Highly biased wording in AOL poll on National Park Carry
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
The wording of a question is more important than the question in creating an outcome:
"Do you think people should be able to carry instruments of poaching and death in the only sanctuary our endangered wildlife has left?"
"Do you think people should be able to carry a weapon for self defense in the middle of nowhere, where they are unlikely to even be heard, miles from the nearest road, when they can depend on nobody but themselves in the event of a violent attack?"
"Do you think people should be able to carry instruments of poaching and death in the only sanctuary our endangered wildlife has left?"
"Do you think people should be able to carry a weapon for self defense in the middle of nowhere, where they are unlikely to even be heard, miles from the nearest road, when they can depend on nobody but themselves in the event of a violent attack?"
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
Not anymore.
Not anymore.
Erik M
Member
I promise I am oh so sorry to inconvenience a park employee buy exercising my right to defend myself.
fragmag
Member
I voted!
rustycrusty
Member
I'm working on how to conceal carry my shotgun over my shoulder! That author is dumb as a bucket of cow snot.
I brecall two college students (Virginia Tech I believe) who were murdered on the Shannendoah Parkway within the past year. They might still be alive and the dirtbag dead if this law had been on the books at the time. The girl was the daughter of a police officer I believe. Many more examples like this out there.
I brecall two college students (Virginia Tech I believe) who were murdered on the Shannendoah Parkway within the past year. They might still be alive and the dirtbag dead if this law had been on the books at the time. The girl was the daughter of a police officer I believe. Many more examples like this out there.
danez71
Member
62% good 36% bad
IdahoLT1
Member
RETG said:
I respectfully disagree. I will choose open carry over CC when out of city limits/outdoors. Access to the firearm is much quicker and I'm not limited to my CW9. If I'm in the mountains, I will take my S&W 1006 10mm because of its huge power advantage. Inside city limits I have almost zero concern for 4 legged predators. My CW9 will dispatch most dogs but it will fail against mountain lions, wolves and bears.
rm23
Member
64% good idea, 35% bad idea 12,464 votes
Yeah. I think many people forget there is many fine firearms, especially of the outdoors variety that are impractical to carry in a concealed manner.
The type that were the "normal" size guns before concealing your guns became all the rage.
An additional point is those people that make a statement open carrying just to prove a point make those people not trying to prove a point have things much easier.
Concealed carry, or open carry in less obvious locations becomes small in comparison to the guys marching around open carrying at the visitors' center.
As a result by the time people cease bothering those statement making open carriers they are very unlikely to bother everyone else carrying in a more subtle manner.
They take the heat, make the adjustments in attitudes and you reap the rewards. Yet you dislike them for it?
cleardiddion
Member
RETG, just out of curiosity, what about people who can't carry concealed?
Just because someone lives in a CC permitted state but isn't old enough to carry that out mean that they can't be protected?
It just irks me a bit when people go on to always say 'CC CC CC!'
Don't forget it's not always about being a statement.
Just because someone lives in a CC permitted state but isn't old enough to carry that out mean that they can't be protected?
It just irks me a bit when people go on to always say 'CC CC CC!'
Don't forget it's not always about being a statement.
jakemccoy
Member
..................................
jakemccoy
Member
I don't plan on carrying in a National Park (long story), but I voted yes anyway.
Caliper_Mi
Member
Haha, blocks most cookies on my computer. Means I could vote again 
64 good/33 bad, 12696 votes
56 carry/35 not carry, 12199 votes
Who is only voting on one part?
64 good/33 bad, 12696 votes
56 carry/35 not carry, 12199 votes
Who is only voting on one part?
22-rimfire
Member
Many years ago, I can understand the rule on firearms in National Parks as many of the parks were large and the boundaries poorly defined. Yellowstone NP was administrated by the US Army and others simply had no administration. They were just chunks of land that were often previously used for mining or timbering and were often in fairly low population areas. But the same argument can be applied then as now, that honest people don't poach game and honest people don't shoot other people. It is the criminals who do that and a firearm rule will not stop them from carrying or using a firearm inside park boundaries.
Hungry people might poach game however.
I think the firearm rule was primarily about hunting or in reality poaching wild game. There are always a few idiots who do this or try to do it. The punishment is rather harsh; a life changing event.
The new rule makes sense to me. A lot has changed since concealed carry permits have become more common place in many states. The commonality has not caused a rash of murders. If anything, the commonality has reduced crime and crime is a problem in National Parks now.
Hungry people might poach game however.
I think the firearm rule was primarily about hunting or in reality poaching wild game. There are always a few idiots who do this or try to do it. The punishment is rather harsh; a life changing event.
The new rule makes sense to me. A lot has changed since concealed carry permits have become more common place in many states. The commonality has not caused a rash of murders. If anything, the commonality has reduced crime and crime is a problem in National Parks now.
jpwilly
Member
Voted, thanks for the link. Out here in AZ everybody is packing anyway might as well have the good guys armed too! Here in AZ we have national parks o'plenty. I think most folks have been bringing them in anyway.
JW2
Member
Well, my opinion is that if you can figure out a way to conceal your rifle or shotgun, more power to ya!
It's hard to believe that the author is so misinformed. I think it has to be intentional propaganda.
It's hard to believe that the author is so misinformed. I think it has to be intentional propaganda.
Kimber45acp
member
IT'S TOMORROW? I suddenly want to visit a national park. I never did before, probably because I could FEEL the loss of liberty before ever setting foot in one. National parks were turned into quasi federal land, when the constitution grants no authority for the feds to seize whatever they want whenever the mood hits them.
I never thought I would say thank God for something bush did, but thank God for that weak rule his constitution hating administration jammed too quickly through the process just before he left office, AND I never thought I would say thank God for a scummy anti gun excuse for a judge, who threw that rule out, which energized our side enough to get BARRY SOETORO of all people, to sign the best legislation possible on this subject, which restored states rights. How ironic that a republican president didn't give a crap about states rights on this subject, and it took a Democrat president to sign the best, most pro gun, most pro states rights version (albeit grudgingly).
I never thought I would say thank God for something bush did, but thank God for that weak rule his constitution hating administration jammed too quickly through the process just before he left office, AND I never thought I would say thank God for a scummy anti gun excuse for a judge, who threw that rule out, which energized our side enough to get BARRY SOETORO of all people, to sign the best legislation possible on this subject, which restored states rights. How ironic that a republican president didn't give a crap about states rights on this subject, and it took a Democrat president to sign the best, most pro gun, most pro states rights version (albeit grudgingly).
I don't vote in internet polls. It is generally trivial to stuff ballots, as BluEyes demonstrated, and meaningless anyway, as they're so heavily shaped by the demographics voting. With a bit of effort and know-how, anyone with an agenda and an internet connection can probably enter a few million votes.
Here's a choice bit of distortion, though.
The average park visitor spends a few hours or days in a park each year. The average US resident spends ~365 days in the country each year. These figures are not comparable at all.
Here's a choice bit of distortion, though.
The average park visitor spends a few hours or days in a park each year. The average US resident spends ~365 days in the country each year. These figures are not comparable at all.
hadmanysons
Member
Done
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
