun. Deal with it.

The same with who is the bigger idiot when it comes to moon articles, and for the same reason.

You were talking out your as as usual and got caught as usual. Put up or shut up. You aren't man enough to do either.

#147 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-05-20 03:32 AM | Reply | Flag

Guns do not belong in a National Park Moomanfla obviously You can't use that common sense You claim to have. Shouldn't people on Vacation have a place where they do not have to deal with the things that happen in the "Outside world" A place where they can play fish hike without the constant fear of some gun going off?? Think about THAT for a while Moomanfla.

Larry

People do stupid shit like firing a gun in the air at New Years Day.

And yet we still don't ban them from the country... why? Because:

a) we have laws that make it illegal to punish them with if they do.

b) that pesky thing called the Constitution that guarantees we can have them.

What are You going to tell a Wife that Her Husband died in a National park because some drunk assed idiot got it into His head that it would be fun to fire a Handgun in Yosemette??

Sorry, you still have failed to show why Yosemite should be any different than elsewhere in the US where the simple law prohibiting discharging a firearm unnecessarily is enough.

You are also jumping to extremes of restriction on a Constitutionally guaranteed right without attempting lesser restrictions first... aka pants-pissing

Guns do not belong in a National Park Moomanfla obviously You can't use that common sense You claim to have

YOu haven't explained why the need to ban them from a National Park is any greater than anywhere else where lesser laws are used instead. I would say it is YOU that isn't using common sense.

Shouldn't people on Vacation have a place where they do not have to deal with the things that happen in the "Outside world" A place where they can play fish hike without the constant fear of some gun going off??

Please tell me who is FEARING this Larry? You? I'm not, because I realize that the number of crimes commited with a legal firearm in proportion to the number of legal gun owneners is VERY low.

You are pants-pissing again by your own admission of fear.

Larry... you do realize that even should this law fully pass and you get a few more gun deaths a year, you will STILL be more likely to be accidentally killed by a doctor visit than you will to die by gun accident.

You say guns kill people?

I say, guns don't kill people, DOCTORS do.

Don't believe me?

Sorry... one of my references is the wrong link. The 25% of all adults owning a gun came from the following link, which in turn attributes the statistic to the ATF:

I don't like guns.

Having said that, when it the wilderness protection is a good thing.

One can have all of the "street-smarts" in the world and still come out on the losing end of an encounter with a Grizzly. Lassie may be able to fuck up 3 mountain lions but Nullifidian would get his ass shredded in such an encounter.

Prudence and respect for nature can mitigate many threats, but shit still happens.

Even ignoring the 2nd Ammendment, this is common-sense legislation. My beef stems from the fact that this was tied to a bill regarding credit cards. Buncha bullshit if you ask me.

Jeff,

As per my previous post, I like guns a lot more than I like doctors.

I would love to see a new show: Drudge Retort Deathmatch.

One week we can have Nullifidian VS. Grizzly Bear

The next week could be: Buffalo_Bob with a car antenna VS. Vernon with a calculator

And the winner? Frank Cotton of course.

Before anyone picks on one of my numbers above, I must correct it. I realized my translation of scientific notation was off.

For accidental gun deaths I said:

"That is less than .00000000000001 deaths per gun owner (and I am being generous)."

The actual number is:

1.02085207 X 10^-5

Which actually translates to: .00000102 after rounding up.

Still that is much less than the .0102 per doctor per year.

In future I will not borrow Vernon's calculator.

I have to go with Moonmanfl on the prohibition on discharging a firearm.

I would go even further.

To my way of thinking a good firearms law would state:
1. You can own weapon that you deem necessary and can afford.
2. You can carry that weapon whenever and where ever you wish.
3. If you discharge that weapon you are responsible for the results of that discharge.
4. If property is damaged you are required to replace said property.
5. If someone is injured you are liable unless you can PROVE' the necessity of your action. This would require a reasonable expectation of death or serious injury to you or someone else.
6. If someone dies you are guilty of homicide unless you can PROVE' the necessity of your action. This would require a reasonable expectation of death or serious injury to you or someone else.
7. Penalties are severe up to and including life imprisonment without the chance for parole for injuries or death.

I know that there is the presumption of innocence in our legal system but I think that this is covered by the fact that it must be proven that you discharged the weapon. Given that this fact has been proven to the courts satisfaction it becomes your responsibility to prove the necessity of your action.

Simplistic? I know. Practical? Probably not.

By the way Nulli, Why is 'Cowboy' always a pejorative to you and so many other Libs.
The Cowboy Way' has a lot to offer.
It assumes personal responsibility, self reliance, honesty, and integrity.

If hunting isn't allowed {in national parks}, why in the hell does anybody need a loaded weapon?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

Hunting is allowed in the city either, so why in the hell does anybody need a loaded weapon?

The National Parks are supposed to be places where the WHOLE FAMILY can go and feel safe. How can You feel safe knowing Gun Weilding Drunks are in these National Parks. Americans are becoming stuider and stupider by the day.

#16 | Posted by LarryMohr

City Parks are supposed to be places where the WHOLE FAMILY can go and feel safe. How can You feel safe knowing gun wielding drunks are in these City Parks. Americans are becoming stupider and stupider by the day.

I just returned from a week in Yellowstone.. I saw two grizzlies, several moose, more elk and bison than I could count, and more big horn sheep than I've ever seen before. I'm glad the park was set aside for preservation by the Roosevelt administration.. but the big stone arch at the parks original (North) entrance says "For the enjoyment of all the people".. its the people's park.. it doesn't belong to the Park Service, the current administration, or even to the animals, it belongs to us.. all of us. Of course the second amendment applies there.

#21 | Posted by nmg_no

You saw griz? I'm jealous. Was there backpacking last September. Didn't see any griz or moose. Got good pics this time of the Arch.

Despite the idiocies being posted here, unless one is carrying a supa-dupa hunting rifle - light light artillery grade, anything else would just piss griz off somethin' fierce.

I've also done canoe trips on the Green through Canyonlands. Despite the law, there was always at least one of us packin'.

I be more concerned with them two-legged varmints.

I just returned from a week in Yellowstone.. I saw two grizzlies...

#21 | Posted by nmg_no

When I was a teenager (long ago, and far away) grizzlies used to come down out of the Park to the town dump at West Yellowstone. Sometimes 5-6 at a time. You could drive out there and watch them from just a few dozen yards away. They had to put a top to that when stupid tourists would get out of their cars and try to get closer for a photo op. Apparently they assumed grizzlies move slower than tourists. They don't.

