Have you seen this about guns in Nat. Parks?

[Chaz]

I just read this article a felt it may pertain to some of us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25630796

I'm not wanting to get a flaming war going as I know there are some sted fast opposing opinions on this, but I thought it might be good info for some of us.

But my guess is that in your coach, you are still in your "house". (??)

[Barn Owl]

I think everyone knows where I stand on these issues. To spare everyone from my soapbox, I will go clean a gun.

[kyle4501]

Interesting how some judge/ predict future actions of law abiding citizens based on past actions of law breakers. . . . .

[Chaz]

Yeah, it's a shame that a few can ruin it for the many. But then, that's the way it is in every facit of this great country.

[TomC]

I don't know about you, but if I go hiking in the wilds, I'm carrying no smaller than a .357 magnum for defense from wild things (anything smaller will just get a bear pissed at you).  There are stupid people that do stupid things with guns that ruin it for other-like firing a gun into the air in a crowded campground.  But there are stupid people everywhere-so do you just prevent carrying guns everywhere?
I think a taser might be a good answer for protection from the 2 legged wild things.  Good Luck, TomC

[Dallas]

Ya know,

The 2nd amendment is fine, along with the rest of the Constitution, however, my personal opinion is that the government wants to take away all initiative, rights and abilities by private citizens. This is evidenced by the no child left behind act, the brady bill, lack of response to welfare laws that keep families on the rolls by punishing them if they take a job or displease the state in some other way.

Now I am not inducing the membership to do anything, except to read a document that is a bit higher in the spirit of our young country.. "Young" that is as compared to many of the European nations, but then again, no nation has had the same type of government longer than the USA.

The document I speak of is the Declaration of Independence and speaks directly to the problems at hand, specifically the preamble, or parts thereof:

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.""

[Lin]

Thomas Jefferson, who never drove a bus, also wrote that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  I really can't say that I miss not having revolutions though.  I suppose one could say that we have had a "political revolution" every twenty years or so.  Apropos of nothing but the time span of 20 years, up until and including Kennedy, a president has died in office every 20 years.  We have now gone almost 50 without it.

[jjrbus]

Some idiot gets drunk/stoned and fires a gun in the air. So everybody should give up thier guns?? I can see where that person should be forced to give it up. If some idiot gets drunk/stoned or just is plain stupid, speeds and evades police in his car, should we all have to give up our cars??  If tragicly a child rams thier bicycle into something and dies, should bikes be banned? If a person on skis, slams into a tree and dies should skis be outlawed? Or should airbags be installed on trees at slopes?
When I look at the stupidity that goes on in this country, I find it hard to belive it is the best system in the world!
Thanks for posting I have a bad memory and forget to unload mine and lock it away 

               See below                                        Jim

[WEC4104]

Laws for our protection fall into two groups. Those that protect us from others, and those that protect us from our ownselves.  As far as our ownselves go, I feel the gov't should have very little say in this (except perhaps for children and those judged mentally incapable)  If some guy wants to ride his motorcycle without a helmet, I'm okay with that (so long as it doesn't impact everyone else's insurance rates when he smears himself on a stretch of asphalt).  Same goes for not wearing seatbelts. I wear mine, but if the other guy wants to take on the risk of not wearing his, fine.

Laws that protect us from others are a different story. Let's face it, today's society is different from Colonial times and a different set of rules are needed to play by. I have tremendous respect for Jefferson and our founding fathers, but did they truely anticipate the day would come when our youth would be fed a steady diet of television violence and then given video games to practice on for hours each day? Did they envision the incredible firepower that one could be purchase at your local WalMart?  Without more restrictions on the guns, it is simply a recipe for disaster.

Just two weeks ago, I had my GMC4104 on the campus of Virginia Tech where I went to school.  We took the opportunity to stop by the memorial markers for the 32 students who were slain there.  I wish I had the wisdom of Jefferson to try to make sense of it all.  Jefferson had a special appreciation for colleges, (he founded the University of Virginia) and I wonder what his thoughts on this tragedy would be?   Would he view the 32 markers and defend statements that the right to bear arms still applies in the same way today?  Would he visualize a world with classrooms full of students each "packing heat" for their own protection?  

