parados, there are many tales of black bear stalking people and killing them. Read "A walk in the woods" by Tim Bryson. He included a number of stories of black bears tearing the **** out of people. However, I think your stats are probably correct, you will have a greater chance of being hit by lightning because storms are all over, black bears are range limited. YOU must go into their neck of the woods, whereas you can get nailed by lightning in a golf course or in a swimming pool ( which are, pretty much, bear-free)
parados wrote:Black bears sometimes stalk humans for food? What comic book did that idea come from?
That comes from reality.
If a bear is charging at you, it is probably just trying to establish a superior place in the bear pecking order, and will probably break off the charge before it gets to you.
But if a black bear is calmly and steadily walking towards you, it means to eat you, and you need to kill it.
farmerman wrote:PEPPER SPRAY? That means that youre alredy within chowdown range of a bear.
Yes. It probably isn't feasible to use pepper spray and then ready a long gun.
farmerman wrote:Besides, a long gun on a hike in the woods is like having to wear a rack of antlers, it just gets in the way in tight spots.
Yes, but the stopping power on bears is far better than any handgun.
Especially if it is a .450 Marlin, or a 12 gauge loaded with 3-inch magnum Brenneke slugs (or, for larger bears, something ending in the words "nitro express").
In JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER (195O) 339 US 763, the US Supreme Court
held that the US Bill of Rights did not protect German enemy aliens, as:
"Such a construction would mean that during military occupation ...
enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and 'werewolves' could require
the American Judiciary to assure them
freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, as in the First Amendment,
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as in the Second, security against 'unreasonable'
searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as
well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." [emphasis added]
Observe that the Supreme Court finds no need to refer to any
state government militia; this holding, and the choice of words in which
it is expressed, concern PERSONAL RIGHTS,
not rights of state governments against Uncle Sam.
David
Foxfyre wrote:The testosterone levels on this thread are amazing.
I'm just going to go where the bears aren't, thank you very much.
I dont often get to chime in with Fox so I'm grabbing this chance...
Good Luck with that.
Some years ago, we set up a thick steak dinner
to be followed by recourse to a gunnery range.
Someone described it as being at the intersection
of testosterone and cholesterol.
David
A deadly combination, to be sure.
Gun control can be deadly,
but it is good for criminals.
I think part of what bothers me about the frothing-at-the-mouth of the gun nuts is the pretense that their concern is solely out of some patriotic sense of civic duty - some sense of resisting the evil imperialists who would come and take their rightfully-owned guns.
That might be part of it, but what never gets talked about is how pitiful it is for these people to be so fearful of someone coming to take away their guns. Seems so craven, to be in such an uproar over their guns. Almost like someone's threatening to castrate them, or something.
snood wrote:I think part of what bothers me about the frothing-at-the-mouth of the gun nuts is the pretense that their concern is solely out of some patriotic sense of civic duty - some sense of resisting the evil imperialists who would come and take their rightfully-owned guns.
That might be part of it, but what never gets talked about is how pitiful it is for these people to be so fearful of someone coming to take away their guns. Seems so craven, to be in such an uproar over their guns. Almost like someone's threatening to castrate them, or something.
When we stop being fearful of losing our Constitutional rights, I think we will soon not be a Democratic Republic any longer. The right to bear arms was fundamental to a society organized to govern itself. Weaponry has developed to the point that we no longer may be able to defeat our own Army, but we could make any attempt by any Army to disarm us quite unpleasant and costly.
But to be ever alert that the right to be law abiding gun owners could be removed is also prudent.
The right to own and enjoy firearms is practical in a dangerous world where bad guys (or bad bears) exist. It is also shining symbolism illustrating that it is the people who hold the power in this country and not a self-ordained authoritarian despot who would be king.
It's interesting that the same folks who think Americans need guns to defend against the return of the divine right of kings also tend to support George Bush, who has been grabbing power more eagerly than any other recent president.
