RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


NYLass -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (8/31/2009 8:58:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

You know, the way this thread has been going, it seems like the question is not "should we bear arms". Its "Should we arm bears"

Damn..I just looked up a few posts and found myself co-opted jokewise




[sm=kiss.gif]       

We might have to really worry if the bears learn to throw a single tail.




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (8/31/2009 10:04:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

So you never know. Shit happens. They're wild animals. If you spend a lot of time in the area where they live, the chances that they're going to do some sort of wild-animal shit to you increases. Still extremely unlikely, but as long as there's a chance, why not take measures to improve your odds? You carry a poncho for when it rains, mosquito repellent for when it mosquitoes - why not a gun for when it bears? It's just a gun. I can't imagine any good reason for not taking one if you're in bear country.



Panda,

Because the risk is very small if proper precautions are taken.

Hell, I run a FAR greater risk from hypothermia or an accident (for which I also prepare, but yes, shit happens). If I started buying stuff just in case, I'd start with a cell phone and a GPS. A gun would just be one more thing to care for and to carry--not a mention potentially dangerous in its own right.

For even better safety? Stay home.

No thanks. I believe in safety and sensible precautions, but not fear over every conceivable possibility. As far as wildlife, a rapid raccoon would be far more dangerous.

I run a far greater risk of dying while driving to work each day.

Live well.


Yeah, and that's all perfectly sensible. We're just coming from two different perspectives, I think. I grew up with guns, carried them as casually and almost as frequently as my pocketknife whenever I went into the woods. To me, it's nothing but a backcountry tool, no different than my compass or my first aid kit. I think that when I lived in Montana, and spent so much time in the mountains, it became second nature to take a powerful handgun every time I went in the woods. When i moved back to Minnesota, there were no grizzlies, but there were still bears, so it just felt perfectly natural to keep carrying (albeit a smaller weapon.) To me, it's as natural as buckling up my seatbelt before I even turn the key in my car. I don't wear my seatbelt because I'm afraid of accidents; i wear it because it's a sensible precaution. To me, the .45 on my belt when I go hiking feels like exactly the same thing. Second nature. It wouldn't occur to me not to carry it, any more than I wouldn't carry my compass.

I suppose the other thing, as I think about it, is that for a  solo hiker like me a gun is good for more than just shooting it out with bears. I spend a lot of time winter hiking, on some very treacherous trails miles from the nearest road, and I'm always alone. Typical night-time lows where I go winter hiking are 20, even 30 below zero fahrenheit. I carry a winter survival kit, but still - if i step into a crevasse beneath the snow and break an ankle, or tumble halfway down an icy cliff, I'm going to be out there on my own a damned long time unless I have a way of signalling for help. It's not uncommon for me to be hiking along a clifftop in late January, and suddenly notice I'm the first person to make footprints on that trail all winter. 3 extra 8-round clips for the .45 are packed in the winter survival pack at all times. I suppose it could well be that that's a big reason I consider the gun so essential. I don't  know; it's food for thought. Either way, I'd no sooner go camping with a gun than without a tent. It just would never  occur to me not to take it.




DomImus -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 6:00:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus
"I have to ask....are any of you willing to admit that Obama actually did something to uphold your ability to keep and bear arms?"

Yes, he did something to uphold my ability to keep and bear arms.


On second thought I would like to change my answer. Obama didn't attach that rider to the bill. While I do not support special interest riders that are attached to bills like this I have to give credit where credit is due. The folks who are responsible for the rider did something to uphold my ability to keep and bear arms. Obama only decided not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.






rightwinghippie -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 9:29:23 AM)

quote:

http://www.foggymountain.com/black_bear_2.shtml

if you encounter a cub, run.
if you encounter an adult bear, don't run.


Mnot, the unsurprising thing, is there is nothing on that page at all that backs up what you are saying. It must be a compulsion on your part or something. (figure you have enough credibility that people won't look and you can pretend you refuted what I said with a source??)

You wil never find a wilderness saftey source that says when in the presence of a wild animal show fear and run. You never will. Never. Its terrible advice. If you are aware of a cub, the momma is aware of you (99% of the time), and can be on your ass faster than you can blink. Bears aren't good distance runners, but in a quarter mile....





SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 9:37:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rightwinghippie
You wil never find a wilderness saftey source that says when in the presence of a wild animal show fear and run. You never will. Never. Its terrible advice. If you are aware of a cub, the momma is aware of you (99% of the time), and can be on your ass faster than you can blink. Bears aren't good distance runners, but in a quarter mile....

