tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 How about this for a diversion, then: Did you get permission from those young ladies to post that? Perv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 not funny. do not egg him on. he will do it. HE WILL SHOW US HIS THINGY. Cocoa, you just ruined my lunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 So, if my "medical history" was different, things could be different between us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Sorry. Humans only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 jeez, you don't even need anyone. you got both plates covered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 jeez, you don't even need anyone. you got both plates covered. a self-fertilizing hermie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Sorry. Still no. To both of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 it's ok. i've moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Acceptance. Good progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 actually, coming to my senses. sorry big guy. the god i invented loves you though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 No difference. Many Gods love me, apparently. I get that alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 The argument for opposing the right to carry guns in national parks is one of preservation. It is much harder to deter poachers if they are allowed to carry large hunting rifles in the open. It really limits a conservation officer to catching poachers in the act instead of preventing the animals from being killed in the first place. Ever see South Park? "That ferocious rabbit is coming straight for me!" How many bear attacks are there really? Isn't the 2nd amendment all about being able to overturn a government that no longer is responsible to it's people? What does that have to do with the National Park system? I brought up the age old anti gun argument a while ago which gives the statistics of children under 15 killed by guns in 26 industrialized nations. The US counted for something like 75% of the deaths in 1995. The cases were relatively few (1500 or so) so of course all of the gun toters jump all over that. To see the same kind of argument brought up over a few hiker deaths is humourous to me. The problem in the US is not the guns it's the people. Almost every Swiss house has a fully automatic weapon and yet gun crime is so low they don't keep statistics. The has nothing to do with everyone being armed and everything to do with wealth and education. Lower poverty and the division of classes and you will reduce crime and then everyone can carry a gun without question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Lower poverty and the division of classes and you will reduce crime and then everyone can carry a gun without question. It can be done...but won't happen. The only way it can be done is to eliminate the amount spent on national defense. What percentage of the tax revenue do the Swiss spend on national defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 What percentage of the tax revenue do the Swiss spend on national defense? 1% of GDP (more relevant than tax revenue) vs. 3.9% of GDP for the US (we spent 3% from 99-01). Switzerland is safe because its a creepy police state with heavy racist overtones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) Switzerland is safe because its a creepy police state with heavy racist overtones. Well cool, then- we're on the right track here at home! Edited February 28, 2008 by StevenSeagal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) Lower poverty and the division of classes and you will reduce crime and then everyone can carry a gun without question. Are you sure? Show me some numbers and you may persuade me, but, for the most part, criminals will be criminals no matter what economic conditions prevail. Want to know why crime decreased under Reagan, Bush, Clinton? We locked more criminals up. I heard a report today that a full 1% of the American population is behind bars. Spare me the small-time drug user anecdote - or show me the numbers - but the violent criminals and drug dealers belong out of society. It's interesting that no one is willing to address the question of 2nd amendment protections in national parks. The question isn't about need, it's about constitutionally protected rights, IMO. Edited February 28, 2008 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It's interesting that no one is willing to address the question of 2nd amendment protections in national parks. The question isn't about need, it's about constitutionally protected rights, IMO. Someone above already mentioned that the 2nd amendment in large is for the right to keep and bear arms for organizing a militia to overthrow the government (which of course could never happen). Nonetheless, if it's just an issue of this sacred right to carry a firearm anywhere you please, then you can't pick solely on parks; again you have to talk about schools, airplanes, airports, public buildings...where else? All these prohibitions have come about through a consideration of mitigating circumstances, and many of them are fully justified (like airplanes, for example). The parks issue I think largely has to do with preventing the poaching of wildlife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I indirectly addressed the 'rights' issue. The point of the National Park system is to preserve nature. A part of this is maintaining a habitat for some of the more sought after prize game which is disappearing (both game and habitat). If you ease up on the regulations protecting this then poachers will take advantage. It's a question of protecting the rights of those that can't demand their