Bill to Allow guns in National Parks

[Will Brink]

I got that from your quote, not Hollywood.

I for one will never know what it is to carry one. But why is it really important to carry a gun in the woods?

irrelevant but:

"So why all this violence and crime in places that are supposed to be tranquil and relaxing? Alcohol or drugs are part of most violent incidents. Hideaway methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields in rural park areas (some of them run by drug cartels) and illegal aliens crossing through parks near the US- Mexico border are part of a growing crime scene."

Crime rates tick up across national parks | csmonitor.com

What's relevant here is, there is no reason people that have a CCW in that state should not be able to carry in the park if they so choose and no reason for oddball laws preventing it.

 

[ZECH]

Vs unloaded?

Huh?

 

[Will Brink]

Huh?

I have been seeing this headlines "Bill allows loaded guns in national parks"

Vs what, an unloaded gun?

Just shows per usual, how ignorant and biased the media is about guns.

 

[ZECH]

I have been seeing this headlines "Bill allows loaded guns in national parks"

Vs what, an unloaded gun?

Just shows per usual, how ignorant and biased the media is about guns.

Oh absolutely.

 

[min0 lee]

I guess all the people who were in a panic about Obama taking away their guns should breath little easier.
There was no reason to panic, I guess...there really are more important issues out there.......

 

[min0 lee]

Obama Signs Credit Card Bill - CBS News

Obama did not, however, celebrate a gun amendment included in the legislation. The measure by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., allows people to bring loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges.

The addition of the amendment to the bill and Obama's acceptance of it was viewed as a bitter disappointment for gun-control advocates.

They watched gun-rights supporters gain a victory from a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Democratic president that they couldn't achieve under a Republican Congress and president. Many blamed the National Rifle Association, which pushed hard for the gun law.

 

[NeilPearson]

Sweet now I can go to national parks and shoot at the squirrels

 

[min0 lee]

You can thank the Democrats for making it easier for you to feed yourself.

 

[Uba]

It doesnt matter what the Government says really theres still State and Local laws wich are the real ones.

"firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law."

An after all that you still have to have a Counseled weapon permit, not just anybody can walk around with the loaded gun in their pocket. Even with that permit their is still rules to it.

 

[Will Brink]

It doesnt matter what the Government says really theres still State and Local laws wich are the real ones.

"firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by federal, state and local law."

An after all that you still have to have a Counseled weapon permit, not just anybody can walk around with the loaded gun in their pocket. Even with that permit their is still rules to it.

That was always the real point: there were already laws dealing with firearms in each state and no reason for some federal law to over ride them for no logical reason as it relates to national parks. Thus, an illogical law was dropped/removed in favor of law abiding gun owners rights and state rights. As usual, the Brady Bunch and other "don't confuse us with the facts" anti gun types are trying to spin it to scare people.

 

[ZECH]

I guess all the people who were in a panic about Obama taking away their guns should breath little easier.
There was no reason to panic, I guess...there really are more important issues out there.......

WRONG!!!!
He is getting ready to appoint a supreme court justice. The dems are still chomping at the bit to re-enact Clinton's assault weapon ban. The right justice can make this happen.

 

[jmorrison]

There was no reason to panic, I guess...there really are more important issues out there.......

I have to disagree with you on this one Mino.

I served to protect the constitution because I honestly believe that regardless of anyone's faith, ethnicity, or social standing, as Americans, our greatest responsibility to our children and our fellow Americans is to protect our constitution from ourselves.

The constant wearing away of our rights scares the shit out of me to be honest.

I am not a republican, this just happens to be an issue that I tend to right-lean on. I guess I am more of a "conservative moderate"?

 

[min0 lee]

The economy is more important to me I guess, being able to afford a future for my kids is more important.

The lowering the unemployment rate bothers me, too many good people around are losing their jobs and your seeing alot more people who normally won't commit crimes pulling robberies....


........the way thinks are going I may need a tank.

Joking, my point is that to most people guns are more important.

So I stand by what I said, with no disrespect to the gun lovers.

 

[Will Brink]

So I stand by what I said, with no disrespect to the Liberty lovers.

Fixed it for ya'

 

[Burner02]

I have to disagree with you on this one Mino.

I served to protect the constitution because I honestly believe that regardless of anyone's faith, ethnicity, or social standing, as Americans, our greatest responsibility to our children and our fellow Americans is to protect our constitution from ourselves.

The constant wearing away of our rights scares the shit out of me to be honest.

I am not a republican, this just happens to be an issue that I tend to right-lean on. I guess I am more of a "conservative moderate"?

that deserves a Hooah!

I like to think I lean moderate/conservative. I like to think I lean towards common sense.

As far as weapons goes:
if a law abiding citizen wishes to own a personal weapon or several, they wait the cool off period, pass the back ground checks already in-place, there is NO reason why they cannot own weapon(s)
(and no anti-gun person can successfully argue against that point)

Some people are gun collectors.
If someone wants to own a M-60 and have no criminal past, then why cannot they have one? To own a weapon like that costs a lot of $$ to obtain legally. Collectors in this catagory go to pretty good lengths to safe guard their weapons.
Its been shown time and time again, so not going to even look up links/stats that law abiding citizens are not the ones committing the crimes in general. yet, anti-gun idiots are after them, not criminals.

I was thinking of picking an M-4 and deck it out when I get home...but it costs too much $$ to own/operate. I have no other need for one.

However, I do own a 9mm hand gun. I will get a conceal permit when I get home and most likely a shot gun for home protection.

As far as having loaded weapons in a national forest...I do not see a reason why I cannot carry a weapon for protection.
i am not going to go on a killing spree. Most law abiding citizens never will.

I was on a news blog site and someone made a good point:
Most likely you will never have need of a weapon, but then again, you just never know who or what you may encounter out in the back country.
That being said:
Most people that go into the wilderness are lovers of nature and would not want to hurt an animal and do the necesarry steps prescribed to avoid an animal attack.
Sometimes, that does not work and you must protect yourself and your family.