On the National Park issue, let me mention that I occasionally backpack in remote areas and have encountered my share of bears and even a moose. I have not given the thought of carrying a weapon a minute's consideration. In the illustrious words of Col. Benjamin Franklin Pierce:

I'll carry your books, I'll carry a torch, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry forward, Cary Grant, cash and carry, carry me back to Old Virginia, I'll even 'hari-kari' if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun.

So if I'm out strolling our National Parks I'll take my chances with the bears, rather than the drunk/stoned idiot who has not yet been asked to give it up because he hasn't fired it into the air ...... yet.   Even if that guy represents less than 1% of the gun toting population.

[HB of CJ]

Great posts everyone.  No point in me adding anything.  Time to go wash my "Thunderwear".  He he he. 

[HB of CJ]

Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not aggree with. 

[DrivingMissLazy]

Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not agree with. 

Right on!!!

Richard

[Dallas]

Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not aggree with. 

I may not agree with his statements, but I will defend his right to hold those opinions.

Different people have different ideas and different upbringings. These make for differing outlooks on the world. Without these differing opinions and outlooks this would probably be a pretty boring place.

My sister is a rabid and vociferous pacifist, I doubt if she would touch a gun even if it meant the lives of her or her loved ones.
I, on the other hand believe in self defense at all costs.
Does that make her a bad person? not in my book, it just makes her human, like most of the rest of us here are.

(There, Were those short enough sentences and paragraphs?) 

Dallas

[DrivingMissLazy]

Well...great posts except for WEC4104's, which I do not aggree with. 

I may not agree with his statements, but I will defend his right to hold those opinions.

Different people have different ideas and different upbringings. These make for differing outlooks on the world. Without these differing opinions and outlooks this would probably be a pretty boring place.

My sister is a rabid and vociferous pacifist, I doubt if she would touch a gun even if it meant the lives of her or her loved ones.
I, on the other hand believe in self defense at all costs.
Does that make her a bad person? not in my book, it just makes her human, like most of the rest of us here are.

(There, Were those short enough sentences and paragraphs?) 

Dallas

Hopefully everyone on the board agrees with your statement Dallas.

Richard

[Lin]

     There are extreme and foolish positions on both sides of the gun control issue.  As I understand it, you can have the weapon in your RV.  It should just be unloaded and locked away.  A semi auto with the magazine released is unloaded and can be ready for use very quickly.  Most of the time, those pushing a particular point of view on these issues support their arguments with statistics.  There may be ample urban crime and burglary statistics to support being armed in some places, but from the response from the park rangers, it seems that the national parks do not qualify.  After all, in this instance, the push is to change an existing rule.  Those that wish for this change should be able to show why it is necessary.
     I am sure that the retired rangers that are taking a stand on this are not doing so because they are merely rabidly anti-gun.  I would actually assume that their prime purpose is for the safety of park visitors and themselves.  I would go with those that have the most practical experience here, not those that have a simple philosophical agenda.  Constitutional rights are not absolute anyway.  You have religious freedom yet polygamy is illegal, and Muslims are not allowed to castrate their daughters nor murder them for "dishonoring" the family (funny how dating is a dishonor to the family, but murder is not).  You have freedom of speech, but try making bomb or hijack jokes in an airport.  We live in a complex and often crowded society.  There are compromises necessary to make it work the best it can.  Does it make any sense for an expert driver in a Ferrari and an octogenarian in a old VW Beetle to be governed by the same speed laws?  Yes, it does because, even if silly in terms of technology, ability, risk and danger, we accept it as a reasonable accommodation to the logistics of creating the orderly, enforcible rules needed to make the roads survivable.  Of course, bus conversion people, especially us, should be exempt from everything.