The NRA has to figure out how to maintain the membership rolls - and keep those dues flowing in. Too many successes, and it ceases to need to exist

A stunningly original observation. One that applies to every advocacy group on the planet. Oooh, scary.

MuadDib: A stunningly original observation. One that applies to every advocacy group on the planet. Oooh, scary.

Yup, it's a problem with advocacy groups in general. They have a success or two, and all of a sudden there's no impetus for them to exist further, and the nutbars take control, and then it's stupid-time.

I don't need the NRA to help me be upset at the national park gun ban.

neapoi: I don't need the NRA to help me be upset at the national park gun ban.

Interesting. I don't need a national parks ban to help me be upset with the NRA! :)

Meh, I'm fine with the NRA until they begin sexing up untruths and selling them to the ignorant. It's not the guns, or that gun owners have a powerful lobby that upset me (go for it folks, it's your right). It's the propaganda. Either direct or simply prodded along without correction.

Stay Cool Babylon:
Meh, I'm fine with the NRA until they begin sexing up untruths and selling them to the ignorant. It's not the guns, or that gun owners have a powerful lobby that upset me (go for it folks, it's your right). It's the propaganda. Either direct or simply prodded along without correction.

I also have a problem with the propaganda machine the NRA has become. I was once a member, no longer one. After the dozens of mailings they sent me about how Obama was going to be the worst thing for gun owners in the modern era - I got sick of it.

A buddy of mine was attacked by a cougar on National Park land about 5 years ago. I don't go anywhere in the wild without protection because of that; National Park ban or not.

MuadDib: A stunningly original observation. One that applies to every advocacy group on the planet. Oooh, scary.

Pam Anderson is made of skin. And more so than most humans.

I think there should just be a battle royale between PETA and the NRA, where naked chicks commanding a hoard of rescued pets and circus animals against NRA members in hoverrounds.

Ok, so to sum up this nuts argument: The NRA is stupid to want people to be able to carry a handgun in the wilderness (Where they would never, ever need to shoot a dangerous animal, I'm sure.)

And if you have any doubt about how stupid it is for a citizen to want a handgun in the wilderness, just look at that nut that killed a few cops with a machine gun in the city of Pittsburgh?

*scratches head*

Can we get a blanket ban on DailyKos blogs, please?

Stay Cool Babylon: Meh, I'm fine with the NRA until they begin sexing up untruths and selling them to the ignorant. It's not the guns, or that gun owners have a powerful lobby that upset me (go for it folks, it's your right). It's the propaganda.

While I agree with this, it sounds no different than a whole collection of groups. Certainly some I'm sure even you support, in one way or another.

Well, if "informing interested constituents what the government is doing, at which said interested constituent get upset" = "manufactured outrage," then okay.

But, the NRA does have a lot of crazy going on.

You Can't Fix Stupid: Well, if "informing interested constituents what the government is doing, at which said interested constituent get upset" = "manufactured outrage," then okay.

How was that tea party? You know the one, protesting the unjust and unfair tax rates that Obama's going to lower for the majority of the population?

puffy999: You Can't Fix Stupid: Well, if "informing interested constituents what the government is doing, at which said interested constituent get upset" = "manufactured outrage," then okay.

How was that tea party? You know the one, protesting the unjust and unfair tax rates that Obama's going to lower for the majority of the population?

Last I checked, the protests were over the debt spending and million dollar bonuses for farkups. But I did see an MSNBC link here on Fark claiming "teabaggers" from the huge "Dick Armey" were so stupid that they didn't know they were really protesting George Bush, so I'm sure that's what you believe.

neapoi: Stay Cool Babylon:
Meh, I'm fine with the NRA until they begin sexing up untruths and selling them to the ignorant. It's not the guns, or that gun owners have a powerful lobby that upset me (go for it folks, it's your right). It's the propaganda. Either direct or simply prodded along without correction.

I also have a problem with the propaganda machine the NRA has become. I was once a member, no longer one. After the dozens of mailings they sent me about how Obama was going to be the worst thing for gun owners in the modern era - I got sick of it.

A buddy of mine was attacked by a cougar on National Park land about 5 years ago. I don't go anywhere in the wild without protection because of that; National Park ban or not.

Really? You take a gun out into the wilderness? That's a pussy move.

