Guns in National Parks

I have no anger in the issue.

I have studied the philosophers in question and I just want to clarify the positions that they took.

Hobbes was kind of extreme in his views, Rawls on the other hand was more pragmatic. Granted Rawls' system was more experimental, but his process of achieving his goal was more oriented to achieving peace and recognizing the ignorance that society can have when it comes to making rules.

I do not agree with Hobbes' view of always being in a state of war and that achieving peace in society is impossible or difficult to obtain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singlewedge

I have no anger in the issue.

---

You don't seem to! Yours is the most thought-provoking (i.e., not based in raw emotion) posting on a gun-related thread that I have seen in a long time, and is much appreciated.

right
now I'm a coward

this is called an ad hominem attack folks

it happens when someone can't attack an argument so they attack the person making it
in other words he called me a chicken

actually them were several ad hominem attacks here
the main being that average people can't be trusted with guns

I other words, these people think you are all idiots
everyone who ever visited a national park is an incompetent boob who can not be trusted with a gun
even though I drove my family there and could have crashed the car
even though I have dozens of hours in small planes and could have crashed into any number of things
even though I have worked in the food industry and could have poisoned some large number of people very easily

no, no, if I get a gun I'm just going to go hog wild
never mind that I can carry one into the grocery store, on a subway, into the fair, etc etc etc


another illogical argument is that allowing guns will turn someplace into the wild west
it never has, it never will (not even the wild west, look it up)

this horse is so dead it has started to stink

since we have apparently decided that attacking our fellow forum members is the only way to feel like a big man (ooh, see? I did it too but mine are less thinly veiled because I'm not a coward ... ooh did it again!)


it is your right to disagree with me sir, but it will not change that fact that you are wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igitur55

There's that fear again. My wife hikes all the time in the National Parks, and is nowhere near as scared as you.

---

it's not about fear, it's about preparedness. see previous comments about owning fire extinguishers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

right
now I'm a coward

this is called an ad hominem attack folks

it happens when someone can't attack an argument so they attack the person making it
in other words he called me a chicken

actually them were several ad hominem attacks here
the main being that average people can't be trusted with guns

I other words, these people think you are all idiotsI do not think that anyone here used or insinuated that anyone was an idiot
everyone who ever visited a national park is an incompetent boob who can not be trusted with a gunUm... I lived two hours from Yellowstone and visited frequently. I do not consider myself a boob, regardless of gun ownership.
even though I drove my family there and could have crashed the car
even though I have dozens of hours in small planes and could have crashed into any number of things
even though I have worked in the food industry and could have poisoned some large number of people very easily

no, no, if I get a gun I'm just going to go hog wild
never mind that I can carry one into the grocery store, on a subway, into the fair, etc etc etcI do not think that gun owners will go, to use your words, hog wild in any given situation. It is only the criminals or the people that have something to prove that go wild.


another illogical argument is that allowing guns will turn someplace into the wild west
it never has, it never will (not even the wild west, look it up)Not going there

this horse is so dead it has started to stink

since we have apparently decided that attacking our fellow forum members is the only way to feel like a big man (ooh, see? I did it too but mine are less thinly veiled because I'm not a coward ... ooh did it again!)Personally I think this is a childish statement. There are no personal attacks only POVs.


it is your right to disagree with me sir, but it will not change that fact that you are wrongAgain POV

---

With respect please see above comments in red.

As an edit I would like to say this. All comments on this thread are POV and not an attack. If a POV is perceived as an attack I would think a better way to address the message would be to say something like:

That is an interestin POV, but what about this or this how does that fit in.

That method of disagreement seems to go farther to further an argument than the perception of always being attacked or labeling people and/or arguments as attackers. When in point of fact they are doing nothing but disagreeing with your stated position.

Lets try and keep this civil and impersonal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

it's not about fear, it's about preparedness. see previous comments about owning fire extinguishers.

---

You know, I don't think it is about either of those things. Most Americans respect the rights of others to own firearms - I know I do. It is sort of ingrained, a right that people in many countries do not enjoy. But, the difference with this particular law is that it interferes with how other Americans live their lives. This law interferes with my right to enjoy my time in our National Parks without thinking that maybe every second person I encounter may be packing, and may like my kit or my mountain-bling enough to shoot me in the face for it. That might not sound like a big deal to many people, but it is a huge infringement on me, and I especially object to the fact that I perceive it being driven by pure politics and by gun manufacturers thinking solely of the bottom line, and not about how actual Americans live their actual lives.

A very good friend of mine thanks her dog (also not allowed in national parks) for her very life. On a backpacking trip she was approached by a very intimidating man with a large knife, he began making insinutating remarks verging on threats. Had her dog not been with her and trained to bark (agressively) on command, she believes very strongly that today she would not be here. She knows that guy could have killed her dog and she is not sure her dogs life would have bought her enough time to escape. This incident is one of the major factors in her decision to own and carry a gun.

I as her friend am happy that she will be more comfortable if she ever chooses to camp in a National Park

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by igitur55

You know, I don't think it is about either of those things. Most Americans respect the rights of others to own firearms - I know I do. It is sort of ingrained, a right that people in many countries do not enjoy. But, the difference with this particular law is that it interferes with how other Americans live their lives. This law interferes with my right to enjoy my time in our National Parks without thinking that maybe every second person I encounter may be packing, and may like my kit or my mountain-bling enough to shoot me in the face for it. That might not sound like a big deal to many people, but it is a huge infringement on me, and I especially object to the fact that I perceive it being driven by pure politics and by gun manufacturers thinking solely of the bottom line, and not about how actual Americans live their actual lives.

---

My bull**** meter just went over the top.

Until the passage of this every single person you passed in a a National Park might have been armed (illegally) and have decided to kill you for the crap you have on you. The same as it is on every street in this country

It is the same today.

With one small exception.

Someone who is armed legally today might be willing to help you out while the guy who is still armed illegally is trying to take your ****.



By the way

Your rights do not include the right to limit mine for your own comfort. You do not have the right not to be offended. Though you do have a right to make all the foolish statements you want to. And now My God given right to defend my life has been restored at least in some small measure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildtim

By the way

Your rights do not include the right to limit mine for your own comfort. You do not have the right not to be offended. Though you do have a right to make all the foolish statements you want to. And now My God given right to defend my life has been restored at least in some small measure

---

OK, so much of what you have to offer is fear again (please see prior posts) ... the female friend whose life was threatened but quite possibly saved by her dog (not a gun) from a credible threat. And the rest is about rights, and how I am forbidden from trampling on them. However, I think you will agree that that is the very issue in this thread. You do not currently enjoy the right to carry firearms in National Parks. That is not covered completely by the Second Amendment, any more than you are allowed to carry a firearm in my home (you may not by the way, even though you are welcome to bring one or more straight razors--go figure). After the President signs this new Bill into law, you will have a legal (though not necessarily Constitutional) right to carry one or more of your firearms in any National Park.

:HJ:OTWell for one thing one could argue that the second amendment ALLOWS me to carry a firearm on national land. Because, if I was near enough to a town that required a standing militia then I would be duty bound to use that firearm for defense of that town and its people. Thin yes, but I am not a constitutional lawyer.

Second the Second Amendment is for standing militias and is not the subject of this thread.

BACK ON TOPIC

I think that no one will argue that times have changed and people have gotten flakier. When your grandpa went to a National park the only thing they had to worry about was Yogi. Even when your grandpa walked down the street, gangs, hoodlums, and other malcontents were there but not in the numbers that we see today.

Safety first. It is like I said in my other posts society has laws, National Parks have laws. Those laws are there to benefit the many and harm as few as possible. The only way to say that you are harmed by societies laws are to not patriate, write an elected official, or start a grass roots movement to get the law overturned. As was pointed out it is a law not a right. Rights are given privileges and can be taken away, laws are rules that we must obey to keep the society we live in happy for the most part.