Senate OKs amendment to allow guns in national parks

Southern Man said:
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. :readit:
Click to expand...

Of course all "parks and wildlife refuges" are in the Appalachian Moutains.

Or exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, just like those who carry a sidearm. The 2nd Amendment is not dependent on fear.

A shotgun could be considered an excellent hunting tool or self defense weapon. As before since there is no mention of it being for self defense it will make it tougher to stop poachers.
 
WinterBorn said:
Of course all "parks and wildlife refuges" are in the Appalachian Moutains.

Or exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, just like those who carry a sidearm. The 2nd Amendment is not dependent on fear.

A shotgun could be considered an excellent hunting tool or self defense weapon. As before since there is no mention of it being for self defense it will make it tougher to stop poachers.
Click to expand...

Actually national parks and wildlife refuges are all over the country. Duh.
 
WinterBorn said:
Of course all "parks and wildlife refuges" are in the Appalachian Moutains.

Or exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, just like those who carry a sidearm. The 2nd Amendment is not dependent on fear.

A shotgun could be considered an excellent hunting tool or self defense weapon. As before since there is no mention of it being for self defense it will make it tougher to stop poachers.
Click to expand...
Since the entire concept of using prior restraint to make law enforcement easier is repugnant, I am perfectly willing to live with the idea that enforcing poaching laws in the parks may be made more difficult.

Of course the additional difficulty is going to be minimal. It's already tough as hell to track poaching in the parks. Poacher's aren't in the habit of advertising their intentions, and tend to stay away from patrol zones. Poachers aren't likely to go marching down public trails with a loaded hunting rifle over their shoulder. In fact it is highly unlikely a poacher will use the normal park entrances. Rangers are far too busy keeping Joe Average Tourist from falling in holes, stomping new trails through rare flower fields, or cutting down 1000 year old trees for firewood to spend much time searching the backwoods for poachers. If they do end up looking for something in the backwoods, it's usually a lost tourist.

OTOH, it isn't exactly easy to poach in the parks. At least not the larger animals that would be the most prone to poaching. It's not like one can bag a 1200lb Grizzly and throw it over their shoulders.
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Actually national parks and wildlife refuges are all over the country. Duh.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point. You were trying to say the discourse was about black bears, when you had already carefully ignored what didn't suit your liking.
 
If anyone can't handle the wilderness in the lower 48 without a gun they are a wuss and should stay home.
 
Southern Man said:
Within reasonable driving distance from the Yadkin Valley? Not too many grizzlies. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I see. So when you said "Unlike you Limeys, we actually have wildlife bigger than squirrels running around, including bears, mountain lions and wolves"

and

Posted a picture of you hiking in Oregon circa 2003

and said

"Poachers hunt with pistols?"



All of that was referring only to reasonable driving distance from Yadkin Valley?


Okey dokey, I guess when you get to put artificial limitations on the conversation and no one else knows what these limitations are, you get to feel like you have made some kind of point.
 
Whomever said:
If anyone can't handle the wilderness in the lower 48 without a gun they are a wuss and should stay home.
Click to expand...

Its better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it.

But I have done a lot of hiking and camping and not needed a gun.



The point IMHO would be having the choice.
 
WinterBorn said:
I see. So when you said "Unlike you Limeys, we actually have wildlife bigger than squirrels running around, including bears, mountain lions and wolves"

and

Posted a picture of you hiking in Oregon circa 2003

and said

"Poachers hunt with pistols?"



All of that was referring only to reasonable driving distance from Yadkin Valley?


Okey dokey, I guess when you get to put artificial limitations on the conversation and no one else knows what these limitations are, you get to feel like you have made some kind of point.
Click to expand...

Actually....

Black bears are common throughout NC, and my dog has confronted two at my cabin in the mountains. I saw a mountain lion in Ashe County, and a wolf in Wilkes County.

I flew to Oregon in 2003. It is outside of the reported range of grizzly bears:
515px-Ursus_arctos_horribilis_map.svg.png
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear[/ame]
 
Here is a good trivia question that relates to this topic.

If you want to carry a gun when hiking or camping, what does anyone here think is a good choice? Or what would you carry?

Being a fan of the old school, I like a good solid revolver. The caliber would depend on where I would be camping.
 
WinterBorn said:
Here is a good trivia question that relates to this topic.

If you want to carry a gun when hiking or camping, what does anyone here think is a good choice? Or what would you carry?

Being a fan of the old school, I like a good solid revolver. The caliber would depend on where I would be camping.
Click to expand...
A good self defense pistols isn't cheap, so most folks only have one. So the answer is to buy one that's small enough to easily carry, yet big enough to stop a large drug-crazed man, then carry the one that you own.

