Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Chad Love: Locked & Loaded in Parkland

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 27, 2009

Chad Love: Locked & Loaded in Parkland

By Chad Love

There's already been a  boatload of bloviation expressed on the recent reversal of the ban on loaded firearms in our national parks, some of it sensible but most of it (predictably) bordering on  hysterics.

This column from the Huffington Post is a perfect example:
 
"In fact,  the new rule is likely to make national park visitors less safe around  wildlife. Packing heat could give some people a false sense of security and  make them more likely to approach bison, elk, moose, and grizzly bears,  rather than keep a safe distance which is better for both people and  animals."

But the most certain outcome of this congressional action is  that it will promote poaching. The National Park Service warned in its fiscal 2006 budget submission each year for the past several years ... The data  suggests that there is a significant domestic as well as international trade  for illegally taken plant and animal parts." Poaching, the agency said, "is suspected to be a factor in the decline of at least 29 species of wildlife  and could cause the extirpation of 19 species from the parks." 

Two points I'd like to make in response. First, poaching. When you make an argument it's generally a pretty good idea to make sure the data you use in defense of your argument actually support it. Apparently Mr. Markarian skipped that chapter in his high school debate class. There's absolutely no, none, nada, zip not a shred of evidence or data to support his assertion that allowing visitors firearms "promotes poaching." He, to be perfectly blunt, reached around his backside and pulled that statement out of his a**. And that National Park Service budget submission he quoted was published in...2006. Yes, three years ago. You know, back when packing in national parks was illegal.
 
Second, it's obvious the author has never visited a national park. If he had he would know that it's complete fantasy to believe that current (unarmed) visitors to our national parks  exhibit good judgment and keep a safe, prudent distance from roadside wildlife. Quite the opposite. Thanks to the constant anthropomorphization we're subjected to we now believe that wild animals have a deep, intrinsic  empathy toward humans. They would love us, if only we would put down our  guns and let them.

In fact, if one could make a sweeping generalization about the common sense of the average American tourist by observing their behavior around national park wildlife, one would have to reach the inevitable conclusion that we're already a nation of clueless,  pushy, overly-aggressive suburban jackasses. Guns certainly aren't going to change that. If you point out the obvious fact that wild animals have no interest in connecting with us on a spiritual level but if we intentionally harass them they will most  assuredly connect with us on a physical level, then you're simply an  unevolved lout who doesn't get it. See video below.

But I'm a pragmatist, and I think I've reached a compromise that will make everyone happy. Why don't we make loaded firearms illegal within say, 100 yards of any RV-accessible road but allow loaded  firearms in campsites and on all trails? This achieves two goals: it gives backcountry hikers and campers a measure of personal protection from  criminal and animal attack. It also gives park wildlife the freedom to (without the threat of being shot) continue stomping, goring, maiming and  otherwise communing with the hordes of camera-wielding Animal Planet watchers who choke our national park roads every summer.  

Comments (27)

Top Rated
All Comments
from MB915 wrote 4 years 47 weeks ago

I know most of your article was tongue and cheek, but to me and many other hunters in virginia, this law is not about being able to conceal or carry a weapon into a national park while on a family vacation. Its more about being able to travel to our hunting area outside the park with less hassle.

Under the current law, it is against the law to be inside a national park with a firearm. Even if just driving through a small finger of it on a public road. In the past hunters either had to A) Find a road and go out of their way around the park, or B) knowingly break the law. These hunters can now travel through the national park with out fear of being prosecuted for breaking the law, while not stopping to even carry their gun in the park.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 4 years 47 weeks ago

MB915,

A correction, in fact it is still illegal to have guns in National Parks. The bill doesn't take effect for another 9 months or so.

Sean

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 4 years 47 weeks ago

s-kfry,

You are correct, I should have said, once this bill passes and goes into effect, hunters will be able to travel through National Parks with their guns.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

i think we shouldnt beable to shot right next to the campers but we should beable to use guns in national parks. anyone who doesnt want guns in national pars is just an antigun idiot lookin to tigntin the leash on gn owners even f their are no logical arguments against the guns in parks

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Oh, to see three more seconds of that video! Natural selection in progress.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

It's the 100yds of RV access that is probably the most dangerous because of the Animal planet watching louts who hang out the windows with dad holding a camera while mom dangles a hotdog for Yogi and Booboo.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

What I want to know is where these "idiots" get their "facts" from.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hunter Savage wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

BIG O thats easy reach BEHIND you

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

cooner,
good one!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Huffington Post says it all!

