Obama and Company offer another Swipe at the 2nd Amendment

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by macman

 

His family having a picnic isn't going to get you killed. Your stray bullet can get someone killed. It is that simple people should not have to worry if their trip to the great outdoors is going to turn into a trip to the emergency room, followed by a trip to the coroner's office, followed by a trip to the funeral home. Does it suck? Yes it certainly does, but if we weren't bending over backwards for every damn developer that wanted build yet more housing and buildings on vacant land because it was cheaper than redeveloping the land we already use. Until we start addressing the urban sprawl, this issue will be brought to the forefront time and time again. It isn't anyone's personal crusade to take away your recreation, it is simply a grim reality that as more and more people start using these areas the less and less area you will have to enjoy for your preferred use.

SO its the fault of urban sprawl?
Ok, so you read Bomb the Suburbs and No more Prisons too.
It is still the fact that his rights therefore trump mine.
And I have yet to see, over the 30+ years on this planet a family picnicking where people shoot on BLM and Public Land.
I have lived in over 10 states, and have never heard or nor seen such a thing.
It is a non-issue, that is created to press for more Govt control. Plain and simple.

I have also never heard of a family getting hit with a stray bullet, as you suggest.
So, failure to you.

reply to post by MrWendal


So much for your nonsense about reading the article. The article clearly states the areas being impacted by this are in developing areas. So naturally people in these areas are going to start using them for other recreational purposes.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by MrWendal

 

So much for your nonsense about reading the article. The article clearly states the areas being impacted by this are in developing areas. So naturally people in these areas are going to start using them for other recreational purposes.

If it is to be used for development, then it is incorporated into the city/town, thus the local ordinances fall into place.
So, again a non-issue.
Nice try again.
But, alas, the rights of the picnicking family trump those of everyone else.
A special class of citizen!! I will create a Lobbying group for picnickers and make a killing.

What a sad day in Mudville.

reply to post by macman


No it won't necessarily be covered by municipal codes. The area could very well be outside of that jurisdiction, yet close enough to make it attractive to the residents of that developing area to start using on a frequent basis, and understandably there are going to be concerns.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by MrWendal

 

So much for your nonsense about reading the article. The article clearly states the areas being impacted by this are in developing areas. So naturally people in these areas are going to start using them for other recreational purposes.

Nice try... but maybe you missed the part in the article where it says,

"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.

"developing areas" is a very broad term. What it means is that there is a plan in place for development. It does not mean that there are homes being built on that very spot., along with strip malls and grocery stores. If the Government says, and they do, that it is NOT a safety issue then that means there is no risk of people being shot and killed. This is all about people hearing gun shots from a distance and freaking out about it. Which makes sense... if you live in a city you are used to densely populated areas. A Gun shot heard on a city block tells you to duck, look around, and get the hell out of there.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by macman

 

No it won't necessarily be covered by municipal codes. The area could very well be outside of that jurisdiction, yet close enough to make it attractive to the residents of that developing area to start using on a frequent basis, and understandably there are going to be concerns.

So basically like the dolts that move next to the Airport, Air Force Base or Farm.
They don't like the noise or smell, so they petition to force changes to things, people, groups and companies to move or stop what they have been doing because it bothers the person that DECIDED to move there.

This is the problem. If you don't see it then you are either willfully blind or just ignorant.

reply to post by macman


Hell, those people should petition the airport to move or to stop launching and landing planes. In these uncertain Post 9/11™ times having planes so close to your home is certainly not safe.

Wont somebody please think of the children?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by macman

 

Hell, those people should petition the airport to move or to stop launching and landing planes. In these uncertain Post 9/11 times having planes so close to your home is certainly not safe.

Wont somebody please thing of the children?

Any Politician or Political Wanna Be that says "its for the children" should be hit in the head with a tack hammer, repeatedly.

Originally posted by macman
Any Politician or Political Wanna Be that says "its for the children" should be hit in the head with a tack hammer, repeatedly.

For the children.

reply to post by MrWendal


Yes the new suburbanites are going to have issues with hearing gunshots while out with their families. This isn't rocket science. Lands that hunters could once enjoy without these kinds of hassles are going to become smaller and smaller as more and more people move into residential areas that are nearby and start using them for other purposes. Because their families safety is going to be the prime motivating factor. Whether the threat is real or merely perceived.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


That's funny cause i feel so safe when i go to the city.
I'm getting the feeling that everyone doesn't understand that the public hunting lands are not being developed by anyone.At least that's how it is here in texas on state land.Now if you move next to state land in the country gunshots are normal and no humans are being targeted.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mockrock

 

This is about US issues. Where are you from again?

Thanks for playing.

