Texas Land Commissioner Opposes National Park Gun Restrictions

Status
Not open for further replies.
you see crabtree44 there in lies the rube, no one here will force you to carry, some may make fun of you for not but on one will try to force you to keep a piece of saftey equipment on you.
you and others however wish to force your personal "choice" on everyone.
 
support the NPS for not allowing guns to be carried in the parks. I really do not believe it has anything to do with 2nd amendment rights. There are many other areas where carrying a gun is restricted - schools, government buildings, bars. Sorry, but there are good valid reasons for all of these.

The national forests around me allow carryying of firearms. It hasn't caused any problems. If I'm out in some remote place, especially in a more "wild" setting, where wild animals could attack, drug dealers/growers might be lurking, criminals may be hiding, etc., I will be carrying. Disarming people in national parks is foolish and endangers lives. If you don't feel like carrying, that's fine with me, it's your decision. But when you try to force others, like me, to go unarmed, that's a problem. People can not be forcing their views on others and infringing on rights.
 
I sure do resent my opinion being labeled "koolaid drivel". But, nevermind - fortunately most of the world agrees with me.

If you could ask the millions of innocent people murdered after their ability to defend themselves was removed I doubt if they would agree with you. Just because you think most of the world agrees with you still does not allow you or them to take away my rights.

I will choose not to carry - personal choice.

Lots of people of seem to die when someone else makes a personal choice.

The decision to take someone else's life and liberty is a personal choice.

I choose to live and defend myself.

Anygun
 
I agree with the principle of not giving the land to the NPS because of their no guns policy, but I believe this is really just a smokescreen to allow the Texas Land Commision to sell the land to private investors -- which is a clear violation of the covenant under which the land was donated.

IMHO, the TLC does not have a clear title to sell the land and it should revert back to the original donators (Mellon Group, I think) if Texas tries to sell it.
 
I agree with the principle of not giving the land to the NPS because of their no guns policy, but I believe this is really just a smokescreen to allow the Texas Land Commision to sell the land to private investors -- which is a clear violation of the covenant under which the land was donated.

IMHO, the TLC does not have a clear title to sell the land and it should revert back to the original donors (Mellon Group, I think) if Texas tries to sell it.
 
Crabtree

I support the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms. I just believe there are certain places where arms should be disallowed. My place of employment is one. People can get emotional over workplace conflicts, maybe termination, etc. and reach for a weapon. They end up regretting that the rest of their lives. The logic applies to places where alcohol is served. No reason to carry a gun to church is there? Are these not valid reasons? Enlighten me.....I can be convinced otherwise.

I believe there are few places that a firearm should be disallowed, I can understand courtrooms, I agree with restrictions in medical facilities where strong magnets are used (MRI), I think a person should be allowed to carry almost anywhere he/she sees fit.

My place of employment is one. People can get emotional over workplace conflicts, maybe termination, etc. and reach for a weapon. They end up regretting that the rest of their lives.

I see this as more of a reason to carry than to restrict carry. Lots of things can be used as a weapon, I would like to have the fighting chance to defend from most of them. I would also prefer that if a coworker gets emotional , reaches for a weapon and regrets their actions for the rest of their life, that it not be at the cost of my life being unnaturally shortened, at least w/o a fighting chance.

The logic applies to places where alcohol is served.
I can understand a lack of trust for a room full of potentially drunk people, some of which are armed. How about simple bar rules, hand over the loaded magazine with the car keys before you order, if you are sober when you want to leave, you get them back.

No reason to carry a gun to church is there?
While I think using a gun in church would be in extremely poor form, I would rather defend myself in a gunfight in a church, than be a victim in a church massacre.

fortunately most of the world agrees with me. I will choose not to carry
I think it is unfortunate that most of the world agrees with you.

Your choice not to carry is yours, Your statements suggest that you do not feel responsible enough to carry in your workplace, your church, your local tavern, or in a national park. If it is your own recognition of limited responsibility, then I commend you for recognizing that, and making a rational decision. Where I take offense is where you place that idea of limited responsibility on those around you. I have seen this attitude many times from the left, the "some people aren't responsible enough, they can't be trusted , we should all be restricted to make things fair (safe)."

This is really a fundamental flaw in viewing free people (as we are supposed to be), freedom comes with responsibility. Your comments demonstrate a lack of trust in your fellow man. Where we differ is that I prefer a person be judged by their actions not by their capabilities. Everyone should be given their shot at social responsibility. Only when an individual demonstrates that they can not be trusted should their choice of where and when they carry be restricted.

I too have a lack of trust in my fellow man. It's exactly why I want to be able to carry at work, in a church, at the grocery store, to the movies, in the post office, on an airplane and especially in a national park.
 
respect

zxcvbob: Sir; if you are correct and "Jerry Patterson" is in fact trying an around the corner deal. Dang Nab It; My feeling for him just went down the drain.

I have read all the thoughts presented; particularly I enjoyed "protolith" work. Clear and concise.
Without question each of us has understandings about ourselves, our families, our communities, state, and country. Those who may choose to be victims; I respect your rights and decisions;
Respect mine; do not take away my right to defend my values, because you would rather be a victim.
 
protolith, do not tell me how I feel....you a psychologist?

