2nd Amendment restored in National Parks

[tvashtarkatena]

Very cool news indeed, though I won't be carrying while climbing... but DEFINITELY when visiting parks in AK, MT, etc.

 

No, you probably won't. The restrictions go park by park, and I doubt that Denali NP, for example, given their appropriate 'wildlife comes first' policy, is going to suddenly cater to dumbshit yahoos who don't know how to travel safely in bear country.

 

My advice if you're too lazy or stupid to learn how to travel safely in bear country is to stay in the safe little toy parks where there are none.

 

The quickness in which you produced such an influentcial and "informed" opinion (not only about my motivations, but what the NPS is actually going to do) is staggering.

 

That might have had something to do with the comprehensive NYT article I'd just read on the topic.

 

Reading is for cool kids!

[faster_than_you]

Very cool news indeed, though I won't be carrying while climbing... but DEFINITELY when visiting parks in AK, MT, etc.

 

No, you probably won't. The restrictions go park by park, and I doubt that Denali NP, for example, given their appropriate 'wildlife comes first' policy, is going to suddenly cater to dumbshit yahoos who don't know how to travel safely in bear country.

 

My advice if you're too lazy or stupid to learn how to travel safely in bear country is to stay in the safe little toy parks where there are none.

 

The quickness in which you produced such an influentcial and "informed" opinion (not only about my motivations, but what the NPS is actually going to do) is staggering. Do you normally convince and motivate others that you're thoughts/opins are superior? It didn't work here.

 

Basically, I think the 2nd amendment gives me the right to carry responsibly. I'm not talking a shoulder fire nuke, but a gun. It doesn't MATTER what YOU think about my choices. This as MY right to choose and carry. BTW, YOU have the right too. And if I do something wrong or stupid w/ the gun (like shooting wildlife or signs, which I wouldn't do) then I PAY THE CONSEQUENCES!

 

Actually, the NPS and other agencies will determine when and if you can carry, not you, regardless of how you interpret the 2nd amendment.

 

Thankfully, for the rest of us, every idiot out there does not get to decide this for themselves.

 

There are actually a few levels of juristriction in some parks. Particularly in Alaska, which allows for various activities depending on boudaries. I never said that the NPS wouldn't determine the regs. I also wouldn't rule out a new administration trying to overturn them.

 

Reading is cool, reading more than one source is smart. You seem angry and self righteous. Capping rounds may help you blow some steam. I wonder if someone out there thinks you're an idiot too?

[Skeezix]

Okay...group hug for Fairweather. C'mon!!!

[Skeezix]

Edited December 10, 2008 by Skeezix

[ivan]

will jeebus let me take my submachine gun into the holy hereafter?

[No. 13 Baby]

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Idiot? No. Other things? Maybe....

 

What urks me about guns in National Parks is those areas are one of the very few places left where you don't have to worry about yahoos with guns; shooting wildlife needlessly out of ignorance, shooting up the infrastructure (don't even think about pretending like this isn't going to happen; it happens in every other remote place where guns are allowed), and, as will most certainly happen eventually, shooting other park visitors. I think the safety and piece of mind of the non-gun toting population in national parks, which far outnumbers those who feel the need to always be packing, trumps the pretend need for 'self protection'.

 

You can go anywhere else in the wilderness and carry all the firepower you want. It's not a basic 2nd Amendment issue, either; the state has a right to restrict guns in a variety of public places. So what's the problem?

[faster_than_you]

...the state has a right to restrict guns in a variety of public places. So what's the problem?

 

I consider that a problem.

 

It's back to what started this discussion, a basic Bill of Rights amendment being restored.

[tvashtarkatena]

...the state has a right to restrict guns in a variety of public places. So what's the problem?

 

I consider that a problem.

 

It's back to what started this discussion, a basic Bill of Rights amendment being restored.

 

You have a common misunderstanding of what a civil right is. All civil rights, including free speech, are subject to reasonable restrictions. You can't yell 'Fire!' in the crowded theatre, you can't threaten to murder someone, and you can't carry a gun into courtrooms, bars (in WA), and, in many cases, NPs. Thank God wiser heads than yours protect us from a simpleton's libertarianism.

[Hugh Conway]

...the state has a right to restrict guns in a variety of public places. So what's the problem?

 

I consider that a problem.

