Ya' mean this Teddy Roosevelt?
Posted on 12/12/2008 1:16:50 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Liberals Hate the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, they are UNAMERICAN and NOT PATRIOTIC.
This guy is probably ok if our new president doesn’t meet 1 of 3 constitutional requirements to be President.
This is about visitors packing loaded pistols onto the Padre Island National Seashore or onto the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge. These are supposed to be places of respite and sanctuaries for natural beauty. Allowing loaded weapons onto these parks trespass on that mission.
What? A concealed firearm spoils the view?
I can only offer one suggestion to the author, in the future, buy bunch-proof undies.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Useless. Where was this rule 8 years ago. It’s lifespan is measured in months until it’s repealed by B.O.
I wonder if this liberal nimrod would feel the same if he happened to come across one of the many two-legged-south-of-the-border-type dope crop protectors.
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
Yosemite is just full of bears—they are all over the place, and used to humans, like pigeons!
It would be nice to have a weapon while backpacking up there.
I got this from a dimwitted friend who was sending it around to protest the decision - it came from the Sierra Group. I honestly do NOT understand how someone can grow to adulthood being so stupid:
“As for the illusion of safety that carrying a loaded weapon will allegedly provide visitors to our National Parks, I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way. I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world. The two legged predators I fear are the ones carrying loaded guns, ready to shoot off a self-justified round or two at a moments’ notice. I have yet to read any justification for carrying a loaded weapon in a National Park that does not mention some aspect of personal fear, or a libertarian argument about personal rights. Can someone please explain why I should support this new law without using the vocabulary of fear and anarchistic lbertarianism?”
They will now feel unsafe because someone might misinterpret a move they might make? What do they do, charge at people brandishing swords? WTF?
To say “I go to parks to create the illusion that I am getting away from the threat that firearms pose to my own personal safety in the outside world.” is GALACTICALLY naive. They think that because they are in a “pretend safety zone” because they “create the illusion” that they are safe!
Honest to Pete, sometimes I dispair that there are such simple minded adults (so-called) that just don’t think...they “feel” something, therefore it must be true...
Just yesterday, I was discussing this with a liberal acquaintance.
I asked her if she REALLY believed that wackos who would use a gun on someone in a National Park would care whether or not there is a law against carrying a loaded firearm?
How naive are these people??
“I personally will now feel very UNSAFE in my local national park knowing that the unfamiliar face walking towards me on the trail could potentially harm me with a firearm if they felt “threatened” by me in some way.”
Well, think a minute, jenyus, this could still happen if the guy coming down the trail intends to rob you and kill you and defile your body. The maggot who would do this, though, now has to fear that you may resist with deadly force.
“How naive are these people??”
Barack H. Obama.
“The maggot who would do this, though, now has to fear that you may resist with deadly force.”
This dupe and his ilk think that guns are not a deterrent, yet there is proof like this:
Simi Valley remained the safest large city in the U.S. in 1999, nudging rival Thousand Oaks for the top spot, new crime statistics show. The two east Ventura County commuter communities edged a college community in suburban Buffalo, Amherst Town, N.Y., according to FBI and U.S. census figures.
What the story doesn’t go into is that TO and Simi are also known in So Cal as coptown. Every other house has an LA cop living there (they don’t make as much as Sierra club “activists” so they have to drive an hour each way into the city) and what bad guy in his right mind would crash into one of those houses?
They don’t even have to lock their doors out there...
So does the 2nd Amendment
“It would be nice to have a weapon while backpacking up there.”
A little snake gun in your belt is never a bad idea...for any kind of snake you come across...
I guess there were just OUTRAGEOUS things happening in our precious parks between Teddy and 1983!
http://www.aldha.org/murders.htm
Two women hikers were found slain June 1st, just off the Appalachian Trail near Skyland Lodge in Shenandoah National Park. The bodies were found on National Trails Day by park authorities who had been alerted a day or so before that the women were overdue from a backpacking trip.......
...They were the eighth and ninth people killed in the past two decades along the Appalachian Trail. "In three of those cases, they were double-murders: six incidents, nine murders," the ATC's Brian King was quoted as saying by the Associated Press....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.