I prefer an auto loader over a revolver due its smaller width, ability to carry more rounds, speed of reloading, and the fact that you can vary the type of rounds in the magazine and be assured of your desired sequence. For example when mine's loaded in the house the first two are pre-frag rounds, and the rest are hollow points.
 
Southern Man said:
A good self defense pistols isn't cheap, so most folks only have one. So the answer is to buy one that's small enough to easily carry, yet big enough to stop a large drug-crazed man, then carry the one that you own.

I prefer an auto loader over a revolver due its smaller width, ability to carry more rounds, speed of reloading, and the fact that you can vary the type of rounds in the magazine and be assured of your desired sequence. For example when mine's loaded in the house the first two are pre-frag rounds, and the rest are hollow points.
Click to expand...

I prefer my revolver for some of the same reasons you list for the auto loaders.

A short barreled revolver is easily concealed and instantly ready for use. No need to work the slide or worry about having the safety on. I have a .44 loaded with a shotshell for the first round and mag-safe rounds after that. I also have the ability to use either full bore .44 mags or lighter .44 Spcl. Since the round does not have to work the slide, there are more options available. Plus I have the reliability factor. And if there is a bad round or missfire I just pull the trigger again for the next round.

I can reload with a speedloader almost as fast. And the extra power in a big bore revolver means I don't need as many rounds.
 
WinterBorn said:
I prefer my revolver for some of the same reasons you list for the auto loaders.

A short barreled revolver is easily concealed and instantly ready for use. No need to work the slide or worry about having the safety on. I have a .44 loaded with a shotshell for the first round and mag-safe rounds after that. I also have the ability to use either full bore .44 mags or lighter .44 Spcl. Since the round does not have to work the slide, there are more options available. Plus I have the reliability factor. And if there is a bad round or missfire I just pull the trigger again for the next round.

I can reload with a speedloader almost as fast. And the extra power in a big bore revolver means I don't need as many rounds.
Click to expand...

You don't have to "work the slide" in an auto loader; just keep your first round in the chamber. And the "safety" in a Glock is part of the trigger- a feature being copied by many self-defense manufacturers, and pretty hard to forget. And 10 rounds is always better than 6. :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
You don't have to "work the slide" in an auto loader; just keep your first round in the chamber. And the "safety" in a Glock is part of the trigger- a feature being copied by many self-defense manufacturers, and pretty hard to forget. And 10 rounds is always better than 6. :pke:
Click to expand...

10 rounds of 9mm or .40 is never going to be able to do what 6 rounds of .44 mag can do. I only have to hit something once to stop it.

And the shotshell is excellent snake medicine. If you get a missfire or bad round you have to work the slide to eject or clear it. I just pull the trigger again.

Glock makes a great pistol no doubt about that.
 
WinterBorn said:
10 rounds of 9mm or .40 is never going to be able to do what 6 rounds of .44 mag can do. I only have to hit something once to stop it.

And the shotshell is excellent snake medicine. If you get a missfire or bad round you have to work the slide to eject or clear it. I just pull the trigger again.

Glock makes a great pistol no doubt about that.
Click to expand...

Although a .44 magnum is a powerful round, the pistol required to fire it is a bit too large to carry around for most folks in most situations. Most experts agree that if its not convenient to carry it won't get carried. If you're intent om making a big hole than a .45 ACP should be adequate, and there's plenty of semi-autos made for that.

The only time I've had a misfire is shooting cheap target rounds, and I can only remember that occurring one on several thousand rounds. Good defensive ammo is much less likely not to go "boom".

I consider a revolver to be a "cowboy gun", and I don't like them funny hats.
 
Southern Man said:
Although a .44 magnum is a powerful round, the pistol required to fire it is a bit too large to carry around for most folks in most situations. Most experts agree that if its not convenient to carry it won't get carried. If you're intent om making a big hole than a .45 ACP should be adequate, and there's plenty of semi-autos made for that.

The only time I've had a misfire is shooting cheap target rounds, and I can only remember that occurring one on several thousand rounds. Good defensive ammo is much less likely not to go "boom".

I consider a revolver to be a "cowboy gun", and I don't like them funny hats.
Click to expand...

My Taurus has a 2.5" bbl and while its a but thick it carries well. I have looked at a few M1911 .45s and may own one soon.

But the topic was what to carry hiking or camping in the wilds. The versalitity of my revolver works well there.
 
WinterBorn said:
Its better to have one and not need it than to need it and not have it.

But I have done a lot of hiking and camping and not needed a gun.



The point IMHO would be having the choice.
Click to expand...

I think I have a choice to not be mistaken for a wild animal by some terrified city slicker and shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top