Bear protection

[Tag]

If you feel that the risk is worth suffering the consequences, then go for it, but don't complain about the consequences after the fact.

We are in total agreement on this point yoop; the essence of personal freedom in our day and age.

I would not like to let an unjust law be the deciding factor in my personal safety or the ability of those around me to survive attack. As you said, an airliner could be on its way to my door as I type this, but I'm not terribly worried about it. A park official for some equally unjust reason, could search our friend and charge him with a crime but should he be as afraid of that possibility as to jeopardize his safety? I don't think he should, hence my advice that he carry a handgun if he's worried about attack, four legged or two.

you get to be dead for eternity.

maybe, maybe not

but I'd rather not find out because I was afraid to defend myself.

Then again, I don't see how the fear of bears outweighs the fear of search or vice-versa...

hey, you make your decision and take the chance either way.

 

[fast97rs]

Yooper,

I really agree with you....

Dave3006,

I agree with the rite to have a CCW... but what i am speaking about is deciding to take a hike through bear teritory.... not fighting off an attacking human.... but rather avoiding an area known to be inhabited by dangerous animals

Rather then break the law, why not avoid death, and jail and not hike there...... if you decide to go, then take your chance and make your decision... the reason it is probably illegal to pack heat is, due to pultching.

Personally i don't see it as a situation that is un-avoidable... but if i had to go... i would definately take atleast a pistol... and ask the local authorities to see if i can legally do so or if there is a safer means of travel... but no matter what thier question i would pack.....





Just my $.02

 

[Yooper]

The point of my first post with respect to the original question was this:
1) The individual intended to go hiking in an area populated with bears, his presence there was not compulsory, he chose to go there,
2) He knows that firearms are not allowed in the area, he can not plead ignorance, and he chooses to ignore the law,
3) Be responsible for your ill-advised choices or simply find another area to go hiking.

This is like telling the doctor "doc, it hurts when I do this". Well...den don't do dat!

 

[dave3006]

Yooper, he has the right to go anywhere he wants. He also has the God given right to defend himself. There are bears, mountain lions, and bad guys everywhere. 3 miles from my house, a bike rider was eaten by a mountain lion in the area I hike (Whiting Ranch). By your logic, he should have stayed home. He did not deserve to die. Actually, he was murdered by the socialists in Sacramento that forbid him the means to protect himself. His only fault was being tricked into listening to them.

The laws aren't for poachers. The laws are to make ordinary people helpless. The gov't loves helpless people.

You have the right to complain if you are persecuted for breaking a law you were aware of, if it is an immoral law.

By that logic, the Jews who tried to escape the camps and were shot, shouldn't complain. Right? They knew it was illegal to try to escape.

Dave
- I carry 24/7 because it is my God given right to defend myself and no human being can tell me differently. There are no crime free zones on planet earth. So, I will not stay home. It is immoral to obey evil laws.

I am amazed at how dumbed down America has become.

 

[Xander27z]

if someone doesn't own a .44magnum, which would make a better round for self defense against mtn lions & black bears?
.40S&W or 45ACP?

 

[Sport45]

For you that advocate ignoring the law and carrying anyway, I have a question. What do you carry when you find yourself going to Singapore on business (or pleasure)?

 

[Yooper]

Dave-
He can go anywhere he wants as long as he doesn't trespass.

Everyone has the right to defend his life, but not always with firearms.

According to my logic, the bike rider should have remained at home...Well, APPARENTLY SO!!

The bicyclist was not forced to ride his bike through cougar country by anyone in Sacramento. He was not the VICTIM of anything except a cougar attack.

We do not choose which laws we do and do not obey according to any individually determined "moral code". If we don't like the current laws, we do what we can to change them, usually starting at the ballot box.

I really don't understand the correlation between a (voluntary) hiking trip and what happened to Jews (involuntary) in concentration camps. I've known many individuals who still wore the tattoos the Nazis imposed upon them. According to them, the conditions were such that all of them considered escape at one time or another, they would either succeed, or be killed, but free of the camp either way and the Nazis could not take that one last act of free will from them.

