Patterson welcomes return of Second Amendment rights to some National Parks

[RichardM]

Regarding crazy/irresponsible people with guns....um, crazy/irresponsible people aren't going to pay attention to a gun ban law or a sign on the side o f the road that says, no guns...duh.

The same can be said for just about every law.  Laws don't prevent crime, they attempt to deter it and provide for a means of punishment of those who disobey.  The only positive aspect of the current NPS gun ban that I can see is it might convince those individuals who are "borderline irresponsible" to not use their guns for entertainment.  "But we was just plinking at some old tin cans, officer!"

[badknees]

When the proposal passes, law abiding citizens can legally carry a concealed handgun in the park. A victory for 2nd ammendment rights.

Some are not comfortable with that, some are. Not much else to say.

[presidio]

Please tell me of an incident in Big Bend NP that anyone has had personally where you needed a loaded firearm.

Well, for one, I imagine the fellow who was murdered in his tent in Pine Springs some years ago would have like to have had some way to defend himself. There were no rangers there to protect him; and one of the pervasive mantras is that the rangers are there to protect you so you don't need a weapon. That would be BS and in a large pile. The crime has never been solved. Does murder make the cut??????

The statement above does not appear to be a personal account and is just a random incident with no real bite to it.

You can nitpick and trivialize all you want. It wasn't a random incident, and it had VERY real bite to the victim. But, gee, it doesn't meet your narrow parameter for facts. That attitude speaks volumes.

[presidio]

Here is the link to the Susanna Hupp congressonal testimony.

Chuck 'ban guns' Schumer is on the panel and he could not appear more disinterested and bored while she is speaking.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/M-CfBZsA_wQ&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/M-CfBZsA_wQ&rel=0</a>

This gal spoke from personal experience, something Schumer and his buddies Clinton & Clinton, Obama, Kerry and Kennedy have no exposure to. Most of them are protected by heavily armed Secret Service people. It's easy to be dismissive of public concerns if you don't share them.

Of course, the folks who understand this don't need to hear it and those who do need to understand what the 2nd Amendment means don't want to hear and aren't listening. Ignorance is bliss.

[LandCruisers4Life]

What most anti-gun people do not understand, is one of the reasons citizen are allowed to have guns. When is the last time the United States was invaded? That should tell you. Countries are invaded, and the people depend on a sad military force to defend them, and where does it get them?

The people are armed for two reasons. 1st, to overthrow their own government if it should get out of hand - this is covered under the 'domestic' umbrella in that "Guard against all enemies, Foreign, and Domestic" oath that all people who have served and are serving in the US Military take. 2nd, Domestic also being foreigners who are overtaking our country by invasion.

Nobody invades the USA. They would be nuts, considering how many people own firearms. People who don't own, don't want, don't approve sleep well at night because of people like myself who are ready to do what is necessary at any time. My oath I took as a Marine didn't stop when my enlistment was up, it's for life. To protect and serve this nation in times when needed.

[presidio]

People who don't own, don't want, don't approve sleep well at night because of people like myself who are ready to do what is necessary at any time.

If you haven't already seen this quote...it is applicable:

'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because of rough men willing to do violence on their behalf'. --George Orwell

Folks who are anti-gun have that luxury because people who aren't have paid high dues in order to safeguard the opposition's ability to deny a fundamental underpinning of a free society. The cost and need is entirely lost on the crowd that sees nothing wrong with incrementally and voluntarily giving up their rights. 

[SHANEA]

Fine, bring your guns into Big Bend once they change the laws.  I don't care.  I don't think they are needed and I see no reason to carry one.  Just don't bring them around me and don't bring them into my camp.  I'll post a sign at my camp, No Guns Allowed at This Campsite.  That's my 1st and 2nd Amendment Right.  If I'm wandering over to the privy one night and you mistake me for a bear, then you better dang sure make sure that I'm dead, otherwise I'll sue you for everything you've got.  I've got a great "dream" team of lawyers already paid for standing by. 

I have also exercised my 1st Amendment Right, remember the 1st Amendment is the Most Important for a Reason - that is why it is the 1st, and have made my comments known @ http://www.doi.gov/ and I've emailed everyone on my personal email list, some 300 people, to respond to this asking that firearms be KEPT OUT OF NATIONAL PARKS.   

Of course, when the Supreme Court's ruling is made public this June/July on the recent case, it may all be for naught. 

[SHANEA]

Bullets Over Big Bend

[SHANEA]

I understand, through back door channels, that the surface lease between the Christmas Mountains Association and the GLO has been canceled.

[presidio]

Just don't bring them around me and don't bring them into my camp.  I'll post a sign at my camp, No Guns Allowed at This Campsite.

That's a mighty bold statement. However, it's all empty hat. While you may be able to declare such a stance on your private property, you can't do it on public property. You don't make the rules for public places. Your only recourse would be to stay home and that clearly would be your safest course of action.

[Undertaker]

If you want to rank amendments, right under free speech is the second amendment, this is all I will say regarding this discussion as no one is going to change their mind. Even though the Brady Group raved everyone will be shooting one another on the streets, did not happen. Do what you want I will obey the law which ever way it goes, I just hope I can afford the fuel to drive to the bend.

[Al]

In the Who Cares Department, I'll repeat my opinion.  If one is legally carrying a firearm in the state one is in, one should not be in violation of the rules solely if one happens to be driving through a park.

Al

[badknees]

Just don't bring them around me and don't bring them into my camp.  I'll post a sign at my camp, No Guns Allowed at This Campsite.

That's a mighty bold statement. However, it's all empty hat. While you may be able to declare such a stance on your private property, you can't do it on public property. You don't make the rules for public places. Your only recourse would be to stay home and that clearly would be your safest course of action.

Unfortunately for ShaneA, his camp is not HIS camp. Sounds like a temper tantrum to me.

[badknees]

I've got a great "dream" team of lawyers already paid for standing by. 

Your money would be better spent on gas. (or Starbucks if you are so inclined)

[presidio]

I've got a great "dream" team of lawyers already paid for standing by. 

Your money would be better spent on gas. (or Starbucks if you are so inclined)

Nah, let him hire the lawyers. They've got to eat, too. Plus, there's plenty of attorneys who will support a cause as long as the client is paying, and will be happy to file all kinds of frivolous motions. It's sort of like how NYC keeps trying to sue gun manufacturers with all sorts of bogus claims. They get shut down every time, but never learn the lesson and come back for more. I'm sure the populace of the city is in full support of their tax money being wasted in such a manner.

Feel slighted or offended? Sue, or threaten to. It's the liberal way. Just don't do it to them, because they then will cry 'foul'.