Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A Question for the Gun Folks


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 8/31/2009 8:58:22 PM   
NYLass


Posts: 409
Joined: 12/30/2008
Status: offline
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




       

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


_____________________________

I need a pithy saying here.

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 8/31/2009 10:04:59 PM   
ThatDamnedPanda


Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 6:00:17 AM   
DomImus


Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." Sidney J. harris

(in reply to DomImus)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 9:29:23 AM   
rightwinghippie


Posts: 276
Joined: 8/12/2009
Status: offline
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....


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 9:37:46 AM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to rightwinghippie)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 9:46:32 AM   
rightwinghippie


Posts: 276
Joined: 8/12/2009
Status: offline
You actually watched that?

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 9:46:56 AM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline


_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to rightwinghippie)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 10:42:46 AM   
GreedyTop


Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline
I prefer teh Predator vs Alien methods.....

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to SL4V3M4YB3)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 10:48:10 AM   
SL4V3M4YB3


Posts: 3506
Joined: 12/20/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Memory Lane...been there done that.

(in reply to GreedyTop)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/1/2009 11:49:20 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/2/2009 5:15:00 PM   
Esinn


Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Let's break the law

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/2/2009 8:06:21 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
What an interesting standard of "evidence" you have Esinn. 

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/2/2009 8:17:00 PM   
SpinnerofTales


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/2/2009 8:27:13 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

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.



(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/2/2009 10:33:45 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/3/2009 12:02:30 PM   
tiemeupalso


Posts: 39
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
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

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/3/2009 12:23:40 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

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!


_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/3/2009 12:30:49 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

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!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/3/2009 1:16:13 PM   
SpinnerofTales


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: A Question for the Gun Folks - 9/3/2009 2:25:31 PM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
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?"


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A Question for the Gun Folks Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.078