2nd Amendment freedoms restored in National Parks?

[Hugh Conway]

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!

 

I'm much more in favour of hunting the tourists in the park. Yellowstone would be great - I could bag tourists from all 50 states

[Fairweather]

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, COMMA 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."

Sounds to me like you're the one into "re-interpretation", Matt.

[sexual_chocolate]

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.

 

are you serious? i can see making a case for yes, a Constitutionally mandated right to gun ownership, but please be consistent.

[prole]

I'm much more in favour of hunting the tourists in the park. Yellowstone would be great - I could bag tourists from all 50 states

 

Better yet, let's hunt the hunters. As we all know, man is the most dangerous game.

[prole]

[glassgowkiss]

I've never felt threatened by any wildlife here in Washington State. The gun, if I carry it, is for trail head idiots of the human kind.

yes, after reading your shit i must admit your are most definitely one of them......

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

someone mentioned rednecks shooting up at TH's. how about we redeploy the TH pass Nazis to find these crazed rednecks and arrest or shoot them instead of ticketing folks who don't have a pass on their windshields.

[hafilax]

Archie: So you want to make the National Parks into Game Reserves? I see your point but I would rather see them increase the available land before they allow hunting. I haven't looked at a map but are the National Parks entirely hemmed in by development so that this would be impossible?

 

I've had many bear encounters tree planting and wished I'd had my bear spray on me once. There is no way I would carry the weight of a gun planting. I would carry a high power rifle in polar bear territory but they are known to hunt people. Pistols are useless against bears IMO. My supervisor shot a grizzly six times with a defender that was threatening 2 crew members and it ran of into the woods dying a while later. It certainly would have had the strength to kill had it encountered a person in its last minutes.

 

Bear bangers and pepper spray are enough for me although an assault on a person using pepper spray is probably just as effective as a gun. It wouldn't be fatal mind you. We have Charlie Russell's movie The Edge of Eden in which he raises orphaned bear cubs in a remote region of Russia. He walked amongst Grizzlies daily and they didn't threaten him once, only the cubs he was 'mothering'. In the movie he pepper sprays a cannibalistic male. It was very effective.

 

This is of course an extreme example given that it was in the remotest part of Russia. The Kamchatka region is a Grizzly reserve but poachers bought off the land wardens and killed every bear they could in the park in around 2002 including the ones Charlie had raised.

 

Anyway, it would be a shame to put any of the animals that have made a come back in the National Parks back on the endangered species list by loosening the regulations that have aided in their recovery. I still don't see any NEED to have a gun in a National Park.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

If herds need to be thinned in National Parks, then pay the rangers to do it. No need for hunters.

[mattp]

please be consistent.

 

Neither our esteemed Mr. Fairweather nor any other Conservative has ever tried to be "consistent" around here except that, in his interpretations espoused here, he is consistent in ignoring the Constitutional language he doesn't like. Strict Constructionists? Huh? They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism."

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

I've never felt threatened by any wildlife here in Washington State. The gun, if I carry it, is for trail head idiots of the human kind.

yes, after reading your shit i must admit your are most definitely one of them......

 

Fortunately for American citizens, your green card won't get you a permit, tool.

[Fairweather]

please be consistent.

 

Neither our esteemed Mr. Fairweather nor any other Conservative has ever tried to be "consistent" around here except that, in his interpretations espoused here, he is consistent in ignoring the Constitutional language he doesn't like. Strict Constructionists? Huh? They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism."

 

 

 

That has to be one of the worst cases of Pot/Kettle/Black I've ever heard on this site. Weren't you the one who wanted to ban talk radio and imprison ABC-TV execs? Gimme a break.

[mattp]

Fairweather, you need new reading glasses:

 

They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism."

[Fairweather]

Fairweather, you need new reading glasses:

 

They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism."

 

Yes, Matt, I'm talking about you.

[mattp]

?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Fairweather, you need new reading glasses:

 

They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism."

 

you need to read more attentively, jump to conclusions less, and cease falsely attributing positions and beliefs to people

[Fairweather]

?

?? I think you need to lay off the Celebrex for a while.

[mattp]

You need to learn to read. The Bill of Rights says what it says, yet you want to ignore parts of it. As to our current discussion, scroll up and re-read this thread. I clearly acknowledged that you and other conservatives have no corner on the market when it comes to being inconsistent. I have not ever stated that everything I say is consistent, nor did I berate you for being inconsistent.

[Fairweather]

Say WHAT?

Neither our esteemed Mr. Fairweather nor any other Conservative has ever tried to be "consistent" around here except that, in his interpretations espoused here, he is consistent in ignoring the Constitutional language he doesn't like. Strict Constructionists? Huh? They pick and choose which freedoms matter just as much as anybody else and then they howl about "moral relativism."

 

 

 

With tidbits like these thrown in:

 

 

Have you looked at the Bill of Rights lately? Or are you just listening to Limbaugh?

 

 

Fairweather, you need new reading glasses:

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

You need to learn to read. The Bill of Rights says what it says, yet you want to ignore parts of it. As to our current discussion, scroll up and re-read this thread. I clearly acknowledged that you and other conservatives have no corner on the market when it comes to being inconsistent. I have not ever stated that everything I say is consistent, nor did I berate you for being inconsistent.

 

do you always talk to homeless lunatics on the street?

[StevenSeagal]

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

mother's little helper

[prole]

If herds need to be thinned in National Parks, then pay the rangers to do it. No need for hunters.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. And that scares me.

[mattp]

Wait a second. You, Fairweather, are unhappy because you think I was caustic?

 

Back to the second and fourth amendments. How is your position here "consistent?"? Under the second amendment, any paranoiac who thinks he needs to carry a gun to protect himself is entitled to do so, but under the fourth amendment the government can eavesdrop with no warrant and no probable cause to do so?

[Fairweather]

You need to learn to read. The Bill of Rights says what it says, yet you want to ignore parts of it. As to our current discussion, scroll up and re-read this thread. I clearly acknowledged that you and other conservatives have no corner on the market when it comes to being inconsistent. I have not ever stated that everything I say is consistent, nor did I berate you for being inconsistent.

 

I think it is you that has a reading comprehension problem, Matt. Here is what I said:

"The constitutional case for privacy is not nearly as clear as the second amendment case for citizen gun ownership."

Exactly how does that statement render me inconsistent? You are one who has stated your disdain for the second amendment in past posts. Like you stated above; it says what it says--and, frankly, private gun ownership is pretty much settled law at this point. You have a peculiar way of turning the world on its head when you argue--and not just with me. I'm not sure if this is a muddy the water strategy you like to employ, or if it is simply something that has served you well over the course of your many, many days. No matter, it's weak, transparent, and, yes, annoying. Good day.