By the way Nulli, Why is 'Cowboy' always a pejorative to you and so many other Libs.
The Cowboy Way' has a lot to offer.
It assumes personal responsibility, self reliance, honesty, and integrity.

You just answered your own question by describing traits that Nulli abhors.

"5. If someone is injured you are liable unless you can PROVE' the necessity of your action. This would require a reasonable expectation of death or serious injury to you or someone else.
6. If someone dies you are guilty of homicide unless you can PROVE' the necessity of your action. This would require a reasonable expectation of death or serious injury to you or someone else."

My understanding is that current law does make one responsible for injury or death resulting from discharging a firearm whether or not they had a need. Killing a bystander with defensive fire will still land you in jail.

And Larry, your overly emotional knee-jerk reactionary comments can be applied to anything. If "what are you going to tell Mrs. Smith when..." is your primary motivator, you should lobby for everyone to live in rubber rooms safe and sound from the real world. As you said, shit happens, deal with it (ironically, your comments seem to indicate YOU to be the one having trouble handling that fact).

We need t'be allered t'carry our guns in th' parks.

ah sar Crocodile Dundee an' ah knows fo' a fack thet a kangaroo wif a rifle is dangerous.

Jest imagine a bar packin' heat.

It's jest plain dangerous t'be in th' woods an' not be carryin' mo'e than jest a knife.

#27 LarryMohr> I have thought it through and it's a pathetically dumb idea.

Maybe you need to think it through AGAIN a few more times.

>How many Deaths have occured in the National park system since they outlawed Guns in them??

Isn't even one innocent person's death enough to call for all lawful citizens to be able to carry a firearm in National Parks?

>You don't hear of that many do You??

Whether I hear of it or not is of no coincidence. If they actually happen, however, is a matter of vital concern.

>This is a stupid idea thought up by stupid people.

Maybe it was thought up by the same people who feel that any law-abiding citizen should be able to carry a firearm (if they so choose) just about anywhere they go while on public property. Sounds sensible to me.

>There is no need NO NEED for a Weapon in a National Park.

So when Aunt Maddie and Uncle Jim are hiking along, minding their own business, and a grower of illegal substances decides they have trespassed into his illicit garden ... should they simply remind each other that Larry said there was 'NO NEED'? What about the same couple facing wild hogs, bears and other potentially harmful creatures?

Jest imagine a bar packin' heat.

It's jest plain dangerous t'be in th' woods an' not be carryin' mo'e than jest a knife.

#170 | Posted by Petrous

Beware, there is yet another movement afoot (apaw?)

The Right To Arm Bears

If there's no hunting in the park, guns shouldn't be allowed.
That said, all those crazy criminals that like to hike to the far outreaches of the wild will, doubtless, be armed to the teeth.
Most of the arguments here center around using guns to protect against wildlife and/or wild human criminals.
I don't find that criminals enjoy hiking all that much.
I don't think guns would be too effective, in untrained (ie. most) hands, against a bear or, say, a charging buffalo.
Even if they were, there's an argument for keeping parks pristine and gun free. They're there for us to enjoy, but for the animals to live a life protected from human intervention. If a bear eats a human for doing something stupid, or even for just being there, I think that's an acceptable loss. Not everything should be as safe as (ostensibly) going to the local pet store.
That way, you know, it stays a park, and not a hunting reserve or disneyesque amusement center.
Just as I don't think there should be roads into formally foot only spaces just so some ADA lobbyist can see a nice view. It's akin to putting an escalator up K2. Some things require effort beyond what most can or will give. They should stay that way.
And there simply isn't a statistical necessity for arming the populace in parks. They aren't at risk. Put a few more rangers out there, and sure, arm them. That would be far more useful.

[note on above: I have a CCL and plenty of guns, but I don't feel the need to be armed everywhere I go. Sometimes the environment is armor enough.]

Guns kill.
P-E-R-I-O-D.
Be Well.
#22 | POSTED BY SKIP_WELLINGTON

Not unless they are intentionally pointed at someone (with malice) aimed and fired.

Personal responsibility and accountability for ones actions are needed in this country as well as a dose of common sense.

A gun is a tool and has a 50/50 chance of being used for good or evil depending on the person carrying it at the time.

Anti-gun people just don't get it.

#173 | Posted by regime_change

Shame on you. A gun owner with concealed carry to boot.

You more than most should know that you never need a gun until you need it. If you need it and don't have it, then it's too late.

Is there less risk in the parks for violence? Sure. Is that risk zero. No. Not all of a park is wild lands and wilderness. Yellowstone is a prime example of where, amidst the wilds, there are communities, campgrounds, large gatherings of folk, turistas packed with dollars, and lots of young women, prime for the pickin' and stickin'. Just because it is a National Park does not automatically make it risk free or crime free. In fact, Yellowstone is in the process of putting up a really fine jailhouse in the center of the park. Must be for all them near-do-well bears, buncha picnic basket rustlers.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your very statements constitute an infringement on the right of the people to bear arms on public lands. You are either all for or all against, in or out. There can be no middle ground.

"Just because it is a National Park does not automatically make it risk free or crime free."

That's the problem. Everyone wants a no-risk existence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. National Parks are supposed to be natural sites. Nature can be dangerous. If you're afraid of it, stay home.

"A gun is a tool and has a 50/50 chance of being used for good or evil depending on the person carrying it at the time. Anti-gun people just don't get it."

I get it. Now explain to me again how a gun can be used for good. Actually, I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm an anti-pro-gun person person. It's a fine point, a guy thing. herm

National Parks are supposed to be natural sites. Nature can be dangerous.

All the more reason to take reasonable measures to protect oneself - such as carrying (and using if need be) a firearm as a means of protecting a child who a Mountain Lion has chosen for its next meal.

Actually, I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm an anti-pro-gun person person.

That actually makes sense.

I am serious.

"National Parks are supposed to be natural sites. Nature can be dangerous. If you're afraid of it, stay home."

How does having a gun make it unnatural? And if it's dangerous, how can you fault one for going into it as best prepared as they see fit by arming themselves? There's nothing wrong with carrying a gun into a potentially dangerous situation beyond your own personal problem against it. Unfortunately you seem to think everyone should conform to your view or else they're a pants pissing pussy.

"All the more reason to take reasonable measures to protect oneself - such as carrying (and using if need be) a firearm as a means of protecting a child who a Mountain Lion has chosen for its next meal."