Hell, how many people have been mauled by Bears taking their picture!

The click of the camera shutter is the same sound a bear makes clacking its teeth warning another bear go away or I’m going to kick your butt!

Where is Huffington Post on this!

I tell’ya, this is stupidity at its finest!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

You folks don’t get it!

Progun bills are going to be passed and as soon Obama packs the Supreme Court with his left wingers he is coming after us!

Does bait and hook come to mind!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Yeah, I'm sure poachers are law abiding enough not to poach unless it's legal to bring a gun into the parks. They're willing to try to smuggle a dead bear,moose,elk,deer out of a park, just not willing to smuggle a gun in? Retarded.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ranger2 wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

First of all, I really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks for cutting to the chase, Chad. I am also 100% pro 2nd amendment. I think that concealed carry permits from any state should be honored with no restrictions within National Park Boundaries. I do, however, think that loaded firearms not covered under CWP's in National Parks should be restricted to being left in vehicles or buildings and or tents at all times. Honestly, there is no purpose for firearms in parks other than legitimate self defense. I think that we can uphold the 2nd amendment rights yet still not be too overzealous and end up shooting the cause in the foot. It only takes a couple of jack*sses to screw up on a high profile issue like this to set us right back behind the eight ball...and just by reading the latest F&S blogs, there is no shortage on jack*sses in America. Like Clay Cooper mentioned, there could be a bait and switch strategy going through the libs agenda. People should approach this cautiously and thoughtfully, going too far the other way could cause more harm than good in the long run.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from BuckTheSystem wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

I want to know who these people think they are on their high horse of ignorance. I carry a gun for lots of reasons, and hope I never engage in any of them. People that carry guns are much smarter about their equipment than the people who have no understanding of guns give us credit for. I am so tired of their need to take away my rights because of their irrational fears.

Anti's need to grow-up

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from BuckTheSystem wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Carrying a gun does not mean you are going to shoot it off willie-nillie just because you have it. The safest place for a gun is in the owners possession. I fear theft every time I leave a gun in a car, and I won't do it unless I have no choice. Mandating it would simply tell the thieves where to look.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

You'd think I'd get used to people making the mistaken assumption that a CCW holder having a gun is more likely to commit a gun crime. I can not. We're more aware of the legal issues and the fragile hold we have on our rights than anyone else and are less likely to do something dangerous, illegal, or stupid and risk losing it. Regarding the issue of feeling more comfortable around Brown Bears and such, what on earth do they think people are carrying under their jackets? Gun owners, particularly those who go through the trouble of permitting are also more aware of the limitations of our weapons.
I'm always intrigued by the insight that the anti-gun rationale gives to the personalities behind it. Why would you assume that having a gun in hand would lead towards feelings of superiority and a tendency to use force inappropriately unless that's what you would do yourself? Does this issue hinge on the antis acknowledging thier own lack of self control?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Clay-

I'm afraid its you who doesn't get it.

None of the conservative supreme court justices are expected to resign during Obama's term. He will only have the opportunity to replace liberal justices with liberal justices, obviously, this will not change the balance of the court at all.

Also, this "bait and switch" BS is the one of the most paranoid conspiracy theories I have heard recently. The democrats voted for this because it was buried in the "credit card bill of rights".

I think it says a lot about a person when you have dozens of legitimate, factual arguments against your political opponents but instead you resort to factually inaccurate claims and black helicopter conspiracy fantasies.

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles with all its might against the attempts of crime."
-Robespierre

"Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
-Bible, Matthew xv. 27.

"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin

"Got any Cheese?"
-Steve Urkel

SPIRIT OF 1782!!

What don't you understand?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Some real winning comments like:

"i think we shouldnt beable to shot right next to the campers but we should beable to use guns in national parks. anyone who doesnt want guns in national pars is just an antigun idiot.."

The bill lifting the ban on carrying weapons does not in any way allow recreational shooting or hunting in the parks. Just like it is legal to carry with a permit in cities, it is illegal to discharge a weapon except in defense of life , etc..

But I'm sure the road signs will sufffer at the hands of the ignorant among us.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

As stated above, I'm sure some redneck creaton will shoot up some road signs and maybe even try to off a buffalo in Jellystone with a 9mm pistol. Someone from the hey ya'll watch this crowd will always be there to reconfirm what the anti's say about gun owners, they just can't help themselves...

MB915 makes a valid point that this law will serve to end the persecution of those wanting to utilize roads through a park instead of making an out of the way loop around said territory. As Martha Stewart says, "This is a good thing..."