rights protected. If you look at the bear related deaths by decade they are few and far between (52 from 1900 to 2003). There is no need to carry a gun in a National Park and there are more important things to argue over. I find the whole gun control argument in the states to be very off target. It seems like a distraction tactic like the whole gay marriage fiasco in the last 2 elections. The Switzerland argument came out of the paper I read concerning the under 15 gun deaths. I haven't done any research to support my claims other than touring there last September. There are many other sociological factors at work there but the crime rate there is incredibly low. I think I saw 2 police cruisers and one tweeker the whole time I was there and the news definitely wasn't filled with sensational reports of the latest shooting. Even the worst part of Zurich was totally tame compared to East Van. I do agree with Hugh that it is an judgmental xenophobic nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 if the concern is against poaching, then why not allow handguns but not rifles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Isn't the 2nd amendment all about being able to overturn a government that no longer is responsible to it's people? What does that have to do with the National Park system? Great.....grab your gun...I will meet you at the white house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 The question isn't about need, it's about constitutionally protected rights, IMO. no right is inviolate, and i prefer my rights to privacy, fair trails and expression far more to guns, which you must admit, were written up in the murkiest fashion possible given the literary talents and wit of those founding-fuckers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 The constitutional case for privacy is not nearly as clear as the second amendment case for citizen gun ownership. Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and chose which inalienable rights we want to deny our fellow law-abiding citizens. I think its ironic that I hear those on the left side of life calling for restrictions on talk radio and media, and, sometimes, the outright banning of firearms--but they cling dearly to this concept of "privacy" which may or may not exist at all, and are horrified that big bro may be listening to an overseas phone call. Priorities. Consistency. Not. "The Founding Fuckers"? I'm surprised to hear a history teacher talk like that. No big deal--some of them had some pretty goofy ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 "The Founding Fuckers"? They were seminal, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 (edited) To lay out the shit everyone already knows about me and don't need to bother using as a point to discredit me with I own guns I hunt I carry a gun with me to my place in Index and back I have had run ins with animals that could damage me The worst ones were the times I didn't have a gun with me I have never killed an animal in self-defense I have been charged by animals aiming to kill me I used to live by the Yellowstone park I have climbed Denali during bear season I've seen a lot of bears. They are scary OK, the boring stuff is over. Should people be able to hunt in Nat'l parks? Absolutely! The herds often grow beyond their space and cause problems. For example, when I lived in WYS, a lot of ranchers lost thier beef b/c bison would carry and transmit brucillus (forgive my spelling) which would kill the cows. Bison were only carriers. They'd outgrown (in numbers) their area and were posing a threat to the livestock that has since moved in and defined the bison's territories. I know that's shitty, but that is what is up. So it is completely reasonable that the park should hold a hunt to get the numbers back down to what they can manage. BTW: Yellowstone allows fishing in its five rivers; and there is a limit. IOW: it is not all catch and release. Hunting in the park would be the same. And to minimize danger to tourists, the hunts can be carried out when other folks aren't there. Winter is great for hunting Elk, Bison, Cougar, and late Bear. Hell, they could sponsor hunts and make a lot of money off it. Now that, my friends, is the American way! Edited February 29, 2008 by archenemy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 The constitutional case for privacy is not nearly as clear as the second amendment case for citizen gun ownership. Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and chose which inalienable rights we want to deny our fellow law-abiding citizens. I think its ironic that I hear those on the left side of life calling for restrictions on talk radio and media, and, sometimes, the outright banning of firearms--but they cling dearly to this concept of "privacy" which may or may not exist at all, and are horrified that big bro may be listening to an overseas phone call. Priorities. Consistency. Not. Have you looked at the Bill of Rights lately? Or are you just listening to Limbaugh? Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. . . . Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Apparently, you wish to ignore the part about the well-regulated militia in the second amendment and the bit about the right of the people to be secure in their homes and warrants only issuing upon probable cause doesn't really matter in the fourth amendment. Consistency. Not. Archie can make a case for hunting in the Parks, but worrying about murderers or arguing the right of any citizen wacko to carry a pistol while ignoring their right to not to be searched and spied upon in their home cannot be justified on Constitutional grounds unless you are really heavily into "interpretation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.