Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
I didn't read it as to saying CCW were doofuses, but those that shot at animals without knowing if they hit, hurt, or killed it. Or perhaps I read it wrong.
Mike Johnson,
"Only those who will risk going too far, can possibly find out how far one can go." T.S. Eliot
rjohns94 wrote:I didn't read it as to saying CCW were doofuses, but those that shot at animals without knowing if they hit, hurt, or killed it. Or perhaps I read it wrong.
No, I read it the same way. He (or she) took the middle road, I didn't even read it as pro or con on the issue. However, it does raise a valid point. Without a national level law that in such cases, federal regulation preempts State law, it'll raise it's head, eventually.
Griff,
SASS/CMSA #93
NRA Patron
GUSA #93
There is a fine line between hobby & obsession! AND... I'm over it!!
No I ain't ready, but let's do it anyway!
I believe Roanoake Times is the toilet paper rag that posted the names and addresses of CCW holders in VA, including some who had changed their names to avoid abusive spouses including one who started recieving threats and visits immediately, and some were police officers. The little pansy puke who did it had his whole block evacuated when Fed Ex delivered a package the next day.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independance, July 4, 1776 11B30
What we have is an article against ccw in fed parks, thinly veiled in doublespeak of consistency, punctuated by childish name-calling.
Since firearms are currently prohibited, the doofuses the author refers to must be the people who might be allowed to carry with their ccw if the law changes.
WE are gun cranks. You gotta look at how the non guncrank comes away after reading this drivel.
I should add that this was sent to me by a liberal whose subject line read " To my favorite doofus."
Last edited by Tycer on Fri May 30, 2008 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Who has jurisdiction on federal parks? I thought it was the feds. If thats the case they should simply say state laws dont matter & set a federal standard which counts on all federal public lands.
Leverdude wrote:Who has jurisdiction on federal parks? I thought it was the feds. If thats the case they should simply say state laws dont matter & set a federal standard which counts on all federal public lands.
Ken, I never ever thought I would be thinking "no, shut up" when reading one of your posts.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independance, July 4, 1776 11B30
There is no consistency. You can carry on FS & BLM land, but not the much more liberal PS land. That is what the currently debated law is trying to remedy.
Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you. - John Steinbeck
I had a cousin ( now deceased) who used to write for that paper. He was a WWII vet and a former POW in a German POW camp who was freed by the Russians at the end of WWII. I wish he were alive now to get his take on that story, or at least on the writer.
I also have a niece that writes for another paper. While she is pretty slim in the life experience Dept. she at least has enough sense to find out the facts and knows the difference between the news page and the editorial page. As far as I could see all that piece did was raise a question. No answers and no opinion stated. No wonder newspapers are losing readership.
Funny how radio shows like those on Air America go broke while Rush Linbaugh, Shawn Hanady, Neal Boortz, and Michael Savage continue to gain new stations every day.
Newspapers usually have a liberal lean to them and they're going broke. Am I the only one that sees the relationship here? You would think that if someone was a business man who's goal was to make money they might put their political feelings aside long enough to make the payments on the building first.
When I was a kid a lot of cities had a morning and an evening paper. I don't think you can blame the internet for everything.
If you're gonna be stupid ya gotta be tough-
Isiah 55:8&9
It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.
I see it as pretty middle of the road except for the last part. Although maybe not directly negative on the surface, making the statement about the people that shot at the bears only helps the anti's argument. You should notice that the first veiw, the pro-gun, was not followed by an incident to support it.
They chose to emphisize one over the other. They did not make a dicernment between responsible ccw's and retards with handguns either.
Qui tacet consentit. (silence implies consent) The Boring Blog
Leverdude wrote:Who has jurisdiction on federal parks? I thought it was the feds. If thats the case they should simply say state laws dont matter & set a federal standard which counts on all federal public lands.
Ken, I never ever thought I would be thinking "no, shut up" when reading one of your posts.
I guess that could work against us Frank but in honesty I dont see the feds banning guns on federal lands.
Leverdude wrote:
I guess that could work against us Frank but in honesty I dont see the feds banning guns on federal lands.
From www.knoxnews.com - "The federal gun regulation, put in place by the Reagan administration in 1983, doesn't outright prohibit firearms in national parks. It does, however, require that guns be unloaded and stored in the trunk of a car or some other place where they are not readily accessible. The regulation also applies to lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but not to national parks in which hunting is permitted."
Leverdude wrote:
I guess that could work against us Frank but in honesty I dont see the feds banning guns on federal lands.
From www.knoxnews.com - "The federal gun regulation, put in place by the Reagan administration in 1983, doesn't outright prohibit firearms in national parks. It does, however, require that guns be unloaded and stored in the trunk of a car or some other place where they are not readily accessible. The regulation also applies to lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but not to national parks in which hunting is permitted."
So you cant carry on BLM land or national forest? I do all the time & never been harassed.
Leverdude wrote:
I guess that could work against us Frank but in honesty I dont see the feds banning guns on federal lands.
From www.knoxnews.com - "The federal gun regulation, put in place by the Reagan administration in 1983, doesn't outright prohibit firearms in national parks. It does, however, require that guns be unloaded and stored in the trunk of a car or some other place where they are not readily accessible. The regulation also applies to lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but not to national parks in which hunting is permitted."
"Not readily accessible"? Geez, that don't sound like being armed to me.
I thought we had a recognized right to be "armed". /grinning sarcasm
Jeeps
Semper Fidelis
Pay attention to YOUR Bill of Rights, in this day and age it is all we have.