For those packing into the back country it will also serve as a means of "protection" from whatever...

I was once stopped by a park ranger in Yellowstone for running a stop sign. No one was coming for atleast 3 miles, and yes I used the stop sign as more of a Yield sign doing a slow and go. I received a 15 minute lecture about road safety in the park mean while I watched every vehicle that came to the intersection do the same thing I did!

Said Ranger took the opportunity to ask questions about where we had been and why we had camo caps and clothing articles in the vehicle. I explained we had been Turkey hunting in Montana and had come down to the park for a visit. Thank goodness we had left the guns on the ranch we had been hunting. I can imagine what the same ranger or one of his ilk woould do if guns were present.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

I would like to offer a few points on this. One, on the local national park there have been some serious crimes committed in recent years, including a couple of murders. Would a weapon have made a difference? Who knows, but I'd much rather have my Super Blackhawk under the pillow than a pine knot when camping. Two, if I can pass all the background checks, etc to obtain an c/c permit, I doubt I'll break bad when I enter a park, so why all the uproar? Three, to quote something from Outdoor Life many years ago, a judge who camped on the national parks frequently and kept a handgun close at hand said he'd "rather be judged by a jury of his peers than carried by six of them". Makes sense to me.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Great read. Saying CCW's in parks will lead to more poaching is along the same lines as the argument the CCW's lead to more gun violence. I don't ever remember seeing anything in the second amendment about the "right to keep and bear arms" not applying to National Parks......I do remember a line with "shall not be infringed".....but what did the founding fathers know, they did not have the good fortune to have well educated liberals to keep them from injuring themselves.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

To Ken McCloud:
In case you haven't noticed there is only 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS. That is only when Justice Kennedy is in his right mind. Fact is all these guys are old enough to have a serious illness anytime. Leave Sgt Cooper alone, you obviously love to argue, but Clay can keep up and pass you any day.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Hey Ken McCloud, I agree w/ya. I don't think anyone in DC is smart enough to pull off a conspiracy. Most of them just flat out lie, and get away with it. Ah, but the paranoid sure do keep ammo hard to find. Can't argue w/ that. The gun/ammunition industry is enjoying a "bonanza of fear" right now, granted with NO legislation from Washington to back up the fear, but since most of them are American companies, I'm happy for them, I just wish I could find some .22 ammo so I can take my kids shooting. Apparently, when Obama brings forth the apocolypse, .22lr is going to be the bullet of choice for the "resistance". Jeeze!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Authors who publish or even write statements like the one you gave make me laugh at their stupidity. To think that someone actually believes in that kind of stuff of guns promoting poaching and allowing a false security is nothing less than hilarious. All I can do is laugh... how people arrive at this kind of conclusion is ridiculous. I expect this out of a middle schooler, not an adult.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from libertyfirst wrote 4 years 43 weeks ago

If you have a permit to carry, this permit should be honored anyplace in the USA. Parks, cities, everywhere.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

I guess there's a big difference in national parks and national forest-we hunt national forest, we as in everyone with a license and nowhere better to hunt. Low deer densities and old growth hard woods makes for a traditional challenge.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jluke wrote 10 weeks 1 day ago

Well, in almost all human and animal encounters, the unarmed person lost. All of the school, army base, and theater shootings were "GUN FREE ZONES". All of the fatal grizzly, deer, cougar, and other wild animal human fatalities were due to the humans being unarmed. OK, now let us reason...Gun Free Zones vs Wild Animal Zones vs unarmed human. The unarmed gun/gal always loses. The armed human, in both cases, has a fair chance to survive, and a MUCH higher chance than the unarmed human. Go figure!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from libertyfirst wrote 4 years 43 weeks ago

If you have a permit to carry, this permit should be honored anyplace in the USA. Parks, cities, everywhere.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

As stated above, I'm sure some redneck creaton will shoot up some road signs and maybe even try to off a buffalo in Jellystone with a 9mm pistol. Someone from the hey ya'll watch this crowd will always be there to reconfirm what the anti's say about gun owners, they just can't help themselves...

MB915 makes a valid point that this law will serve to end the persecution of those wanting to utilize roads through a park instead of making an out of the way loop around said territory. As Martha Stewart says, "This is a good thing..."

For those packing into the back country it will also serve as a means of "protection" from whatever...

I was once stopped by a park ranger in Yellowstone for running a stop sign. No one was coming for atleast 3 miles, and yes I used the stop sign as more of a Yield sign doing a slow and go. I received a 15 minute lecture about road safety in the park mean while I watched every vehicle that came to the intersection do the same thing I did!

Said Ranger took the opportunity to ask questions about where we had been and why we had camo caps and clothing articles in the vehicle. I explained we had been Turkey hunting in Montana and had come down to the park for a visit. Thank goodness we had left the guns on the ranch we had been hunting. I can imagine what the same ranger or one of his ilk woould do if guns were present.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from idahooutdoors wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Great read. Saying CCW's in parks will lead to more poaching is along the same lines as the argument the CCW's lead to more gun violence. I don't ever remember seeing anything in the second amendment about the "right to keep and bear arms" not applying to National Parks......I do remember a line with "shall not be infringed".....but what did the founding fathers know, they did not have the good fortune to have well educated liberals to keep them from injuring themselves.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Hey Ken McCloud, I agree w/ya. I don't think anyone in DC is smart enough to pull off a conspiracy. Most of them just flat out lie, and get away with it. Ah, but the paranoid sure do keep ammo hard to find. Can't argue w/ that. The gun/ammunition industry is enjoying a "bonanza of fear" right now, granted with NO legislation from Washington to back up the fear, but since most of them are American companies, I'm happy for them, I just wish I could find some .22 ammo so I can take my kids shooting. Apparently, when Obama brings forth the apocolypse, .22lr is going to be the bullet of choice for the "resistance". Jeeze!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Oh, to see three more seconds of that video! Natural selection in progress.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

It's the 100yds of RV access that is probably the most dangerous because of the Animal planet watching louts who hang out the windows with dad holding a camera while mom dangles a hotdog for Yogi and Booboo.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Yeah, I'm sure poachers are law abiding enough not to poach unless it's legal to bring a gun into the parks. They're willing to try to smuggle a dead bear,moose,elk,deer out of a park, just not willing to smuggle a gun in? Retarded.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ranger2 wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

First of all, I really enjoyed reading this article. Thanks for cutting to the chase, Chad. I am also 100% pro 2nd amendment. I think that concealed carry permits from any state should be honored with no restrictions within National Park Boundaries. I do, however, think that loaded firearms not covered under CWP's in National Parks should be restricted to being left in vehicles or buildings and or tents at all times. Honestly, there is no purpose for firearms in parks other than legitimate self defense. I think that we can uphold the 2nd amendment rights yet still not be too overzealous and end up shooting the cause in the foot. It only takes a couple of jack*sses to screw up on a high profile issue like this to set us right back behind the eight ball...and just by reading the latest F&S blogs, there is no shortage on jack*sses in America. Like Clay Cooper mentioned, there could be a bait and switch strategy going through the libs agenda. People should approach this cautiously and thoughtfully, going too far the other way could cause more harm than good in the long run.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from ken.mcloud wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Clay-

I'm afraid its you who doesn't get it.

None of the conservative supreme court justices are expected to resign during Obama's term. He will only have the opportunity to replace liberal justices with liberal justices, obviously, this will not change the balance of the court at all.

Also, this "bait and switch" BS is the one of the most paranoid conspiracy theories I have heard recently. The democrats voted for this because it was buried in the "credit card bill of rights".

I think it says a lot about a person when you have dozens of legitimate, factual arguments against your political opponents but instead you resort to factually inaccurate claims and black helicopter conspiracy fantasies.

"Crime butchers innocence to secure a throne, and innocence struggles with all its might against the attempts of crime."
-Robespierre

"Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."
-Bible, Matthew xv. 27.

"There are nights when the wolves are silent and only the moon howls."
-George Carlin

"Got any Cheese?"
-Steve Urkel

SPIRIT OF 1782!!

What don't you understand?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Some real winning comments like:

"i think we shouldnt beable to shot right next to the campers but we should beable to use guns in national parks. anyone who doesnt want guns in national pars is just an antigun idiot.."

The bill lifting the ban on carrying weapons does not in any way allow recreational shooting or hunting in the parks. Just like it is legal to carry with a permit in cities, it is illegal to discharge a weapon except in defense of life , etc..

