Senate OKs amendment to allow guns in national parks

[WinterBorn]

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.

Are you saying that when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. said the amendment would "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens" he meant that it would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to have small, unscoped guns for the specific purpose of self defense?

There is nothing in that article that says anything about only a certain group of guns being allowed.

So the point is only stupid if you think the Second Amendment right is to have small pistols for self defense. If you do, then I can understand why you think the point is stupid.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This has been the wet dream of poachers everywhere for decades.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

right, because poachers and killers will not poach or kill people when they see the 'no guns allowed' sign at the entrance.

You're a fucking idiot. I don't even have to explain how stupid your logic is.

 

[charver]

This has been the wet dream of poachers everywhere for decades.

I'm rather ashamed to say that the only thing going round and round in my head now is the question 'Would the wild animals of the forest recognise the foul stench of male issue'?

It's a conundrum all right.

 

[DamnYankee]

Are you saying that when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. said the amendment would "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens" he meant that it would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to have small, unscoped guns for the specific purpose of self defense?

There is nothing in that article that says anything about only a certain group of guns being allowed.

So the point is only stupid if you think the Second Amendment right is to have small pistols for self defense. If you do, then I can understand why you think the point is stupid.

Now you're just being argumentative. I haven't seen the text, only the article, but I doubt that it differentiates between types of weapons, nor should it. If someone insists on carrying around a rifle in case a bear starts gnawing on the side of his tent maybe he can use it as a club. He should also be prepared to be questioned by an officer about poaching. *shug*

 

[WinterBorn]

Now you're just being argumentative. I haven't seen the text, only the article, but I doubt that it differentiates between types of weapons, nor should it. If someone insists on carrying around a rifle in case a bear starts gnawing on the side of his tent maybe he can use it as a club. He should also be prepared to be questioned by an officer about poaching. *shug*

No, I am pointing out the stupidity of your argument. You say that my point is stupid when it is pointing out a problem with this amendment. And your entire argument is based on only concealable handguns being allowed, when the article made no such mention.

As for the defense against a bear, unless it is a black bear I would suggest not using any handgun that is usually considered a good self defense round. A big brown bear or grizzly would not be amused and would likely maul you even worse.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm rather ashamed to say that the only thing going round and round in my head now is the question 'Would the wild animals of the forest recognise the foul stench of male issue'?

It's a conundrum all right.

You carry a gun for the animals that found that smell appealling.

 

[Whomever]

Great now we will have lots of gun illiterate tourista types carrying guns in parks thinking they need them to protect themselves from wild animals.

Ok if this passes I hope there is a provision making it illegal to actually shoot the guns in the parks unless in self defense.

Nothing more dangerous than stupid people with guns.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, I am pointing out the stupidity of your argument. You say that my point is stupid when it is pointing out a problem with this amendment. And your entire argument is based on only concealable handguns being allowed, when the article made no such mention.

As for the defense against a bear, unless it is a black bear I would suggest not using any handgun that is usually considered a good self defense round. A big brown bear or grizzly would not be amused and would likely maul you even worse.

You're argument has been show have no weight. And a hollow point .40 at short range will stop a bear before he takes another step.

 

[WinterBorn]

You're argument has been show have no weight. And a hollow point .40 at short range will stop a bear before he takes another step.

It has been shown to have no weight if you believe the second amendment protects your rights to small, unscope pistols only.

A .40 HP at short range will stop a bear before he takes another step? As I said, if you are talking about a black bear you might have a point.

I found this on a web site about guns for defense from bears: "If you must rely on a handgun for bear protection, go with a long-barreled (6" or longer for full velocity) magnum revolver. Preferably, this magnum revolver will be .44 or larger caliber, shooting a heavy, non-expanding or deep penetrating bullet and you should aim for the central nervous system (usually the brain). This will work, but you have to be able to hit the central nervous system 100% of the time under stress, which not many people can do. If you are not an experienced handgunner and/or are not willing to practice regularly with your bear gun, I suggest that you forego choosing a handgun. Remember that accurate bullet placement is the key to stopping power!"

An article from a website called Self Defense in the Wild said this:
"When there is danger from the great bears or any large predator a rifle is always going to be the best choice for a weapon. However, a rifle is not always a convenient thing to have with you. In circumstances like these a properly chosen handgun with the right ammunition can get the job done.

