Bush's final F.U to America.

[Erumaron]

Originally Posted by Snugglebear

Those are some lousy rules, but carrying loaded weapons in national parks? What's wrong with that?

What reason is there for it? Never underestimate people's stupidity. Shooting at some cans back in the woods where people think they won't get caught is like asking for innocent people to get shot by mistake.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Didn't notice this was Rolling Stone. That explains the tone and complete one sided view.

BTW...you don't have to tell lies to mislead people. In most instances, you can actually use the exact same facts to convince people of anything you want to convince them of.

"Bush is evil because he removed coal regulations that kept the industry from destroying the environments with harmful waste and CO2 emissions."

"Bush brought us one step closer to energy independence by freeing up the energy industry from regulations that made it very hard to build new energy producing plants."

Both statements are completely factual and completely misleading.


Just sayin'

[gn0me]

Originally Posted by Rythonn

I can't imagine it being any worse then Clinton and his pardons. So far he hasn't given out many.

Just wait until the final week of his presidency. This shit will be epic.

[chaos]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Good! As do I. I fucking love some of Kieth Olbermann's stuff. However, I was addressing Grobbe and all of the "Fox News is teh suck" crowd.

You just seemed pretty auto-dismissive of the article. I would like to think, as you do, that most of this stuff will be overturned but that article (and the Washington Post article) make it sound like it won't be that easy.

I'm really curious if someone has a source of info other than these articles, why is it that these laws cannot be easily overturned by the next administration? That's never explained, and would certainly take a lot of wind out of the "OMG PANIC" sails that the article tries to deploy.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by chaos

You just seemed pretty auto-dismissive of the article. I would like to think, as you do, that most of this stuff will be overturned but that article (and the Washington Post article) make it sound like it won't be that easy.

I'm really curious if someone has a source of info other than these articles, why is it that these laws cannot be easily overturned by the next administration? That's never explained, and would certainly take a lot of wind out of the "OMG PANIC" sails that the article tries to deploy.

The president can't legislate. Yes, he can use executive orders to do some pretty sweeping things, but congress can stamp them out and rewrite laws to keep the good parts. And this statement:

Second, the act prohibits reviving any part of a rule that has been squelched.

has got to be totally false, or at least spun like crazy. There is no double jeopardy on legislation, and you can't pass a law that stops congress from considering anything.

Also, most of my -internets are from threads like this one where I disrupt the liberal circle jerks that occur too often on this website. However, I take offense at this:

Bush's final F.U to... 12-14-2008 12:53 PM Partisan retard

Partisan?! Oh now I take serious offense to that. Whoever left that apparently doesn't understand what the word means.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Erumaron

What reason is there for it?

When you get attacked by a bear, cougar or some other wild animal, you let me know how well waving your arms at it works. (I can't remember the James story, lol, though that might be applicable)

Of course, there will be people looking to abuse this (Southpark's "They're coming right for us!" comes to mind), but that can all be dealt with imo. As far as poaching goes, that already happens. Current laws already prohibit that afaik, and yet if someone wants to do it, they are going to do it regardless. I'll give you that this might raise the numbers a bit, but at the end up the day I really don't think this is going to be an "Oh noes!" scenario.

Originally Posted by Erumaron

Shooting at some cans back in the woods where people think they won't get caught is like asking for innocent people to get shot by mistake.

Who the fuck goes to a National Park to plink? I'd wager that most people stay close to home, and either do this at their home or on the property of a friend.

People already 'shoot at some cans back in the woods', and while accidents do happen they are pretty rare overall. The only difference is that it isn't on Federal land. I could go to some wooded areas near my house, where I am SURE people use firearms, and the chance of a round striking a random person must be hundreds of times higher than in a national park.

How crowded do you think a national park is? I don't think it is very likely that if I were in Yellowstone shooting at a can (lol), that a round will hit some random person walking around somewhere in the mountains.

You make it sound like there is going to be some 'wave' of accidental shootings in National Parks if this is allowed to go forward. You can't be serious.