LOL. That as hyperbolic as that guy complaining about hikers meeting AK-47 carrying criminals on park trails. If you're worried about mountain lions, don't go there. If you go there, leave your fucking guns at home. Everybody else manages to visit the National Parks in the millions every year without being eaten and without bringing firearms. If you're more scared than they are stay home.

#181 | Posted by nullifidian

Carrying a firearm as a reasonable means of self-protection doesn't equivocate with shooting squirels because they have bushy tails. The fact that nature, as you correctly pointed out, is a dangerous place is all the more reason to take measures to protect oneself.

As someone who doesn't have kids (I think I am correct on this), perhaps you are unable to empathize with the instinctive reaction toward protecting children. I want my kids to see nature in all of its splendor. Having said that, if I ever take them camping into an area where bears, wolves and mountain lions are prevalent, I am either going to shake my disdain for guns and acquire one, or travel with a buddy who has one. I would love to take my kids to see our nation's biggest park someday and do so in the most rustic manner possible. But in doing so I would have no qualms about taking out a mountain lion that has 'Aqualung' eyes for one of my boys.

If hunting isn't allowed, why in the hell does anybody need a loaded weapon?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

The 2nd Amendment says nothing at all about hunting.

Hunting isn't allowed in downtown Phoenix either. But you will nevertheless find plenty of people carrying guns either openly or concealed.

What's the difference? Personal protection is personal protection.

#182 | Posted by JeffJ

PS - I wasn't trying to insult you with that post, Null. On every strength test I have ever taken I have always been off-the-charts regarding empathy. Yet, I STILL am amazed at how little I understood the protective instinct a mom or dad has for their child until I had one. 2 actually.

My point being - it's one thing to be a 'tough guy' when it comes to defending oneself from a 200-lb. Mountain Lion. It's quite another when kids are thrown into the mix.

"As someone who doesn't have kids (I think I am correct on this), perhaps you are unable to empathize with the instinctive reaction toward protecting children."

It's for the children! Sheesh, how many times has that been abused, by both left and right, to promote a particular agenda?

Millions of Americans take their children to national parks every year. They do so without firearms and without complaints and without getting injured or killed by wildlife.

"Hunting isn't allowed in downtown Phoenix either. But you will nevertheless find plenty of people carrying guns either openly or concealed."

Do they do that--legally--on public property, in Phoenix courtrooms, libraries, schools, etc? If so, you have a point. Otherwise you don't.

Millions of Americans take their children to national parks every year. They do so without firearms and without complaints and without getting injured or killed by wildlife.

I don't think you are addressing the issue at hand. It's one thing to go on a massive tour, with 20-30 other people and sleep at night in a log cabin. It's quite another to go camping, in very small numbers in areas where people are scarce and dangerous animals are prevalent. Those who do this are smart to take reasonable measures to protect themselves and their kin. We all know that life involves risk - taking preventative measures is how we minimize risk.

I really don't understand your beef with this.

It's for the children! Sheesh, how many times has that been abused, by both left and right, to promote a particular agenda?

More times than I can count - a fair rejoinder.

"t's quite another to go camping, in very small numbers in areas where people are scarce and dangerous animals are prevalent"

I've done plenty of camping in wilderness areas and National parks where bears were prevalent. Neither I, or any people I know, nor anyone I observed, carried firearms. Maybe it's different in Michigan, but in California, if we decide to go hiking in the Sierras, we're more interested in packing cannabis than packing weapons. Bears are just a nuisance, not a threat.

And mountain lions...you're lucky to see one. My reaction would be to grab a camera. Yours obviously is to grab a gun. It must be that cold weather in Michigan that shrinks your balls. :)

"LOL. When's the last time someone successfully defended themselves against a grizzly with a gun? Yeah, that's a real fucking-good reason to allow weapons in national parks."

I imagine it was the last time a grizzly attacked someone who was armed with a gun.

I personally don't like having guns around but if you put if I had to face a grizzly, I'd rather have one than not.....

It must be that cold weather in Michigan that shrinks your balls. :)

A greater truth has never been spoken! :-)

For years I have tried to convince my wife that my lack-of-girth is attibutable to cold-weather.

I personally don't like having guns around but if you put if I had to face a grizzly, I'd rather have one than not.....

#190 | Posted by Sully

Exactly...

#177 Herm> Now explain to me again how a gun can be used for good.

A 75 year old grandmother was driving through a large U.S. metro area. At a redlight perp #1 grabs the car door and tries to open it (it was locked). When that didn't work he yelled to perp #2, who was carrying a baseball bat, to come help. Grandma pulled a handgun out of the holster and pointed it at both perps. They fled. No shots were fired.

There are lots of instances where a firearm helps protect people from criminals and critters bent on harm. It happens all the time, usually without a shot being fired.

#173 Regime_Change> I don't find that criminals enjoy hiking all that much.

Stumble across an illegal garden in some National Parks and you'll likely find an armed gardener and booby traps. I've even come across moonshine stills that were barely visible from ten feet away (not that any of them were booby trapped).

>I don't think guns would be too effective, in untrained (ie. most) hands, against a bear or, say, a charging buffalo.

I would agree that the chances of getting a shot in the right place, under extreme stress, would not be good if someone had little to no training, but I don't think it should be my decision to limit their ability to defend themselves.

>...there's an argument for keeping parks pristine and gun free.

I don't see how the two are linked. 'Pristine' could also mean 'totally free of humans'. In this instance, 'gun free' only applies to law-abiding citizens, who cause a tiny fraction of all firearm related deaths.

I frequently go camping and I am telling you that the wildlife is exactly that. Wild.

There's a reason you need to be armed when in the 'wild'. It's because it is uncivilized and dangerous. But, a real explorer of our country knows you must take risks to find the really cool parts of our country.

Some of that wildlife has attacked me over the years and I've never been armed. I've have the bite marks to prove it.

I look forward to being armed.

I'll teach those pesky mosquitos!

You dumb fucks wait until some Family is shot up or an elderly couple during a vacation in a National Park. You will be changing Your tune about Guns in National parks. mark My Words. You gun nuts are foolish to the nth degree.

Larry

You dumb fucks wait until some Family is shot up or an elderly couple during a vacation in a National Park. You will be changing Your tune about Guns in National parks. mark My Words. You gun nuts are foolish to the nth degree.

Larry

#197 | Posted by LarryMohr

Are you suggesting that someone who would commit such a crime would be inclined to obey the firearm prohibition in the first place?

If guns are prohibited in national parks, guess who will be the only ones with guns in national parks?