If the potential threat is primarily from the large predators like the great bears than acceptable cartridges start at the 44 magnum and go up from there. Commonly available cartridges that are appropriate are the .44 magnum, .454 Casull, .480 Ruger and the very large .500 S&W."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Are you saying that when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. said the amendment would "protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens" he meant that it would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to have small, unscoped guns for the specific purpose of self defense?

There is nothing in that article that says anything about only a certain group of guns being allowed.

So the point is only stupid if you think the Second Amendment right is to have small pistols for self defense. If you do, then I can understand why you think the point is stupid.

are you trying to say that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're a fucking idiot. I don't even have to explain how stupid your logic is.

you couldn't explain how 2+2 equals 4 so I don't expect you to understand basic logic, much less attempt to explain it.

 

[WinterBorn]

are you trying to say that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting?

Not even close. I brought up a point concerning a possible problem with or consequence of the amendment. I posted what I did because I was told my point was stupid that this is about self defense.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not even close. I brought up a point concerning a possible problem with or consequence of the amendment. I posted what I did because I was told my point was stupid that this is about self defense.

k, I understand that. There shouldn't be an issue though. This amendment is not going to change the rules or laws on hunting. Are you saying then, that we should allow the government to prosecute people based on the theory that they MIGHT commit a crime?

 

[Bonestorm]

k, I understand that. There shouldn't be an issue though. This amendment is not going to change the rules or laws on hunting. Are you saying then, that we should allow the government to prosecute people based on the theory that they MIGHT commit a crime?

Precisely!


Edit: For the record, the following has been established in this thread:

Democrats hate freedom and want to prosecute people based on the idea that they might commit a crime.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Precisely!


Edit: For the record, the following has been established in this thread:

Democrats hate freedom and want to prosecute people based on the idea that they might commit a crime.

please be more specific. Are you saying that the government should prosecute those who MIGHT commit a crime because they possess a tool that the crime could be committed with?

yes or no.

 

[WinterBorn]

k, I understand that. There shouldn't be an issue though. This amendment is not going to change the rules or laws on hunting. Are you saying then, that we should allow the government to prosecute people based on the theory that they MIGHT commit a crime?

Nope. I was just commenting on a new problem for the people trying to enforce the game laws.

 

[DamnYankee]

It has been shown to have no weight if you believe the second amendment protects your rights to small, unscope pistols only.

A .40 HP at short range will stop a bear before he takes another step? As I said, if you are talking about a black bear you might have a point.

I found this on a web site about guns for defense from bears: "If you must rely on a handgun for bear protection, go with a long-barreled (6" or longer for full velocity) magnum revolver. Preferably, this magnum revolver will be .44 or larger caliber, shooting a heavy, non-expanding or deep penetrating bullet and you should aim for the central nervous system (usually the brain). This will work, but you have to be able to hit the central nervous system 100% of the time under stress, which not many people can do. If you are not an experienced handgunner and/or are not willing to practice regularly with your bear gun, I suggest that you forego choosing a handgun. Remember that accurate bullet placement is the key to stopping power!"

An article from a website called Self Defense in the Wild said this:
"When there is danger from the great bears or any large predator a rifle is always going to be the best choice for a weapon. However, a rifle is not always a convenient thing to have with you. In circumstances like these a properly chosen handgun with the right ammunition can get the job done.

If the potential threat is primarily from the large predators like the great bears than acceptable cartridges start at the 44 magnum and go up from there. Commonly available cartridges that are appropriate are the .44 magnum, .454 Casull, .480 Ruger and the very large .500 S&W."

Again, we are talking about a potential Act to allow firearms at "parks and wildlife refuges". These areas are designations of the Forest Service, and hunting isn't allowed in either. So anyone carrying around a rifle or scoped pistol should be suspect for being a poacher, or just plain stupid.

Of course I'm talking about black bears, since post 7. You don't see a lot of grizzly bears in the Appalachian Mountains.

 

[DamnYankee]

...

Democrats hate freedom and want to prosecute people based on the idea that they might commit a crime.

I hate them that much more now. Thanks.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Next thing we should allow people to take hunting rifles on private wildlife tours of endangered species... in case there are any blacks on the bus with them, that is.