 

[Tag]

Sport45 said:

For you that advocate ignoring the law and carrying anyway, I have a question. What do you carry when you find yourself going to Singapore on business (or pleasure)?

I have never been to Singapore, however I do make it into the woods quite often. Singapore is not subject to our bill of rights, they may or may not (not) recognize my right to defend myself against attack, we are talking about America and your comparison is not valid.

We do not choose which laws we do and do not obey according to any individually determined "moral code"

maybe you don't, but I sure do.

Also, I believe it was the Supreme Court uhoh: ) that said "all laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void" or something to that effect.

Everyone has the right to defend his life, but not always with firearms.

criminals would not make that distinction... better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[Yooper]

Tag, you're in good company. Many people have chosen to live outside the law over the years. They're referred to as outlaws, among other things. All of them were sure that their "divinely inspired" moral code was superior to anything the rest of us idiots could concoct as laws governing social conduct.

 

[dave3006]

If Yooper would have his way, George Washington and the boys would have lived within the laws (English) and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sheep.

 

[desmack]

If we don't like the current laws, we do what we can to change them, usually starting at the ballot box.

The current laws meaning The Bill of Rights.... or the ones that directly "piss" on the Bill of Rights.(Patriot Act)

This country has a heart and soul of the individual right. Just because you choose to not carry a gun, doesnt necessarily mean you need to ruin it for the ones who do want to.

The more you liberals get scared, the more rights of the individual get taken away with more laws.

In your case....good thing the fathers of this country are not around becaues they would put you in your place.

More than THR!!!

DB

 

[Tag]

Yooper, I certainly mean no disrespect to you personally, I think we'll just have to disagree on this one.

just to clarify, I don't mean to say I run around leading some kind of bandit existence, I don't even speed. Some of those laws governing social conduct are... rather stupid and counterproductive. Not all laws, not by any means, just the gun laws such as the one in question. Laws that marginalize the founding principles of this country and create victim disarmament zones.

I see nothing wrong with being an 'outlaw'

 

[Yooper]

Lets get something straight, I am not a liberal. I stand for law and order. In fact, if you look up the definition of a "liberal", it is someone who values individual concerns over the common good. I do not advocate "pissing on the Bill of Rights" and I resent the implication! Our founding fathers gave us the freedom to choose and I advocate exercising that freedom. They only advocated anarchy as a last resort, like when the ballot box fails.

I also have a Michigan CPL, but I, for one, understand that with rights come responsibilities. I also understand that when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems start looking like nails. Well, if the only tool you have is a firearm,... Some of you sound like accidents looking for an excuse to happen.

 

[dave3006]

Yooper, your misconceptions are endless. You stand for law and order. What if, through the ballot box, the uneducated masses vote for a law that imprisons everyone with red hair? You would obey it because it is a law and we voted. Right? You advocate the mob rule mentality that has destroyed this country.

The ballot box is not the final say. The constitution is the measure by which all laws are judged. Unfortunately, evil men in high places are depriving us of our rights in direct opposition to the constitution. How much clearer do they need to be when they said "keep and BEAR" arms? Their infringements are illegal.

Rights don't come with responsibilities. Rights are rights. There is no connection. That is a myth used by socialists to limit your freedoms. You don't have responsibilities in a free country. You have the legal obligation not to deprive others of their rights. You have the right to own and bear any militia style arm you want. You just can't shoot someone with it. That would be murder. Not murdering is not a "responsibility".

Mob rule, social responsibility as a guise for collectivism. Nice.

 

[Mal H]

This thread has gone on long enough. It wasn't about bear protection from just about the beginning, but I decided to let it run its course. However, now it seems to be getting a little too personal. I invite the participants to continue the current discussion- calmly and politely - in the Legal & Political forum if desired.