Might it be the same madman you referred to in your post?

You have got to get over it Larry. The angst you experience over this issue simply isn't healthy for you. Guns are a constitutionally guaranteed right of the People!

Or, you might consider moving to Australia. There, only criminals have guns. Other than that, Australia is an awesome country.

"There are lots of instances where a firearm helps protect people from criminals and critters bent on harm. It happens all the time, usually without a shot being fired."

Grandmas stopped by nasties at red lights IN NATIONAL PARKS. Hungry grizzlies shooed away by just the sight of your Magnum? Right! herm

You dumb fucks wait until some Family is shot up or an elderly couple during a vacation in a National Park. You will be changing Your tune about Guns in National parks. mark My Words. You gun nuts are foolish to the nth degree.

People are already murdered in national parks. It happens. Does the method in which the people were murdered really matter at this point?

Zot, I guess it depends on your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You think it entitles you to take a gun whenever and wherever is deemed public, although you (I think) acknowledge there are certain public places where it's prohibited. I see it somewhat differently, and I also think of the Constitution as a living document that can change to reflect the time we live in. We're not crossing the range in the pony express anymore.

I own guns. I am licensed to carry. I go hiking, camping, fishing, kayaking, etc. I haven't felt the need to be armed unless I was planning on using the gun for hunting. To the guy who mentioned mexican drug growers in public reserves: I can assure you, gun or not, you stumble into the wrong spot, your ass is toast. Obviously, the police should deal with this, or better yet, legalize pot and spend the money saved on treatment instead of futile prohibition.

Most of America's national parks are not that rugged. I could see going way out in the Yukon and needing a gun, but that would be an environmental distinction--a place where resources were scarce and the environment particularly harsh. Most national parks where people can drive up en masse to the featured attraction are inherently safe and guns are superfluous, and likely could cause greater harm when introduced to humans in their inevitable, idiotic confrontations.

You want to polarize the issue, and perhaps that's wrong with so much political discourse--with us or against us, no room for reasoning, for a middle ground. I think if a park strives to be family friendly, it's incumbent upon the gov't to provide for it. If it's a hunting environment, or a survival of the fittest wilderness, bring your weapons. But ultimately, to me, a park is not a place for weapons, especially under current licensing regulations.

If gun owners and their weapons were duly licensed and trained, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with people carrying them. I've seen the value of having a gun for home and personal protection first hand. I've also (having grown up in N. FL) seen plenty of stupid shit with drunken/macho gun owners getting into trouble. Ultimately, a gun is just a tool, one that can be violently misapplied. Train the users, and impose harsh penalties for fucking up, and maybe gun deaths and illegal possession would decrease.

If hunting isn't allowed, why in the hell does anybody need a loaded weapon?

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

For one, they may find themselves face to face with a mountain lion. Be nice to be packing then. Also, you can be assaulted or abducted anywhere at any time. There are a hundred reasons to be carrying and none to not be.

LOL. When's the last time someone successfully defended themselves against a grizzly with a gun? Yeah, that's a real fucking-good reason to allow weapons in national parks.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian

You truly are an idiot. People have escaped being eaten by a bear many times because they had a firearm. Many times the sound from the shot alone will scare the bear away. You were seriously stupid to even say that.

I'm not the one afraid to take a walk in a park without a gun to defend myself against cougars. LOL. That would be your side.

#57 | Posted by nullifidian

As usual, a leftie uses insults and barbs instead of making a point. Being scared has nothing to do with it. Being smart has everything to do with it. You're just an idiot and it continues to show post after post.

What I said was that you pussies who are afraid of...LOL...man-eating cougars are pants-pissing girlie boys.

p.s. Boo!

#67 | Posted by nullifidian

So, I take it that you have no natural fear of a wild animal that could eat you? If you came face to face with a cougar, first you'd shit your pants and then you'd die because you would have no gun to defend yourself. You are laughing at people who are saying that they would be frightened to come face to face with a mountain lion. Do you realize how stupid you sound?

You may be right, just as you would be in the African bush. That's not exactly Yosemite National Park.

#79 | Posted by nullifidian

Oh STFU. You have a libe tell you that they carry a firearm for protection from wild animals and you're all in agreement. You are such a loser. It doesn't matter if it's the African bush or Yosemite, they both have animals in them that will eat you. The national parks just have the added factor of the weirdos who want to do other things to you.

Cougar?

"For one, they may find themselves face to face with a mountain lion. Be nice to be packing then. Also, you can be assaulted or abducted anywhere at any time. There are a hundred reasons to be carrying and none to not be.

#202 | Posted by everlong at 2009-05-20 05:56 PM

Baaaaa. What a frightened little sheep you are. I bet you hid under your bed for weeks after 9/11. And your response to that, was similiar, some global fantasy of eradicating evil with weapons similar to your retarded fantasy of vanquishing a charging grizzly with a gun. LOL. What a tard. Baaaa....

It's funny to hear people who live in cities think they are going somewhere dangerous when visiting a National Park. You need the gun when you get back to the city, numbskulls. JeffJ lives in, or near, fucking Detroit for Chrissakes. Leaving it is like going from a shooting gallery to Bambiland. That's when you get to take off the holster, not put it on, idiots.

"Oh STFU. You have a libe tell you that they carry a firearm for protection from wild animals and you're all in agreement. You are such a loser. It doesn't matter if it's the African bush or Yosemite, they both have animals in them that will eat you. The national parks just have the added factor of the weirdos who want to do other things to you."

EverStupid, you have a far higher risk of the two legged variety in national parks. Handguns should be allowed. Rifles banned. There are signs posted at certain points in national parks stating that from that point forward there are no patrols and you are on your own. You have a far, far higher risk of injury driving to park, as well as getting a heart attack hiking your fat ass through the woods, than you have of an animal attack.

"It's funny to hear people who live in cities think they are going somewhere dangerous when visiting a National Park. You need the gun when you get back to the city, numbskulls. JeffJ lives in, or near, fucking Detroit for Chrissakes. Leaving it is like going from a shooting gallery to Bambiland. That's when you get to take off the holster, not put it on, idiots.

#210 | Posted by nullifidian"

I would carry hiking far into a national park due to some of the wack jobs out there like some of our posters here. Someone wants to mess with you 50 miles from nowhere you are truly fucked.

"You have a far, far higher risk of injury driving to park, as well as getting a heart attack hiking your fat ass through the woods, than you have of an animal attack. "

Not to mention a far greater likelihood of death or injury resulting from drowning, falls, hypothermia, etc. People drown at Yosemite every year. Nobody gets killed or injured by bears.