Also, for those people that might already go onto Federal land to plink, I'm sure a large part of it is the search for remote, unpopulated areas.

[Erronius]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Also, most of my -internets are from threads like this one where I disrupt the liberal circle jerks that occur too often on this website. However, I take offense at this:

I'm honestly not sure Liberal is the right word here. There are circle jerks to be sure, but as someone with some Liberal leanings I'd almost say that many are beyond liberal, and into 'bat country'. Much like those conservatives who are on the other extreme end of the spectrum.

Also I've heard some conservatives lately react in much the same fashion in regards to Obama being elected. In fact, I've heard people claim that once Obama is in office, he will use the same powers in scenarios much like what the OP posted to create some horrible, legislative nightmare and that we will all be fucked. Just more kneejerk reactions, but they are on both sides of the fence.

It was almost creepy in a way reading your first two sentences, as I've been using almost the exact same comments lately.

[Lumie]

They are not human, just look at George's eyes, especially that thing he does at about 35 seconds and the clicking noise that goes with it as well as the fact that the camera instantly moved away from him

[Astrocreep]

This board is anything if not predictable, the waaaaaahmbulance is here, get ready for the stretcher.

[Aetos]

omg bush is so evil, can't beleive they are going to allow

loaded firearms would be allowed in national parks,

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Erronius

I'm honestly not sure Liberal is the right word here. There are circle jerks to be sure, but as someone with some Liberal leanings I'd almost say that many are beyond liberal, and into 'bat country'. Much like those conservatives who are on the other extreme end of the spectrum.

Also I've heard some conservatives lately react in much the same fashion in regards to Obama being elected. In fact, I've heard people claim that once Obama is in office, he will use the same powers in scenarios much like what the OP posted to create some horrible, legislative nightmare and that we will all be fucked. Just more kneejerk reactions, but they are on both sides of the fence.

It was almost creepy in a way reading your first two sentences, as I've been using almost the exact same comments lately.

I stand corrected sir, you are absolutely right.

[Churchill]

Originally Posted by Erumaron

What reason is there for it? Never underestimate people's stupidity. Shooting at some cans back in the woods where people think they won't get caught is like asking for innocent people to get shot by mistake.

Bears.

[Hachima]

Originally Posted by Erronius

When you get attacked by a bear, cougar or some other wild animal, you let me know how well waving your arms at it works. (I can't remember the James story, lol, though that might be applicable).

When you get attacked by a bear and shoot at it with a handgun let me know how that goes lol. I think of some solo dude trying to take out a Tank solo with just a single pistol in Left 4 dead and the end result of that =)

Or are people going to be walking around with high powered rifles strapped to their back?

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Hachima

When you get attacked by a bear and shoot at it with a handgun let me know how that goes lol. I think of some solo dude trying to take out a Tank solo with just a single pistol in Left 4 dead and the end result of that =)

Or are people going to be walking around with high powered rifles strapped to their back?

Dude, a couple hollow point slugs from a .45 will drop just about anything. And even if it doesn't drop him, the noise and pain will make him think twice about attacking you. A question, have you even fired a gun before?

[Hachima]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Dude, a couple hollow point slugs from a .45 will drop just about anything. And even if it doesn't drop him, the noise and pain will make him think twice about attacking you. A question, have you even fired a gun before?

Yup and my family owns property with bears on it. A question, do you really think a hollow point bullet will work well against the thick skin/muscle/fat of a bear? Anyone that actually hunts bears with handguns will laugh at you. A 200+ grain soft nose bullet is a better choice. And I'm talking about hunting a bear where you get to choose the shot for a good lung puncture/heart shot etc. Not some self defense lets take down a charging bear.

Were talking about a skilled hunter pulling this off anyway. The last thing we need is morons that think they are safe to go get their picture taken next to bears because they have a gun with them. I'm all for hunting but I really don't think there is a need for people to carry guns around for protection from wildlife. They sell these huge bear mace canisters. If people want protection they are going to be a lot more safe using that than pulling off the shot of a lifetime.