Well if you want to walk around shooting each other.. From the outside it looks crazy!! Richest country in the world has larger death rate than the U.S soldiers annual death rate during the Vietnam war..

I think you need outside help to tell you this is MADNESS!!

Yeah, because that is all we do in America. Walk around with guns'a blazing.
Please, unless you have any personal experience with this and have been here, go post in another thread.
You are obviously clueless in this realm.

I know it is difficult to understand so lets make it clear..

MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY GUNS IN THE US THAN BY WAR IN THE 20TH CENTURY

www.bradycampaign.org...

Yes I don't understand how anyone with half a brain could argue that this is positive thing.. Hell yes lets extend it.. instead of kid's toys replace those with guns.

If you want to be a real man learn a martial art, only cowards use guns.

and yes it does effect everyone worldwide, as America makes so many guns ! You can't escape their promotion in Movies, so teens around the world think it's cool to own a gun..

Yeah seriously when is the last time you ever heard of a hiker or dog getting shot?

BS it is another strike on the 2nd and defining who get's to use" public land". no just some people wheres the aclu at for discrimination?

Nah the government gets to dictate what happens on 245 million acres? gets to dictate the airspace as well that is garbage.

If you want to be a real man learn a martial art, only cowards use guns.

reply to post by mockrock


Anyone with a 1 degree black belt in martial arts is considered a deadly weapon.
Those real men fighting you speak of would be breaking the law if they killed someone to save a life.
You are trying to twist this to be about more than loosing our hunting rights.
Do you think that me eating deer killed with a gun is contributing to the manufactured drug and robbery problems we have.

reply to post by deadeyedick


The public land itself does not have to be developed. The land itself can be undeveloped, it is of no consequence the problem is the areas around said land that are being developed. Which is leading to more people using those public lands that were once used almost exclusively by hunters. People aren't just all of a sudden driving out to these areas to take away your shooting privileges. These are people that obviously live in close proximity to these areas, and for obvious reasons don't want to worry about getting shot.

This is what happens, when you have people move into previously undeveloped areas. You can't have it both ways either you start reducing the number of developments on undeveloped land and continue to enjoy hunting on that public land or start being restricted to where you can shoot on public lands that are frequented by residents of land that is being developed. Again it isn't rocket science. It is simply a numbers game and the number of people concerned in certain areas near public land have simply become too large to simply ignore.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


In theory your some what correct.
However you are taking into account that the growth into the wild you speak of has taken place all along and these matters have been delt with and this is not a problem except in your theories.

Originally posted by neo96
Yeah seriously when is the last time you ever heard of a hiker or dog getting shot?

BS it is another strike on the 2nd and defining who get's to use" public land". no just some people wheres the aclu at for discrimination?

Nah the government gets to dictate what happens on 245 million acres? gets to dictate the airspace as well that is garbage.

edit on 16-11-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Last time I heard of someone being shot by a hunter would be this little gem that I am sure we all remember quite well

**warning** link will open up in same window. I can not seem to fix it.

Never Forget

So technically it happens, from those that make our own laws

Originally posted by mockrock


If you want to be a real man learn a martial art, only cowards use guns.

Yep, because you can roundhouse kick a bullet away.
Chuck Norris you are not.
Give me a break. Again, US issue. Door is on the left.

Originally posted by deadeyedick

If you want to be a real man learn a martial art, only cowards use guns.

reply to post by mockrock

 

Anyone with a 1 degree black belt in martial arts is considered a deadly weapon.
Those real men fighting you speak of would be breaking the law if they killed someone to save a life.
You are trying to twist this to be about more than loosing our hunting rights.
Do you think that me eating deer killed with a gun is contributing to the manufactured drug and robbery problems we have.

Yes, the ease of access to guns is contributing to gun violence. So what if a few people can't shoot helpless deer.

It takes time and dedication to learn a martial.. But $100 can buy any idiot a gun.. With great power comes responsibility, which most people cannot handle. Is the price to be free to shoot deer worth 12,632 homicide deaths.. ? It's about balance.. It's hardly a fair fight using a gun to kill a deer? Try a bow and arrow, we have a longer human history using those than guns, far more skill involved too.

I went to a shooting range and did target practice.. It is too easy ! With a 10 minute lesson you can hit the bulls-eye, there is no skill to this. If you need a thrill take up rock-climbing at least you only risk yourself.. Much more of buzz and great to keep off weight.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by mockrock


If you want to be a real man learn a martial art, only cowards use guns.

Yep, because you can roundhouse kick a bullet away.
Chuck Norris you are not.
Give me a break. Again, US issue. Door is on the left.

And why do you need to kick a bullet away.... ? Because too many guns are out there.. reduce guns reduce need to own guns.