LOL. When's the last time someone successfully defended themselves against a grizzly with a gun? Yeah, that's a real fucking-good reason to allow weapons in national parks.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian

The last time was Thursday, 14 May 2009, at 6:11 A.M. in Denali National Park. Bear V.S. Desert Eagle .50

The Gun won.

Any more questions?

"Any more questions?"

#215 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag: sweeeeeeeeeeet

On second thought, maybe guns are a good thing, in a Darwinian sense...

"Grizzly bears normally avoid contact with people. In spite of their obvious physical advantages and many opportunities, they almost never view humans as prey. Even so, they can be extremely dangerous animals. Most grizzly bear attacks result from a bear that has been surprised at very close range, especially if it has a supply of food to protect, or female grizzlies protecting their offspring. In recent years, some grizzly bears appear to have learned to home in on the sound of hunters' gunshots in late fall as a source of potential food, and inattentive hunters have been attacked by bears trying to appropriate their kills.

Hahahahahaha. That's karma, man. Sweeeeeet.

#215 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Documentation?

"#215 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Documentation?

#218 | Posted by nullifidian "

It was probably in a wet dream. All those gun nuts jerk off to the "Desert Eagle .50".

Documentation?

#218 | Posted by nullifidian

Facts do not matter to the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

So, how would documentation help here?

Take my word for it - the bear died.

Facts do not matter to the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

So, how would documentation help here?

Take my word for it - the bear died.

Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 07:26 PM | Reply

BULLSHIT CONARTIST.

"Facts do not matter to the Anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

So, how would documentation help here?

Take my word for it - the bear died.

#220 | Posted by BENDOR "

real hard proof there you POS poser. what are you a 40+yo little fat fuck who plinks with .22 because a 9 hurts your little wrist?

real hard proof there you POS poser. what are you a 40+yo little fat fuck who plinks with .22 because a 9 hurts your little wrist?

#222 | Posted by furio

Case in point by furio.

Like I said, facts do not matter - only emotions do!

Notice the other reaction common to Liberals - name calling.

Thanks for the text book example there furio!

Still waiting for your documention, dumbshit.

Come on Bendor "desert fag" let's see some proof.

You going to post a link to one of your gun porn sites where losers like you brag about shit you have never done?

Where the user names are: Sniper, Sniper1, Sniper69 and McSniper?

Name calling is common on playgrounds worldwide.

You guys ever consider giving it up?

I could reference a hundred examples of bear vs. man encounters.

But it just wouldn't matter.

Would it?

"But it just wouldn't matter.

Would it?"

Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 07:55 PM

Hey, bears gotta eat.

"I could reference a hundred examples of bear vs. man encounters.

But it just wouldn't matter.

Would it?

#226 | Posted by BENDOR "

Why don't you post a link to just this one or are you a bullshit poser?

""I could reference a hundred examples of bear vs. man encounters."

So what? Nobody is arguing that there aren't hundreds of dangerous bear encounters recorded. You just seem to have a problem documenting this particular one. Put or shut up, fraud.

So what? Nobody is arguing that there aren't hundreds of dangerous bear encounters recorded. You just seem to have a problem documenting this particular one. Put or shut up, fraud.

#229 | Posted by nullifidian

Really?

If you know that bears are a threat in national parks, they why would you deny people the right to defend themselves in national parks?

Like I said, you are against guns.

And nothing else matters. Especially not people.

"you are against guns"

Only for responsible, law abiding folks.

#230 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 08:49 PM

Any comment you make is worthless until you back up your "story" or retract it.

Since you were so slow in getting it, my post was in jest.

My point wasn't.

And in case you are too slow in grasping that, here it is again in plain English ...

... it doesn't matter to anti-gunners, like you kids, how many people have successfully defended themselves with guns.

In national parks or anywhere else.

If you had been the man in this story, you would now be bear shit (strong wrists or not).

"When you are in the woods, you need a weapon to protect yourself, especially in the deep woods."

You should stay out of the woods and hide under your bed. Other than possibly some bear-repellent in grizzly country you don't need jack, wuss.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-19 07:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Always attack the person, not the argument

Figures...you can't really argue against carrying a gun, so you resort to name calling....wow..what a surprise...

And exactly when was the last time you spent a week in the woods in a tent? I did last month. Did I ever use the gun? Nope. Haven't had to use it...yet. Hope I never have to. But you know, I'll be really glad I have it should I have a problem...with some drunken ignorant gun phobe. (Ah, yes...the return of the ad-hominem, just so you can follow along.)

Similar arguments against the non-existent Drunks with Guns in the Woods......try talking about Harry the One-Armed Axeman around the campfire instead.

Again...don't bother to carry a firearm in the woods or in the Everglades...you aren't REQUIRED to carry one. And that's just fine by the gators, and some of the mosquitoes, that live there.

Some would ban rifles from parks, but not handguns; others mock .22s as insufficient firepower. Together they represent a quasi-macho mentality that rules here. Anyone who goes to Yosemite or Jellystone with less than a Dirty Harry Magnum to make his day is a bona fide pussy, herm

And in case you are too slow in grasping that, here it is again in plain English ...

... it doesn't matter to anti-gunners, like you kids, how many people have successfully defended themselves with guns.

In national parks or anywhere else.

#233 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-05-20 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't bother to do any research

"And exactly when was the last time you spent a week in the woods in a tent? I did last month."

Good for you. I've had bears walk through my camp site, both car camping and backpacking. It was a treat. You probably would've shit your pants.

"You truly are an idiot. People have escaped being eaten by a bear many times because they had a firearm. Many times the sound from the shot alone will scare the bear away. You were seriously stupid to even say that."

Your first encounter with nullifidian on a gun thread?

Skip the next one since the same circuitous "logic" will be used.

Several of the antigun posters here keep mentioning national parks in a manner which suggests that such parks are as safe to visit as the Smithsonian or some other museum. Well Yosemite is 1,189 square miles in area of which 95% is designated as wilderness. The majority of 3 million plus visitors a year only visit the 7 square mile Yosemite Valley and go home to brag about "roughing it" which is probably the type of people Nulli, Larry et al are.

I've camped, hiked, hunted and fished some of the most remote areas to be found in the lower 48 since I was a teen and carried a firearm on such occasions since it was legal for me to. Well I've never had to even draw it even in anticipation of defense but seeing what I've seen out there I'll be damned if I'm not gonna continue packing protection cause it's better to be safe than sorry.

"Good for you. I've had bears walk through my camp site, both car camping and backpacking. It was a treat. You probably would've shit your pants."

I don't believe it.

If you're pathologically afraid of firearms, you're likely be afraid of bears and your own shadow.

"Well I've never had to even draw it even in anticipation of defense but seeing what I've seen out there I'll be damned if I'm not gonna continue packing protection cause it's better to be safe than sorry."

Excellent. That's what nullididian refuses to recognize.

Confusing paranoia with prudence.

"All those gun nuts jerk off to the "Desert Eagle .50""

Except the ones who think it's stupid as fuck.

Bendor,
The story about the bear you linked is fake.

The majority of 3 million plus visitors a year only visit the 7 square mile Yosemite Valley and go home to brag about "roughing it" which is probably the type of people Nulli, Larry et al are.

Electrical Hookups, Tent Pads, Running water and flush toilets. Where's the ranger to bring me crumpets?

Woohoo!

We're outside!

When I do my solo overnights, it's usually at a little campsite an hour away. Five dollar fee, usually quiet old folks in their rv's just stopping some place on a leg of a long trip.

I string up the hammock and rainfly, plop down to boil some water, sometimes I build a fire.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will drive their RV to a place, wind out the awning, hook up the power and water, deploy the dish on the top then go back inside and watch tv.

I go in the woods for quiet from busy streets, computer screens and people. These folks could have gotten their "adventure" by sitting by the fridge at home.

"Bendor,
The story about the bear you linked is fake.

www.snopes.com"

Hahahaha. No wonder that fraud wouldn't link to it.

Electrical Hookups, Tent Pads, Running water and flush toilets. Where's the ranger to bring me crumpets?

Woohoo!

We're outside!

When I do my solo overnights, it's usually at a little campsite an hour away. Five dollar fee, usually quiet old folks in their rv's just stopping some place on a leg of a long trip.

I string up the hammock and rainfly, plop down to boil some water, sometimes I build a fire.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people will drive their RV to a place, wind out the awning, hook up the power and water, deploy the dish on the top then go back inside and watch tv.

I go in the woods for quiet from busy streets, computer screens and people. These folks could have gotten their "adventure" by sitting by the fridge at home.

#243 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-05-20 11:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Not Me. I love being in a nonelectrical powered tent. I use a 5 gallon bucket to "Do My duty to G-d and My Country" in. I drink crystal clear stream water and also cook on My Wichita made Coleman cookstove. Oh and the tent pad I use is take a shovel and flatten out an earthen area so I don't roll out of a sleeping bag in the middle of the night. Sorry wrong again Axiom.

Larry

"Electrical Hookups, Tent Pads, Running water and flush toilets. Where's the ranger to bring me crumpets?

Woohoo!

We're outside!

When I do my solo overnights, it's usually at a little campsite an hour away. "

Wow a whole hour away from the parking lot? LOL. You're a regular Davy Crockett.

Hahahaha. No wonder that fraud wouldn't link to it.

Actually, snopes doesn't say it's fake. It says the description is inaccurate. The bear probably wasn't charging since dude had a permit to shoot bear.

But let's examine the picture of a second.

See that paw the guy is holding up? It's as broad as his chest.

So you're telling me that if that was charging at you and you had two choices; break out the .44 Mag or lay face down on the ground and cover your head and neck and play dead, you'd choose to play dead?

Welcome to being dinner or just plain fucking dead. I've seen at least one interview with a ranger talking about a bear "expert" being decapitated in a single swipe by a woozy-from-tranquilizer bear. Give the Grizzly Man and his girlfriend my kindest regards.

Me. If I'm packing, I'm unloading everything I've got into a charging bear. I don't care how big it is. I might still end up being lunch, but it won't be because I didn't put up a struggle.

Wow a whole hour away from the parking lot? LOL. You're a regular Davy Crockett.

See Solo Overnights. That means I'm not going out for a multi-day trip. That means I'm not going to hike 10 or 20 miles in, set up camp, sleep then turn around and come back out.

That's what weekends are for.

Not Me. I love being in a nonelectrical powered tent. I use a 5 gallon bucket to "Do My duty to G-d and My Country" in. I drink crystal clear stream water and also cook on My Wichita made Coleman cookstove. Oh and the tent pad I use is take a shovel and flatten out an earthen area so I don't roll out of a sleeping bag in the middle of the night. Sorry wrong again Axiom.

I shit in a cat hole that I dig with a stick while leaned against a tree a few hundred yards off of the trail. I filter my water because there might be a dead animal in it around the next bend. Giardia and Cryptosporidium are not things I look forward to having, even if they are infrequent. I cook my food over a fire or a DIY Alcohol stove made from a soda can. Coleman stove. Sitting in the lap of luxury.

Flattening out that earthen area in the middle of the woods is not a good LNT practice. That damage doesn't repair itself in 3 days.

"Actually, snopes doesn't say it's fake. It says the description is inaccurate. The bear probably wasn't charging since dude had a permit to shoot bear."

Snopes is being polite. The story he linked to is fake in many regards. (or inaccurate, false, untrue, embellished, exaggerated. Whatever you prefer)

"Me. If I'm packing, I'm unloading everything I've got into a charging bear. I don't care how big it is. I might still end up being lunch, but it won't be because I didn't put up a struggle."

You'd die because you're a gun toting pants pisser. Now if you had a pen knife and a car antennae, that's a totally different story...

You'd die because you're a gun toting pants pisser. Now if you had a pen knife and a car antennae, that's a totally different story...

LOL!

I have a 10' whip antennae that was on my firebird back when I was running Coors from texarcana. I bet that would make a quality weapon in such a situation.

The most dangerous animal in the woods is the squirrel. Just look in their little black eyes and you can see the menace.

The most dangerous animal in the woods is the squirrel.

Ozark

Chipmunks, especially Theodore - any rodent that can sing - should be viewed as dangerous. I'm with you on that. Squirrels can't carry a tune in a bucket, but are equally, if not more, dangerous. Rabbits we all know about from Monty Python and The Holy Grail. They'll rip out your throat before you can say "Ni".

Keep telling yourself that. Don't forget to leave your light on when you go to sleep... the evil REDNECKS might get you.

#145 | Posted by moomanfl

The only light Rednecks are attracted to is Bud Light.

Other than that, they pass out in the front yard at their "homes" - either directly on the lawn or in their still running cars with their foot on the brake and their heads on the steering wheel withouth ever spilling their beer.