I was watching Rambo First Blood Part 2 the other day and I'll think you'll find the correct answer is to strip half naked cover yourself in clayey soil and become one with the forest. Then once the bear has his back to you emerge out of the background and snap the bears neck.




rightwinghippie -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 9:46:32 AM)

You actually watched that?




SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 9:46:56 AM)

[:D]




GreedyTop -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 10:42:46 AM)

I prefer teh Predator vs Alien methods.....




SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 10:48:10 AM)

Funny you should mention Predator Ms GreedyTop I also saw the original Predator the other day where the Governor of California finds himself up against an invisible blur with infra red vision. To combat this blight he must strip half naked and cover himself in a super heat masking clay I didn't know existed. In reality sooner or later the clay would be of the same body temperature as the man so I don't know how it made him invisible in the long run.[8|]




popeye1250 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/1/2009 11:49:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

I can't see why a National (or State) Park would be any different than anywhere else. The Constitution does quite specifically say the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed"....seems to me that covers the national Park issue pretty well.


Ditto. Do they limit "where" we can excercise our *first* amendment rights?




Esinn -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/2/2009 5:15:00 PM)

So, the conclusion here is anti-Obama punks spread lies about him during the campaign.  Now we have evidence which demonstrates the lies were BS.

Correct?




luckydawg -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/2/2009 8:06:21 PM)

What an interesting standard of "evidence" you have Esinn. 




SpinnerofTales -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/2/2009 8:17:00 PM)

quote:

Ditto. Do they limit "where" we can excercise our *first* amendment rights? ORIGINAL: popeye1250





The difference being that when some idiot shoots his mouth off, people don't usually die.




Kirata -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/2/2009 8:27:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

The difference being that when some idiot shoots his mouth off, people don't usually die.

You're right, I feel fine.

K.






rulemylife -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/2/2009 10:33:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

I can't see why a National (or State) Park would be any different than anywhere else. The Constitution does quite specifically say the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed"....seems to me that covers the national Park issue pretty well.


Ditto. Do they limit "where" we can excercise our *first* amendment rights?


Free speech zones?




tiemeupalso -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/3/2009 12:02:30 PM)

for anyone that dont think that the democrats are trying to take away your rights might want to read this bill that is now being considered.HR45
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45
pay close attention to SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
it was introduced 6 jan 09 and has been referred to committee.
here ar ethe committees it has been refered to...........
House Judiciary
House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security




popeye1250 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/3/2009 12:23:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

I can't see why a National (or State) Park would be any different than anywhere else. The Constitution does quite specifically say the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed"....seems to me that covers the national Park issue pretty well.


Ditto. Do they limit "where" we can excercise our *first* amendment rights?


Free speech zones?



Yes but that's only in Boston at the Democratic National Conventon!




popeye1250 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/3/2009 12:30:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Ditto. Do they limit "where" we can excercise our *first* amendment rights? ORIGINAL: popeye1250





The difference being that when some idiot shoots his mouth off, people don't usually die.




Spinner, it's the job of *our goverment* to protect *ALL* of our rights!




SpinnerofTales -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/3/2009 1:16:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Spinner, it's the job of *our goverment* to protect *ALL* of our rights!


Very few of our rights have been judged absolute. For example, there is the famous example that freedom of speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (although you do have the right to yell "Theater!" in a crowded fire.
Likewise, it has been a longstanding constitutional practice that incitement to riot or to commit other illegal activities are protected speech. Likewise, the right of a citizen to vote can be permanantly suspended by their conviction of felony and that action judged constitutionally sound.

Likewise, it has been held by the supreme court that the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute. If it were, anyone could legally obtain such things as fully automatic weapons, "cop killer" bullets and cannons. Any licensing of these would be unconstitutional as the denying of any of a license would infringe on their second amendment rights. In short, anyone could go around with any weapon, open or concealed at any time, any place for any reason.

Since this is not the case, nor do I think it should be, where one can carry a firearm is not a contravention of the constitution but rather a vaild exercise of it's interpetation by case after case settled by the arbitor of constitutionality, the supreme court.




Loki45 -> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks (9/3/2009 2:25:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Spinner, it's the job of *our goverment* to protect *ALL* of our rights!


Like the right "to *life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125