View Single Post
Old January 21, 2009, 04:09 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
It is sort of like people who run red lights and ignore stop signs
I reject this entire specious argument. There is no equivalency between the right to self protection and reckless acts with a motor vehicle, careless consumption of booze, or the use of illegal pharmaceuticals.

I am not speaking of Alaska. I only worry about the places I go.
You ARE speaking of Alaska (and every other state in the Union) since you stated that you wanted guns banned from National Parks. If you refuse to see the full ramifications of your desire that is YOUR issue not mine.

People who worry about paying the Danegeld clearly aren't taking the viewpoint of the Danes.
I don't tend to get too concerned with the viewpoint of those trying to strongarm me into compliance for no reason other than an exercise of power.

Is the fact that there might be armed people tramping around in the woods a reason to ignore the law.
Is the fact that some people "feel uncomfortable" a good reason to deny self-defense/safety tools to law abiding citizens?

You must be assuming that all armed people are bad, yourself excluded.
Actually that seems to be YOUR argument since you are the one wishing to ban all armed people.

Personally, I've never met a threatening person. And I've never seen anyone driving particularly dangerously along Skyline Drive either.
And because you've been lucky so far that leads you to conclude that there is no reason for anyone to be prepared for self defense? Do you also drive without seatbelts or other commonly accepted safety precautions?

I have personally known about seven (lucky seven) people who died from gunshots, five of whom were related to me in various degrees. Undoubtedly that gets in the way of my thinking clearly; it gets in the way of reality somehow, I suppose.
Clearly, since you are concerned enough aobut the presence of firearms to want -all- armed people banned from the National Parks even though the law abiding are no threat and the criminals will ignore the bans along with any other inconvenient laws.

And by the way, I was under the impression that the two women were murdered in their sleep.
I suppose the point you are trying to make is that the women would not have been able to defend themselves? Well seatbelts and airbags don't always save car wreck victims either so I suppose we should just get rid of them as well. No thanks, I'll hang onto my safety equipment. ALL of my safety equipment.

I say again, if the park is so dangerous, stay out, just like you stay out of D.C. or California.
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that I consider parks to be an especially dangerous place. This is incorrect. However I do not have some Walt Disney fantasy that the interior of a park is a SAFER place than the rest of the world. I choose to have safety equipment INSIDE a park for the same reasons I have it OUTSIDE the park. Just like my seatbelts, airbags, first aid kit, and compass, my other safety equipment (firearm) doesn't just make me "feel" safer, it has a realistic chance of actually improving my safety should (Creator forbid) an emergency actually arise.

Last edited by ZeSpectre; January 21, 2009 at 06:33 PM.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Page generated in 0.04555 seconds with 8 queries