Back to the point: The NPS prohibits firearms in the park. Fine. But Patterson is denying the people of Texas access to that land because of his personal beliefs. Does he have an 'under the table deal'? Maybe, I don't know. But the people of Texas elected him to look after their interests, not his own.
 
protolith, do not tell me how I feel....you a psychologist?

Back to the point: The NPS prohibits firearms in the park. Fine. But Patterson is denying the people of Texas access to that land because of his personal beliefs. Does he have an 'under the table deal'? Maybe, I don't know. But the people of Texas elected him to look after their interests, not his own.
 
crabtree44 said:
But the people of Texas elected him to look after their interests, not his own.
And that's exactly what he is doing by refusing to sell to the NPS. The people of TX are pro-gun. The NPS isn't. I can only imagine the fecal storm of protest that would hit Mr. Patterson's desk if he sold this land to the NPS.

That said I doubt if he's made his decision in a vacuum. Others have probably had input that we're just not aware of.
 
And that's exactly what he is doing by refusing to sell to the NPS. The people of TX are pro-gun. The NPS isn't. I can only imagine the fecal storm of protest that would hit Mr. Patterson's desk if he sold this land to the NPS.

And if he sells the land to a private development company, he denies *all* Texans access to the land whether they are armed or not. Think about it. Maybe he can't win in this situation, but he's making sure everybody loses except maybe his cronies.
 
Denying the people of Texas access?

Suydam reiterated Patterson's position Wednesday that he would not vote to accept any bid -- including those from private interests -- that does not allow for public hunting.

That sure doesn't sound like this would deny all of the people of Texas access.

"He believes that public hunting is one of the appropriate public uses on the Christmas Mountains and that Texans should be allowed their constitutional right to bear firearms,"

Two things that would not be allowed if the land is sold to the NPS

state-enforced development prohibitions that will remain no matter who acquires the property

Sounds like the land can't be developed into exclusive resorts.

It would appear that the result for this land sale would be a privately owned public park. If the state of Texas can't afford to maintain the land, and its current use will be limited if the land is sold to the NPS, then I don't see any other option then to sell the land with the stipulation that public access be maintained, hunting still be allowed, and no development occur.

crabtree
protolith, do not tell me how I feel
I wasn't telling you how you feel, only you know that, I was simply interpreting the comments you made. In an earlier post you spoke of beliefs, emotions, and regrets, those sound like feelings. A post in a public forum can say as much about the poster as the subject of the post. Perhaps I read too much into it.

you a psychologist?
No , I'm a hydrogeologist
 
Quote:
Suydam reiterated Patterson's position Wednesday that he would not vote to accept any bid -- including those from private interests -- that does not allow for public hunting.

That sure doesn't sound like this would deny all of the people of Texas access.

OK, I missed that part. More research to do... Thanks.
 
Watch what happens to the Christmas Mountains. Follow the money. Then decide if the people of Texas got cheated.
 
protolith
I believe there are few places that a firearm should be disallowed, I can understand courtrooms, I agree with restrictions in medical facilities where strong magnets are used (MRI), I think a person should be allowed to carry almost anywhere he/she sees fit.
Please enlighten me as to the reason firearms should not be allowed in courtrooms.
 
Courtrooms, schools, bars - I believe you should be allowed to carry your gun anywhere. I trust you. The problem is the world is full of folks not nearly as fine a folk as you are, but we can't tell you apart. You'all look exactly alike.

Second reason: when the bullets start flying in a crowded room and you whip out your gun, who you gonna shoot? How do you tell the bad guys from the good guys? Best solution: no guns in certain specified venues.
 
A criminal intent on shooting up one of those places isn't going to obey the no guns signs. Gun free zones only disarm the law abiding and create a zone full of defenseless victims.
 
Courtrooms, schools, bars - I believe you should be allowed to carry your gun anywhere. I trust you. The problem is the world is full of folks not nearly as fine a folk as you are, but we can't tell you apart. You'all look exactly alike.

Second reason: when the bullets start flying in a crowded room and you whip out your gun, who you gonna shoot? How do you tell the bad guys from the good guys? Best solution: no guns in certain specified venues.


And you have it backwards. I do not trust other people. However, as I know the people whom I should trust the least have no regard for laws, I believe all people should be allowed to carry arms to defend against said criminals.

Secondly, if bullets are flying and you don't know who to shoot, how does not having the ability to defend yourself make you better off? This is where reason and responsibility must come into play. Figure out who is in the right and defend yourself and your family. Here's a hint: the bad guy has a gun aimed at someone you love.
 
City, local and state governments have long had the common sense to ban carrying of firearms in certains venues. Want to change that....talk to them, not me.
 
City, local and state governments have long had the common sense to ban carrying of firearms in certains venues. Want to change that....talk to them, not me.
My,my...

What a novel and refreshing idea. And such a departure from the mainstream at THR. We need more clear thinkers here who can keep us honest, on our toes and always considering the other side's point of view no matter how absurd it might be.
 
City, local and state governments have long had the common sense to ban carrying of firearms in certains venues. Want to change that....talk to them, not me.

And you have not posted any evidence that those bans are "common sense" whereas there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as numerous shootings in gun free zones. Criminals do not follow the law.
 
The evidence is right there in front of us: the number of shootings that DID NOT happen. :)
 
Are you talking about the shootings that don't happen at police stations, gun shows, and military bases, or the shootings that don't happen at Virginia Tech, etc? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top