 

It's back to what started this discussion, a basic Bill of Rights amendment being restored.

 

but you said earlier it was OK for the state to restrict the type of weapon. I'm not expecting consistency from a gun nut, but this, this is an odd caliber of response.

[pink]

[video:youtube]7IU1bzZheWk

[Fairweather]

Don't worry, Fairweather. We are not all some monolithic block, the cc.com liberals. In fact, I once complained about Tvash's carrying on in an insulting fashion - similar to how I complained about your insult that is out of place here - and his response was somewhat like yours here in suggesting that because he went climbing more than most posters around here (and he had the added claim that he posted a lot of trip reports) he was somehow to be perceived as more justified or more tolerable when he cut loose in spray.

 

I've never suggested anything of the kind; but you're being less than truthful when you state that you've always dealt an even moderating hand here. You remain silent about 99.999% of the time when you agree politically with the offender. It is otherwise when you don't. An example of your silence from this very thread:

 

 

Mr. Colddeadhands discovers FW giving KKK a hummer in the parking lot, and shoots botha them faggits deader'n'sheeit.

 

Here, you suggest that because you climb or hike or ride every weekend you are justified in sneering at Mr. K's skiing?

 

Read again, Tenacious P. My 'sneer' at Feck's reply relates directly to his suggestion that I rarely get off the couch--and to his earlier boast about skiing.

 

 

Don't for a minute think that the fact that you get out every weekend justifies putting down somebody else because they don't get out as much as you. If we're measuring dick size around here, I'm sure you realize that there are a lot of posters with more impressive climbing resume's than yours or who may drive bigger pick ups.

 

I don't think I've ever demonstrated any ego to speak of here when it comes to climbing. I am, basically, a slogger. This is something I regularly confess to and joke about. Yet another straw man you've built for no other purpose than to knock down. Your specialty.

 

You recently described yourself as "tenacious" when you offered some personal reflection on your discussions with others here. I would use the word disingenuous.

[prole]

[video:youtube]7IU1bzZheWk

 

That's the greatest piece of music of the 20th Century.

[pink]

that and the theme song to "kids in the hall"

[mattp]

Fairweather, as I concluded on the last page: it may in some respects be pointless for me to complain that you or Tvash or anybody else are being obnoxious and we could continue to debate who is the asshole around here but that is really rather stupid.

 

I felt your slap at Mr. K was unjustified, and my point about your bragging about how you’ve got out so much was poorly stated, perhaps, but I found some similarities in it to some statements made by your brother Tvash last year. Then, I complained about his being obnoxious and part of his reply included a "mention" that he climbs more than I do and posts a lot of trip reports. I found the similarity in your "mention" of your last year's record ironic in light of your comment about he and I and Kurt. Anyway, T'vash doesn’t think he made those statements and I think you too are saying here that you didn't intend to use your climbing record to suggest you were better than the other guy or "right" in some other argument.

 

I’d really like to see you explain the need to carry weapons in a National Park rather than leave the discussion after concluding that I am being “disingenuous.” I'd also genuinely like to read more trip reports and welcome discussion of climbs that you describe as "slogs." You may not believe me, but I appreciate both.

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey Matt,

 

Why don't you just post our PM exchange and stop misrepresenting it? Oh wait, you get banned for posting PMs. Carry on, Mr/ Moderator, keep making shit up.

 

In addition, if you have a problem with something FW posted, deal with him. Leave me out of it, thanks.

 

What an utter douche.

Edited December 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[AlpineK]

Fairweather you do need to state the reason to carry a weapon in the NPS. If you were to pull into a parking lot and see somebody doing something illegal would it not be better to report in to the rangers and let them confront the bad guy. If somebody has been breaking laws then there are probably a lot of reports on file and the law can tie the bad guy to them. In the end it's much better justice than you pulling up with a gun and plugging them.

 

You want to get into a debate about how you get out all the time. I'd just like to point out that given a personal injury I suffered not too long ago doctors are amazed that I'm even standing let alone getting out on a regular basis.

 

Think about it. There are a ton of soldiers that suffer similar injuries with long term effects (years). All as a result of the war you love brought to us by your favorite president the current asshole in chief.

[STP]

Ok, here's my understanding of the issue.

