What's your opinion? Doesn't this sound like more bullying by the gun lobby? Please leave a comment.According to the National Parks Conservation Association, the bill would open much of the National Park System to hunting and recreational shooting. The group contends that the proposed law includes “an exemption of sorts” only for units of the National Park System specifically designated as national parks or national monuments — such as the Blue Ridge Parkway and Carl Sandburg Home Historic Site.Known as the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, the bill’s sponsors called it a “landmark legislative package” to protect and advance opportunities for outdoor sportsmen across the country, according to a recent news release from U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler’s office.The 397 units of the National Park System include a multitude of designations, the association argued, including national military parks like Gettysburg, national memorials like Wright Brothers, the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and Flight 93, national historical parks like San Antonio Missions and Harper’s Ferry and many others.
Bullying? How so? Only bunny huggers have the right to use national lands? Or is it the fact that Shuler introduced HR 822 along with Stearns that bugs you?
ReplyDeletemikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteWell, shit, dude, they gotz to haz teh gunz, 'cuz how else they gonna shoot allathem quadrapedaperps? I was at Sequoia National Park and seen a black bear who looked quite threatening to me (I could tell that he was only runnin' away so's he could get on my backtrail and bearbushwhack me later!). Why, if I'da had me gun, say a AR-15 notfullyautomaticnotbattleriflebutjustacarbine with a 30 round box magazine I woulda saved some other folks lives AND got myself a nice rug into the bargain, yessir!
"Only bunny huggers have the right to use national lands?".
You're a moron. A lot of folks who are anything but "bunny huggers" like to hike, climb, camp and see LIVE animals such as elk, moose, other deer, wolves, coyotes, foxes, bison, mountain goats and other forms of wildlife--outside of cages or zoo "habitats"--in the national parks.
You unzoolonz (assholez wit teh gunz) are either so fucking paranoid that you shouldn't leave your own homes or you're just selfish pricks--probably a lot of overlap there. I'm thinking that when some idiots have gunz that every large mammal that they see is gonna look like he might be a tentinvadin'sylvaterrarist! When idiotz wit teh gunz go into the forest, animals get quiet and invisible or they get dead. I'm sure that's fine with you and your insecure gunzloonzpalz.
I thought you were ok with hunting?
DeleteI'm ok with hunting. I'm not ok with hunting on national or state parks. Wildlife and the appreciation of it is something that belongs to all of us pro and anti hunting. Let them shoot the wildlife somewhere else. Our parks are neutral territory, and the gun jerks have already done more than enough damage in vandalism etc. I would prefer that guns were not allowed by anyone other than rangers and other law enforcement. I don't trust some of you - people like Greg who are clearly imbeciles - to use good judgment, because they routinely demonstrate they are idiots who cannot think rationally.
DeleteCivil societies are not societies where everyone goes about prepared to exert deadly force. Those people who do so are vulgar barbarians, not to mention frequently a danger to themselves and others.
I would put guns in parks in the same category as smokers not being allowed to smoke inside buildings.
DeleteIt is a legal activity, but it is one that puts others at risk, so it has been banned. It is banned in restaurants, it is banned in most public buildings, and it never was acceptable in church. While there are considerate and responsible smokers, there are also pleanty of inconsiderate ones who would force their guns on us like their second hand smoke, all the while claiming it is their FREEDUMB to do what they want whether it hurts us or not. Just as cigarette butts dirty up our public spaces, gun butts do too (they're ugly).
But Dog Gone, for a territory to be neutral, it must be used by neither side, since uses are the point of disagreement. Of course, it would be such an imposition to open a hunting season in parks. Such seasons last all of what, a few weeks?
DeleteIn addition, I'm still waiting for your definition of rational thinking. So far, all you've shown is that it means "ban guns" to you.
"I would prefer that guns were not allowed by anyone other than rangers and other law enforcement."
DeleteWhy should the park rangers and other law enforcement need guns if no one else in the park has them? According to you people that carry guns are "vulgar barbarians, not to mention frequently a danger to themselves and others" - does that include the law enforcement above?
Dog Gone, can you really not distinguish between guns and tobacco? There is no safe dose for tobacco. There's no safe way to use it. Every use of tobacco is damaging. In small doses, a person can recover, but the point is that any time someone smokes or dips or otherwise, harm is occurring. Second-hand smoke is harmful to others.
DeleteGuns, by contrast, can be used safely and without harming any innocent person. You may not be capable of using guns safely, but don't project your own inability onto others.
Good one, like smoking in public buildings.
DeleteIs smoking allowed in natural and state parks?
DeleteMikeb, I can understand banning actual smoking in public buildings, but what Dog Gone wants is the equivalent of banning possession of cigarettes in the same. I have no problem with a requirement that I am not to discharge my firearm in a public building, except during an emergency.
DeleteDog gone: "I'm ok with hunting. I'm not ok with hunting on national or state parks."
DeleteDid you read the text that Mike pasted?
the bill would open much of the National Park System to hunting and recreational shooting. The group contends that the proposed law includes “an exemption of sorts” only for units of the National Park System specifically designated as national parks or national monuments
The national park system encompasses more than just the land designated as national parks- as in national forests, etc. It sounds like you are actually ok with this bill, yes?
Hunting, IIRC, is already permitted in some national parks and numerous wild life preserves. One of the problems with the modern world is that the predators for many species have been extirpated from their natural ranges. Therefore, state and federal "conservation" departments aid and abet the hunters in "culling the herd" although they don't generally do it in the same way as natural predator, i.e., taking the sick, the weak and the very young and very old--which they have a higher probability of taking--then vigorous, healthy specimens in their prime. Still, I don't have any problem with legitimate hunters. Since many, if not the majority of National Parks either have no hunting season, or a very limited one, permitting weapons in the park at other times is nonsense.
ReplyDelete"but what Dog Gone wants is the equivalent of banning possession of cigarettes in the same."
Bullshit.
dog gone's idea of banning gunz is for the same reason that smoking is banned (and would have the same effect) in many places. Responsible people would follow the law, irresponsible people (that 10% or more or of the OLAGO that mikeb302000 talks about) would not.
Of course it could work out even better for teh gunzloonz than the stand your ground laws have. You see a griz, you shoot the griz and THEN you pitch your tent ten feet from it's carcass, now that's HUNTIN!
Democommie, banning actual smoking in public buildings makes sense, because tobacco smoke is harmful. Banning the random discharge of a firearm in the same location makes sense for the same reason. But the possession of cigarettes or a handgun isn't harmful per se.
Delete