Yes, beer is a far greater threat than bears.

Yes, beer is a far greater threat than bears.

Especially if you get a skunk!

Zombie

Are zombie skunks smellier than living skunks? I'd imagine the bacteria from decay would add a great touch of stink.

Please advise.

"And exactly when was the last time you spent a week in the woods in a tent? I did last month."

Good for you. I've had bears walk through my camp site, both car camping and backpacking. It was a treat. You probably would've shit your pants.

#237 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-20 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Another clueless person

Yeah, another attack instead of a response. Wow. You guys really can't think up anything to respond, can you, except an attack.

And actually, I've been in the woods with bears. Snakes. Last month there were gators nearby.

Never shit in my pants. Not once in the woods. And I'm guessing you wear Depends, so it doesn't matter if you do or not. And there's your retort zing, Depends-boy.

I live in the coastal redwoods never had a need for a gun. I've also hiked the Pacific trail and never felt the need for a "gun". I just assume their won't be a sign intact that won't have bullet holes in it.
Not to mention when you think it's quiet in a wilderness camping area some moron will be poping off his AK at killer butterflies.

Not to mention when you think it's quiet in a wilderness camping area some moron will be poping off his AK at killer butterflies.

This image, while bothersome, makes me giggle.

I'll be damned if I'm not gonna continue packing protection cause it's better to be safe than sorry.

#239 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

A shame the damn things are so heavy. Going into the back country with all you need on your back, that hunk of heavy metal plus ammo can be a burden.

I also think of the Constitution as a living document that can change to reflect the time we live in.

#201 | Posted by regime_change

I would take issue with you on this point. The Constitution and the BoR continue to be watered down to "fit the times." Soon enough, it will be just a piece of paper, quaint and archaic, an historical footnote from better times, but no longer relevant.

But this is not the place to debate this...

How long will it be before some idiot shoots himself by accident in a national park. They already do it pretty often everywhere else. From reading the news I get the impression that the person most in danger of being shot by gun packing yahoos is the yahoo.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one.
If you don't like gays, don't become one.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

You anti-gun nuts don't quite comprehend the fact that nobody gives a fuck what you think. If you get too loud about it though, you may just find yourselves on the business end of one.
Capisce?
Sincerely,
The Ghost of Heston

A shame the damn things are so heavy. Going into the back country with all you need on your back, that hunk of heavy metal plus ammo can be a burden.

#260 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-05-21 09:12 AM | Reply

Get a Bushmaster. How much ammo do you need? 10 rounds?

I sincerely believe Many people that buy guns suffer from little pecker syndrome. They don't feel "Manly" unless they have a firearm. Craziness I tells ya.

Larry

What do you think an animal abusers problem is?

A shame the damn things are so heavy. Going into the back country with all you need on your back, that hunk of heavy metal plus ammo can be a burden.

I sincerely believe Many people that buy guns suffer from little pecker syndrome. They don't feel "Manly" unless they have a firearm. Craziness I tells ya.

Larry

I sincerely believe that Many people that dream of having sex with their dogs suffer from sever psychological issues. Things are going right upstairs. Sad, I tells ya.

--

See how ridiculous it sounds?

29oz.

#267 | Posted by Axiom

That's a lot of Raman!

29oz.

Posted by Axiom at 2009-05-21 10:10 AM

Glock 33 would be even better. Subcompact .357

WEIGHT
560 g / 19.75 oz.
LOADED (~)
755 g / 26.63 oz.

At least they still prohibit cigarettes in parks, a far more egregious threat!

#265 Larry spouted thusely> I sincerely believe Many people that buy guns suffer from little pecker syndrome. They don't feel "Manly" unless they have a firearm. Craziness I tells ya.

Guess your 'theory' ignores all the women who own and carry a firearm for protection?

#262 Danni runs up the knee-jerk flag by saying> How long will it be before some idiot shoots himself by accident in a national park.

How long will it be before someone with a gun protects themselves from an attacker (whether animal or human) in a national park? Why would you want to deny a person an effective tool to protect themselves with?

> They already do it pretty often everywhere else.

If I were a gambler, I'd bet that you have no clue what the accident rate of firearms in the U.S. is. Hint: lots of common items around a house are more likely of causing accidental injuries.

>From reading the news I get the impression that the person most in danger of being shot by gun packing yahoos is the yahoo.

Are all gun owners yahoos or are you only talking about the idiots who happen to own guns? Might make a difference in whether you actually have a point or not.

Do you read many stories in the news about gun owners protecting themselves with their firearms? If not, do you think it is because: 1) such events rarely happen, 2) are rarely reported to authorities, or because 3) the news media largely ignores them?

Guess your 'theory' ignores all the women who own and carry a firearm for protection?

#273 | Posted by AKat

Penis envy.

"You anti-gun nuts don't quite comprehend the fact (sic) that nobody gives a fuck what you think. If you get too loud about it though, you may just find yourselves on the business end of one. Sincerely, The Ghost of Heston."

Unglaublich, as they say in Leipzig. The Pretend Paratrooper, who detests every human with whom he (?) has ever come into contact, finally reveals that he (?) does indeed have a hero:

Moses. Ben Hur. The macho ham actor who in his last days on earth, so senile that he did not recognize Michael Moore, was titular head of the land's most reprehensible association of pro-gun nuts. Wow, "101," gotcha! herm

For those who support guns in national parks think of this -

Let's say you are carrying a loaded gun in a national park. You stumble across a grow farm and are confronted by a gun carrying bad guy and he is pointing his gun at the ground in your direction.

You pull your weapon and shoot attempting to protect yourself. The bad guy leaves. You get back to camp to see an ambulance and a cop and on a streatcher lays a man who has been shot.

It turns out it was your bullet that ricocheyed and hit an innocent bystander. The cop checks your gun and confirms you were the shooter.

He handcuffs you and arrests you.

The man you shot sues you in civil court for reckles endangerment and you lose your home.

Your life has just changed forever due to you carring a gun.

Don't think this cannot happen, ricoches will kill just as easily as a bullet pointed in your direction.

I sincerely believe Many people that buy guns suffer from little pecker syndrome. They don't feel "Manly" unless they have a firearm. Craziness I tells ya.

Larry

Hey, Larry, I own a Glock 19/9mm and I drive a 2006 Mustang GT, red with black stripes from hood to back. And I have a very healthily sized cock. Some people just like sports cars and believe in owning a gun for personal protection and fun. I feel "manly" because of the way I carry myself and the integrity I have and the respect I give to others. Neither my car nor my gun have any effect on me and how I feel as a man.

People who bring this topic up are the ones who are usually lacking in manly areas.

#278 Prolix247> The cop checks your gun and confirms you were the shooter.

How is the cop going to tell you are the shooter just from looking at the firearm? Maybe he can tell it had been fired, but other than that it would take a ballistics lab to do anything more. Did the cop also pull the bullet out of the 'innocent bystander' too?

Don't think this cannot happen, ricoches will kill just as easily as a bullet pointed in your direction.

#278 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-05-21 01:00 PM | Reply

You don't drive, right? Because cars can kill.

Your arguement was so lame I can't believe you even hit publish.

Don't think this cannot happen, ricoches will kill just as easily as a bullet pointed in your direction.

Either the guy is dead or he's suing me. He can't have both. Yes. Semantics, I know. And a lawyer could probably get me off from being sued.

It turns out it was your bullet that ricocheyed and hit an innocent bystander. The cop checks your gun and confirms you were the shooter.

As above. Is there a ballistics lab in the back of this cop's car? How did he know I was carrying a weapon? I'm not wearing it on my hip. It's in my pocket.

"Don't think this cannot happen, ricoches will kill just as easily as a bullet pointed in your direction."

But not as easily as a car antenna.

#278 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

So because you can think of a single highly contrived situation in which something can go wrong, you think guns shouldn't be allowed in parks?

Do you not give any weight to any of the millions of highly contrived stories of how it could go right?

#280 | Posted by AKat

If you have the only gun that smells like powder you are more than likely the one. Do you think the cop would let you go?

So because you can think of a single highly contrived situation in which something can go wrong, you think guns shouldn't be allowed in parks?

Do you not give any weight to any of the millions of highly contrived stories of how it could go right?

#284 | Posted by jpw

Do you believe in the torture a terrorist to stop a ticking bomb scenerio. Same thing...

#281 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Being a vet you should know better. This scenario is plausible.

You and I both know a ricochet will kill.

#285 Prolix247> If you have the only gun that smells like powder you are more than likely the one. Do you think the cop would let you go?

In this scenario the cop would seem to have three logical choices: 1) arrest me for the shooting (based on your 'smell test'), 2) confiscate my weapon as the possible weapon used against the injured/dead bystander, 3) let me go after getting all the necessary information he/she needs from me.

As an aside, I don't see how an injury due to a ricochet would be any different in a national park than in Joe's Town, USA. Oddly enough, I have seen bullets bounce off hardwood trees in the past (low powered handguns).

#288 | Posted by AKat

Reasonable enough. Since you have seen what I am speaking about it brings it to life for you. A high powered bullet hitting a rock can ricochet a football feild away.

I am pretty sure they would arrest you. They would fingerprint and photo you at a minimum as they would want to make sure your weapon has not been used in any additional crimes.

They may let you go after 72 hours but you are still the responsible party.

But you are right about the anywhere USA analogy.

#284 | Posted by jpw

Just to be fair I do believe in the right hands the bad guy would more than likey be injured or dead.

But most people who handle guns have never been in a firefight and would not be calm and steady.

I will also admit that I would carry a pistol in the national parks now since I know other yahoos would have them.

Sad as it is.

For those who DON'T support guns in national parks think of this -

Let's say you are carrying a loaded gun in a national park. You stumble across a grow farm and are confronted by a gun carrying bad guy (Prolix) and he is pointing his gun at the ground in your direction.

You pull your weapon and shoot attempting to protect yourself. The bad guy dies. You get back to camp to see an ambulance and a cop and on a streatcher lays a man who has been shot.

It turns out it was bullet that ricocheyed and hit an innocent bystander. The cop checks Bob's gun and confirms he was the shooter.

He pats you on the back and Bob's body is removed.

The man shot thanks you and makes you an honorary member of the illuminati and you discover the plots behind 9/11 and the Kennedy Assassination.

Your life has just changed forever due to you carring a gun.

You're soon on the circuit, interviewed by all the daytime and nighttime hosts.

You are invited to the White House.

The mayor gives you the key to the city because the kids that may have been offered things from that farmer would have destroyed their lives.

The families are tearfully in your debt.

You live a long life and prosper.

You are elected to Congress where you can screw everyone else and pocket lots of money in the process.

Don't think this cannot happen, you could be a hero, too.

#291 | Posted by Petrous

Well isn't that cute.

I see I got under your skin.

Good.

Who's Bob? Your alter ego?

"Just to be fair I do believe in the right hands the bad guy would more than likey be injured or dead.
But most people who handle guns have never been in a firefight and would not be calm and steady."

I agree. I'm proficient with a handgun but would never dream of thinking I'd do well in a gunfight, I just want to have the same dice as the other guy when they get rolled.

What bothers me about threads like these are the anti-gun people who demand reasons for our Constitutional rights to be in accessible (which is backwards in my view). They don't seem to think that THEY need to be providing justifications for why OUR rights shouldn't be accessible, and "accidents may happen" just doesn't cut it.

#293 | Posted by jpw

Most people's egos force them to believe they know what is best.

We all need to keep our egos in check to find a reasonable middle ground and to understand we may not see all the peices of the puzzle.

That is what spurred on my original post. Yes, guns may be useful in the right hands, but even then there are consequences both good and bad.

No one is infalable although many here think they are.

"No one is infalable(sic)"
#294 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2009-05-21 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag: indeed

#295 | Posted by Zatoichi

Self retorting retort.

Indeed.

"No one is infalable although many here think they are."

Not infallible, just never been proven wrong.

ON issues about guns I rely on Dick Cheney for my guidepost. I'm sure he is pro-gun so sign me up too. If anyone knows anything about gun safety it's the former vice president.

I sincerely believe Many people that buy guns suffer from little pecker syndrome.

#265 | Posted by LarryMohr

Penis envy.

#275 | Posted by ZOT

Hey lay off me youse guys it's not my fault my parents skimped by having Sammy Davis Jr. do my bris

I'm not sure what the big deal is.
Gangsters and thugs do not generally utilize the parks.
If they did, they would bring their guns regardless of any law they have no regard for in the first place.
I think it is important to realize that the real world is not like the shoot-em up, violent beyond any similarity, TV world.
If it helps any, try to view this as freedom of choice...to carry a weapon or not.

Hey, what if I let you carry a gun everywhere if you let my daughter get an abortion after she is date raped?????

Oh wait, do you drive a 2006 Acura????