 

A law abiding citizen doesn't require a specific utilitarian reason for justifying and exercising a constitutional right. The right stands on its own. But also, in my understanding, all of the rights in the Bill of Rights must be taken as a whole and not only on their own merits. Together they define a "free" society.

 

The overall movement by gun control supporters down a slippery slope will basically result in the public losing the free exercise of the 2nd amendment as recently defined by SCOTUS (Heller vs. District of Columbia), leaving these items primarily in the hands of the military and other government agents.

 

Perhaps if enough people or their designated representatives can vote on it then maybe you could do as they did with Prohibition and constitutionally do away with the 2nd amendment.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

When deciding what limits to place on an individual exercising a civil right, the courts must consider the effect on all persons, not just the 'exerciser'. If, for example, the right of an individual to carry a firearm into a coutroom is outweighed by the harm (the obvious threat to public safety), then the court or legislature can and has instituted a limitation on the practice of that right.

 

The 2nd Amendment and it's proponents, mainly the well funded, well connected NRA (the nation's strongest lobbying group), ensure that the slippery slope is neither long nor steep.

Edited December 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

Ok

 

The overall movement by gun control supporters down a slippery slope will basically result in the public losing the free exercise of the 2nd amendment as recently defined by SCOTUS (Heller vs. District of Columbia), leaving these items primarily in the hands of the military and other government agents.

dude, laws limiting gun rights have existed since our country's founding - if it really was a slippery slope, wouldn't we be at the bottom of it by now?

[Jim]

Carrying guns in the backcountry is for girly men - unless hunting of course.

[tvashtarkatena]

When the ban is lifted, I'm going to trailer a howitzer up to MRNP and make the lower Nisqually Safe for Democracy.

[STP]

When deciding what limits to place on an individual exercising a civil right, the courts must consider the effect on all persons, not just the 'exerciser'. If, for example, the right of an individual to carry a firearm into a coutroom is outweighed by the harm (the obvious threat to public safety), then the court or legislature can and has instituted a limitation on the practice of that right.

 

The 2nd Amendment and it's proponents, mainly the well funded, well connected NRA (the nation's strongest lobbying group), ensure that the slippery slope is neither long nor steep.

 

I personally don't have any problems with the special case of courtrooms where guns and volatile emotions can result in violence however, in some cases, if someone had been packing in a "gun free" zone, e.g., Virginia Tech, then maybe the action of one law abiding, armed citizen could have prevented further bloodshed.

[STP]

Ok

 

The overall movement by gun control supporters down a slippery slope will basically result in the public losing the free exercise of the 2nd amendment as recently defined by SCOTUS (Heller vs. District of Columbia), leaving these items primarily in the hands of the military and other government agents.

dude, laws limiting gun rights have existed since our country's founding - if it really was a slippery slope, wouldn't we be at the bottom of it by now?

 

Until Heller vs District of Columbia it appeared to be heading towards the bottom of the slope with the application of the 2nd amendment linked to the organization of a militia and removed from the individual right to bear arms.

[tvashtarkatena]

When deciding what limits to place on an individual exercising a civil right, the courts must consider the effect on all persons, not just the 'exerciser'. If, for example, the right of an individual to carry a firearm into a coutroom is outweighed by the harm (the obvious threat to public safety), then the court or legislature can and has instituted a limitation on the practice of that right.

 

The 2nd Amendment and it's proponents, mainly the well funded, well connected NRA (the nation's strongest lobbying group), ensure that the slippery slope is neither long nor steep.

 

I personally don't have any problems with the special case of courtrooms where guns and volatile emotions can result in violence however, in some cases, if someone had been packing in a "gun free" zone, e.g., Virginia Tech, then maybe the action of one law abiding, armed citizen could have prevented further bloodshed.

 

Very hypothetical, and stopping a crazy gunmen, which, after all, is one of the rarest of crimes, is probably not a very compelling reason for the Feds to force the administrations of schools like Virginia Tech to allow gun proliferation on their campuses. I think those administrations are in the best position to determine how to run their own campuses, not the Feds. One could just as easily and hypothetically claim that, had campuses like Virginia Tech allowed guns, many more students would have died all over the country due to gun related crime, the passion of jealous youth, and accidents. Crime statistics show pretty clearly that the 18 to 22 year old crowd is not the one you'd prefer to be packing.

Edited December 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena