Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The legislation was prompted by January’s murder of Mt. Rainier National Park ranger Margaret Anderson. Anderson was shot as she set up a road block for a car that didn’t stop at a chain-up checkpoint.
The killer used a car. Should we ban cars as well? Never let a perfectly good tragedy go to waste....
Then try to get more of your lefty brethren on board as well.......
What laws have been made? I just don't see the any real attack. People talk but what has really happened? No one will limit guys like you from having guns but to go after low life's who supply drug dealing gang bangers with AK 47 should be supported by the gun community.
I have definitely noticed that on this board even a majority of lefty posters are openly pro-gun-rights. I even saw a post from one of them the other day in the 'guns and hunting' section about his M-14 rifle.
Yet they don't see the inconsitency of supporting an Eric Holder. One step at a time, I suppose...
I'm sure that this legislation will go nowhere. Jim McDermott, who represents the city of Seattle, is widely considered one of the most ineffective US House members.
I have no problem with the legislation if it restores the previous status quo. I just don't see a need for guns in a national park 99.99% of the time. Yes I guess you could stave off a grizzly but that is outweighed by risk of accidental use/misuse by others. Also it helps set up poaching as a possibility for the minority of gun owners who don't care about the law. And then comes the question is how is the gun secured in a tent in a camp ground? What about arms trafficking, e.g. Big Bend National Park, that borders Mexico? What about rogue pot plantations in national parks? You'd just be helping to arm the dealers with this.
I have no problem with the legislation if it restores the previous status quo. I just don't see a need for guns in a national park 99.99% of the time. Yes I guess you could stave off a grizzly but that is outweighed by risk of accidental use/misuse by others. Also it helps set up poaching as a possibility for the minority of gun owners who don't care about the law. And then comes the question is how is the gun secured in a tent in a camp ground? What about arms trafficking, e.g. Big Bend National Park, that borders Mexico? What about rogue pot plantations in national parks? You'd just be helping to arm the dealers with this.
I get the concern but the truth is law breakers don't care and will have those guns anyway. I believe in going after the ones that bring them to the criminals.
A gun was the weapon that killed the ranger, not a car.
Without the car he wouldn't have run the checkpoint in the first place. At any rate, if a gun ban was in place at the time of this incident do you suppose the killer would have followed the law and not had a gun in his possession?
Without the car he wouldn't have run the checkpoint in the first place. At any rate, if a gun ban was in place at the time of this incident do you suppose the killer would have followed the law and not had a gun in his possession?
Visible weapons can picked up with such a ban.
If they are allowed, people can presumably drive into the park with visible weapons. Who knows their intent?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
