Senate OKs amendment to allow guns in national parks

Southern Man said:
Poachers hunt with pistols?
Click to expand...

Did I say that allowing pistols would make stopping poachers more difficult?

And to answer your question, yes they do. I hunt with a handgun. Poaching is just illegal hunting.
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
Did I say that allowing pistols would make stopping poachers more difficult?

And to answer your question, yes they do. I hunt with a handgun. Poaching is just illegal hunting.
Click to expand...
We are taking about self defense, and most people don't carry a rifle around for that purpose. Very few hunt with a pistol as well, unless its a second weapon for if the rifle that you've just used doesn't do its job and the bear or whatever you're trying to kill gets pissed off and decides to fight back.

In Canada pistols are basically illegal, so bear guides will carry an axe for this purpose. You've got to be crazy to hunt in Canada, IMO.
 
Southern Man said:
We are taking about self defense, and most people don't carry a rifle around for that purpose. Very few hunt with a pistol as well, unless its a second weapon for if the rifle that you've just used doesn't do its job and the bear or whatever you're trying to kill gets pissed off and decides to fight back.

In Canada pistols are basically illegal, so bear guides will carry an axe for this purpose. You've got to be crazy to hunt in Canada, IMO.
Click to expand...

Maybe you selectively read what you want to read. I asked if the amendment covered longarms or just sidearms. The reply was that it apparently also covered longarms. It was only then that I made my post that it will make stopping poachers more difficult.

Many people hunt with only a pistol. Every major scope maker has a line of handgun scopes. There are numerous handguns that are designed for hunting. It is more and more common every year. It is not rare at all.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Indeed. And it's obvious that the of the regulations being repealed are in place to prevent poaching as they prohibit "weapons, traps or nets" in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.
Click to expand...

right, because poachers and killers will not poach or kill people when they see the 'no guns allowed' sign at the entrance. :readit: :rolleyes:
 
SmarterThanYou said:
right, because poachers and killers will not poach or kill people when they see the 'no guns allowed' sign at the entrance. :readit: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The way things are now, if they catch anyone in a National Forest with a rifle, they can treat them as a poacher. If this passes they will only be able to do this after they bag game.

I am not discussing right or wrong, just mentioning one of the difficulties involved.
 
WinterBorn said:
The way things are now, if they catch anyone in a National Forest with a rifle, they can treat them as a poacher. If this passes they will only be able to do this after they bag game.

I am not discussing right or wrong, just mentioning one of the difficulties involved.
Click to expand...

there used to be this little unconstitutional thing called 'prior restraint'. I remember the days that the courts used to rule against that, nowadays, not so much. sad, really.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
there used to be this little unconstitutional thing called 'prior restraint'. I remember the days that the courts used to rule against that, nowadays, not so much. sad, really.
Click to expand...

And this amendment has its merits. But it also has some problems. Someone wandering around Yellowstone with a scoped, heavy caliber rifle is far different than someone carrying a pistol. And once the animal has been shot the time left to apprehend the poacher is limited.
 
WinterBorn said:
Maybe you selectively read what you want to read. I asked if the amendment covered longarms or just sidearms. The reply was that it apparently also covered longarms. It was only then that I made my post that it will make stopping poachers more difficult.

Many people hunt with only a pistol. Every major scope maker has a line of handgun scopes. There are numerous handguns that are designed for hunting. It is more and more common every year. It is not rare at all.
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about pistols "designed for hunting", but those for self defense. The whole scope thing doesn't make much sense for a self defense weapon, since if you need one to see your attacker, hes too far away to attack you. *shrug*
 
WinterBorn said:
The way things are now, if they catch anyone in a National Forest with a rifle, they can treat them as a poacher. If this passes they will only be able to do this after they bag game.

I am not discussing right or wrong, just mentioning one of the difficulties involved.
Click to expand...

Unless its hunting season and they've got a hunting license, then they probably are poachers. I think you've brought up basically a non-issue.

Some poachers might have a little easier time at breaking the law in some unusual circumstances, but innocent people will be better able to defend themselves. What's more important, some out of season deer or some guy and his family?
 
Southern Man said:
Unless its hunting season and they've got a hunting license, then they probably are poachers. I think you've brought up basically a non-issue.

Some poachers might have a little easier time at breaking the law in some unusual circumstances, but innocent people will be better able to defend themselves. What's more important, some out of season deer or some guy and his family?
Click to expand...


Defend themselves against what?
 
Southern Man said:
But we're not talking about pistols "designed for hunting", but those for self defense. The whole scope thing doesn't make much sense for a self defense weapon, since if you need one to see your attacker, hes too far away to attack you. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Is there some place in this proposed amendment that says what sort of gun is to be allowed?

You are ignoring what I asked and what is in the amendment.

If this allows all guns then what I posted remains valid. The amendment is not about self defense. It is about allowing guns in. That is why I posted what I did. All of your posts since I said "it is going to make stopping poachers more difficult" ignored the reason I said that and pretends that the amendment limits what type of gun will be allowed in.
 
Southern Man said:
Unless its hunting season and they've got a hunting license, then they probably are poachers. I think you've brought up basically a non-issue.

Some poachers might have a little easier time at breaking the law in some unusual circumstances, but innocent people will be better able to defend themselves. What's more important, some out of season deer or some guy and his family?
Click to expand...

What unusual circumstances? The fact that they can bring hunting firearms into the park makes it a lot easier in all circumstances. And it is not just out of season deer. It is also serious danger to entire herds or habitats.
 
WinterBorn said:
What unusual circumstances? The fact that they can bring hunting firearms into the park makes it a lot easier in all circumstances. And it is not just out of season deer. It is also serious danger to entire herds or habitats.
Click to expand...
Your point is stupid. It's illegal to hunt in National Parks. Anyone with a rifle or scoped weapon should be treated as a poacher. The amendment makes it safer for the human visitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top