But I'm sure the road signs will sufffer at the hands of the ignorant among us.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

I would like to offer a few points on this. One, on the local national park there have been some serious crimes committed in recent years, including a couple of murders. Would a weapon have made a difference? Who knows, but I'd much rather have my Super Blackhawk under the pillow than a pine knot when camping. Two, if I can pass all the background checks, etc to obtain an c/c permit, I doubt I'll break bad when I enter a park, so why all the uproar? Three, to quote something from Outdoor Life many years ago, a judge who camped on the national parks frequently and kept a handgun close at hand said he'd "rather be judged by a jury of his peers than carried by six of them". Makes sense to me.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

To Ken McCloud:
In case you haven't noticed there is only 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS. That is only when Justice Kennedy is in his right mind. Fact is all these guys are old enough to have a serious illness anytime. Leave Sgt Cooper alone, you obviously love to argue, but Clay can keep up and pass you any day.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 4 years 47 weeks ago

I know most of your article was tongue and cheek, but to me and many other hunters in virginia, this law is not about being able to conceal or carry a weapon into a national park while on a family vacation. Its more about being able to travel to our hunting area outside the park with less hassle.

Under the current law, it is against the law to be inside a national park with a firearm. Even if just driving through a small finger of it on a public road. In the past hunters either had to A) Find a road and go out of their way around the park, or B) knowingly break the law. These hunters can now travel through the national park with out fear of being prosecuted for breaking the law, while not stopping to even carry their gun in the park.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from s-kfry wrote 4 years 47 weeks ago

MB915,

A correction, in fact it is still illegal to have guns in National Parks. The bill doesn't take effect for another 9 months or so.

Sean

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 4 years 47 weeks ago

s-kfry,

You are correct, I should have said, once this bill passes and goes into effect, hunters will be able to travel through National Parks with their guns.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

What I want to know is where these "idiots" get their "facts" from.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hunter Savage wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

BIG O thats easy reach BEHIND you

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

cooner,
good one!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Huffington Post says it all!

Hell, how many people have been mauled by Bears taking their picture!

The click of the camera shutter is the same sound a bear makes clacking its teeth warning another bear go away or I’m going to kick your butt!

Where is Huffington Post on this!

I tell’ya, this is stupidity at its finest!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from BuckTheSystem wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Carrying a gun does not mean you are going to shoot it off willie-nillie just because you have it. The safest place for a gun is in the owners possession. I fear theft every time I leave a gun in a car, and I won't do it unless I have no choice. Mandating it would simply tell the thieves where to look.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

You'd think I'd get used to people making the mistaken assumption that a CCW holder having a gun is more likely to commit a gun crime. I can not. We're more aware of the legal issues and the fragile hold we have on our rights than anyone else and are less likely to do something dangerous, illegal, or stupid and risk losing it. Regarding the issue of feeling more comfortable around Brown Bears and such, what on earth do they think people are carrying under their jackets? Gun owners, particularly those who go through the trouble of permitting are also more aware of the limitations of our weapons.
I'm always intrigued by the insight that the anti-gun rationale gives to the personalities behind it. Why would you assume that having a gun in hand would lead towards feelings of superiority and a tendency to use force inappropriately unless that's what you would do yourself? Does this issue hinge on the antis acknowledging thier own lack of self control?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

You folks don’t get it!

Progun bills are going to be passed and as soon Obama packs the Supreme Court with his left wingers he is coming after us!

Does bait and hook come to mind!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from BuckTheSystem wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

I want to know who these people think they are on their high horse of ignorance. I carry a gun for lots of reasons, and hope I never engage in any of them. People that carry guns are much smarter about their equipment than the people who have no understanding of guns give us credit for. I am so tired of their need to take away my rights because of their irrational fears.

Anti's need to grow-up

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

Authors who publish or even write statements like the one you gave make me laugh at their stupidity. To think that someone actually believes in that kind of stuff of guns promoting poaching and allowing a false security is nothing less than hilarious. All I can do is laugh... how people arrive at this kind of conclusion is ridiculous. I expect this out of a middle schooler, not an adult.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from peter wrote 4 years 46 weeks ago

i think we shouldnt beable to shot right next to the campers but we should beable to use guns in national parks. anyone who doesnt want guns in national pars is just an antigun idiot lookin to tigntin the leash on gn owners even f their are no logical arguments against the guns in parks

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Drew McClure wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

I guess there's a big difference in national parks and national forest-we hunt national forest, we as in everyone with a license and nowhere better to hunt. Low deer densities and old growth hard woods makes for a traditional challenge.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jluke wrote 10 weeks 1 day ago

Well, in almost all human and animal encounters, the unarmed person lost. All of the school, army base, and theater shootings were "GUN FREE ZONES". All of the fatal grizzly, deer, cougar, and other wild animal human fatalities were due to the humans being unarmed. OK, now let us reason...Gun Free Zones vs Wild Animal Zones vs unarmed human. The unarmed gun/gal always loses. The armed human, in both cases, has a fair chance to survive, and a MUCH higher chance than the unarmed human. Go figure!

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs