POLITICS - Concealed Carry Permit Holders are DOOFUSES

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:08 am

According to the Roanoke Times in an article about concealed carry in fed parks.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/163829

Responses to this should be soon, strong, and polite. We don't want to prove them right with doofy letters.

junkbug · Post by **junkbug** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:24 am

Isn't that the same newspaper that published the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all the CCW permit holders in the entire Roanoke area?

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:33 am

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.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:40 am

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.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:41 am

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.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:31 pm

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."

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri May 30, 2008 1:42 pm

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.

sore shoulder · Post by **sore shoulder** » Fri May 30, 2008 1:47 pm

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.

Dirty Dan · Post by **Dirty Dan** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:06 pm

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.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:35 pm

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.

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Fri May 30, 2008 6:29 pm

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.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri May 30, 2008 6:47 pm

sore shoulder wrote:
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.

Tycer · Post by **Tycer** » Fri May 30, 2008 8:37 pm

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."

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri May 30, 2008 9:25 pm

Argh! Run for the hills - a citizen may be legally packing!!!

Stupid, freakin' "hoplophobes" (isn't that what Jeff Cooper called them?)

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:27 pm

Tycer wrote:
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.

Jeeps · Post by **Jeeps** » Sat May 31, 2008 12:23 am

Tycer wrote:
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