Guns In National Parks Amendment

[6thGen]

Are there any valid reasons not to? You are clearly seeing this from the wrong angle Bob.

Bob is looking at it from the angle of the police officer at a check point who asks if there's a reason he shouldn't search your car.

 

[steyou]

After reading over this thread, it's clear to me the "gun nuts" aren't the only people suffering from an extreme case paranoia.

Individual liberties should be respected even if you disagree with the way they are expressed. People pooping on the flag or carrying a gun in public - these and others are rights we should all defend.

Dead on, so to speak.

 

[poppy]

Bob is looking at it from the angle of the police officer at a check point who asks if there's a reason he shouldn't search your car.

In what country is this check point you speak of?

 

[scooterbug44]

National parks have special rules designed to preserve and conserve places we have found to be so special that we gave them land, funds, and a staff to help in that goal.

Continuing to ban guns from them for the practical reasons of preventing poaching and public safety is basic common sense, not a trampling of liberty.

I have never wanted or needed a gun in a national park, there is no animal you can legally shoot in a national park, there is nothing you need to protect yourself from in a national park (very low crime rates for you wanna-be dirty harry types), and the mere discharging of a gun in a national park destroys the very purpose the parks were created for.

The people most familiar with the day to day working of our park system join me in not wanting this changed, as do the majority of the americans polled on the issue.

A gun is anathema to everything a national park stands for and anyone who thinks they need a gun to enjoy one obviously has no idea of their mission or spirit.

 

[Bob]

Yes, Bob. We are all aware that you have little respect for the Founders.

if you wish to characterize the "fathers" as theocratic rednecks, by all means, have at it. i would disagree. massive population growth will always mitigate unfettered liberty.

 

[Bob]

Are there any valid reasons not to? Clearly you are seeing this from the wrong angle Bob.

public safety in a venue full of families/campers/hikers.

 

[Bob]

In what country is this check point you speak of?

he's making it up on the fly to deflect the lack of logic

 

[6thGen]

he's making it up on the fly to deflect the lack of logic

No, if you wish to strip someone of a right spelled out in the Constitution, you must first have an overwhelming reason to do so. If I applied your litmus test to foreign combatants we'd have a hell of a lot more folks at Gitmo.

 

[Bob]

Bob, that was pretty funny. It took me 10 minutes to get up from the floor laughing. I forgot my visine today so my eyes are going to be red all day. Thanks

next time you happen by the wal mart sporting goods counter and ask for ammo, consider the answer they give you, and then think of all those rhodes scholars hoarding bullets for the next civil war. like i said, "low on thought, high on feelings".

 

[Bob]

No, if you wish to strip someone of a right spelled out in the Constitution, you must first have an overwhelming reason to do so. If I applied your litmus test to foreign combatants we'd have a hell of a lot more folks at Gitmo.

the right is rightly vague and, of course, not without limit. were there a need to bring weaponry into national parks, i would support the proposal. the second amendment is alive and well, and can coexist with common sense.