Could someone explain this?
I think your partisan observation is inappropriate and not related to this thread D. There are several dozen other active threads devoted to bashing our President and I suggest you ask your question there. You will be eagerly received I am sure.
You really should watch out, Fox; generally, when you are 'thinking' you seem to be, well, completely wrong.
I would advise against it in the future.
Cycloptichron
Foxfyre wrote:I think your partisan observation is inappropriate and not related to this thread D. There are several dozen other active threads devoted to bashing our President and I suggest you ask your question there. You will be eagerly received I am sure.
Let me rephrase, then: In your opinion, at what point is a citizen justified in taking up arms against the gov't?
Dartagnan wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I think your partisan observation is inappropriate and not related to this thread D. There are several dozen other active threads devoted to bashing our President and I suggest you ask your question there. You will be eagerly received I am sure.
Let me rephrase, then: In your opinion, at what point is a citizen justified in taking up arms against the gov't?
I would say when the government has decided that the citizens will no longer have the rights protected by the Constitution. That would be a pretty good indicator that it was time.
In that case, the government violations of the Fourth Amendment with regard to our being secure in our persons and effects when they seek records from, for example, the telephone companies, that would justify armed insurrection? What about due process?
Foxfyre wrote:Dartagnan wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I think your partisan observation is inappropriate and not related to this thread D. There are several dozen other active threads devoted to bashing our President and I suggest you ask your question there. You will be eagerly received I am sure.
Let me rephrase, then: In your opinion, at what point is a citizen justified in taking up arms against the gov't?
I would say when the government has decided that the citizens will no longer have the rights protected by the Constitution. That would be a pretty good indicator that it was time.
I would imagine there are many who feel that way now. Take Tim McVeigh, please...
Dartagnan wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Dartagnan wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I think your partisan observation is inappropriate and not related to this thread D. There are several dozen other active threads devoted to bashing our President and I suggest you ask your question there. You will be eagerly received I am sure.
Let me rephrase, then: In your opinion, at what point is a citizen justified in taking up arms against the gov't?
I would say when the government has decided that the citizens will no longer have the rights protected by the Constitution. That would be a pretty good indicator that it was time.
I would imagine there are many who feel that way now. Take Tim McVeigh, please...
Tim McVeigh did not take up arms against his government nor did he have any justification for doing so. He targeted his fellow citizens. Evenso, that the govenrment behaves like an idiot or errs in process is not the same thing as stripping the people of their rights.
Now you lefties can continue to nitpick the fine points that you insert here, or you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered. I do not wish to see this thread reduced to still another Bush bashing thread. The thesis of this thread is gun control.
Now I've answered your question. Do you think the second amendment should be scrapped and the people should give up their guns?
Foxfyre:
Quote:...you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered.
My whole problem with the gun nuts is that they seem to overreact to attempts at gun control legislation, in the "spirit and context" it is offered.
No one wants your frikkin guns, man. They license and regulate a lot of sensitive items and issues, from driving automobiles to fishing to the depth of holes you can dig in certain counties - why don't you think there needs to be (at least an attempt at) regulation of guns?
Foxfyre wrote:
Tim McVeigh did not take up arms against his government nor did he have any justification for doing so. He targeted his fellow citizens. Evenso, that the govenrment behaves like an idiot or errs in process is not the same thing as stripping the people of their rights.
Now you lefties can continue to nitpick the fine points that you insert here, or you can accept my statement in the spirit and context in which it was offered. I do not wish to see this thread reduced to still another Bush bashing thread. The thesis of this thread is gun control.
Now I've answered your question. Do you think the second amendment should be scrapped and the people should give up their guns?
Seems to me McVeigh took up arms because of various gov't actions, including Waco. And he attacked a federal bldg. In his mind, at least, it was an appropriate response.
Besides, where in the Constitution does it sat that one's private arsenal can only be used when the gov't is "stripping the people of their rights"?