First and foremost, animal attacks in the back country are RARE. Your friend is the exception, not the rule. This whole notion that people need to be protected when they're in the wilderness is nuts. A person enters the wilderness is entering the domain of another animal. Follow the rules and more often than not, there are no incidents.

It's a shame to know that people who bring guns into the national parks and wilderness areas in order to feel safe. If a person wants to feel safe, stay the hell out of the wilderness.

It's funny because the people I know that are up in arms about this gun ban are the people that RV it in the national parks and rarely enter the backcountry. The people that support the ban are the ones that go into the backcountry with no tent and just a sleeping bag.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Ok, so to sum up this nuts argument: The NRA is stupid to want people to be able to carry a handgun in the wilderness (Where they would never, ever need to shoot a dangerous animal, I'm sure.)

And if you have any doubt about how stupid it is for a citizen to want a handgun in the wilderness, just look at that nut that killed a few cops with a machine gun in the city of Pittsburgh?

*scratches head*

Can we get a blanket ban on DailyKos blogs, please?

People going into the wilderness need to realize that they don't live there, the animals do. And if an animal doesn't like us in their place, they do something about. These people thinking "Oh I gotta pruh-tect mah self from dem bayers." Don't have the first flipping clue about being in the wilderness.

Going to the Redwood forests in the backcountry? Chances are a person's going to run into people growing weed armed with semi-automatic weapons long before a bear or mountain lion is going to attack.

Going to Big Bend and staying in the desert by the border? Good chance of running into armed drug runners or terrified and thirsty illegal migrants. Bears and mountain lions? Pfft. A skunk or kangaroo rat might try to get into your food.

MuadDib: The NRA has to figure out how to maintain the membership rolls - and keep those dues flowing in. Too many successes, and it ceases to need to exist

A stunningly original observation. One that applies to every advocacy group on the planet. Oooh, scary.

Not really, I am a life member and I don't have to give them any money ever again.

neapoi: I don't need the NRA to help me be upset at the national park gun ban.

Yeah, but you get a magazine too.

question_dj:

Really? You take a gun out into the wilderness? That's a pussy move.

First and foremost, animal attacks in the back country are RARE. Your friend is the exception, not the rule. This whole notion that people need to be protected when they're in the wilderness is nuts. A person enters the wilderness is entering the domain of another animal. Follow the rules and more often than not, there are no incidents.

It's a shame to know that people who bring guns into the national parks and wilderness areas in order to feel safe. If a person wants to feel safe, stay the hell out of the wilderness.

It's funny because the people I know that are up in arms about this gun ban are the people that RV it in the national parks and rarely enter the backcountry. The people that support the ban are the ones that go into the backcountry with no tent and just a sleeping bag.

Yea - I don't own a RV - I have a nice big packpack I can put things in and walk through the woods.

And yes - there are rules to the backcountry. Rule number one - always be prepared. If you think bringing a gun into the woods is a pussy move - fine. Just because attacks in the woods are rare does not mean that they don't happen. And to pretend that they don't happen just so you can tell me that I can't use a gun to defend myself?

Only if I have too,and as a last resort - I'll use that gun to defend myself. I'll do all sorts of other things to prepare myself. Food containers and scent control keep curiosity to a minimum.

At the very least - having my friend messed up by a wild animal has made me more wary of natures power. And it's downright asinine that the government thinks it can tell me I can't protect myself (should it ever come to that).

question_dj: People going into the wilderness need to realize that they don't live there, the animals do. And if an animal doesn't like us in their place, they do something about. These people thinking "Oh I gotta pruh-tect mah self from dem bayers." Don't have the first flipping clue about being in the wilderness.

That's not true at all...

question_dj: Going to the Redwood forests in the backcountry? Chances are a person's going to run into people growing weed armed with semi-automatic weapons long before a bear or mountain lion is going to attack. Going to Big Bend and staying in the desert by the border? Good chance of running into armed drug runners or terrified and thirsty illegal migrants.

All the more reason to arm yourself before heading out, right? Or is your argument that people should just stay in the inner-cities for safety? *scratches head*

question_dj: If a person wants to feel safe, stay the hell out of the wilderness.

Oh, it is... LOL!

neapoi: question_dj:

Really? You take a gun out into the wilderness? That's a pussy move.

First and foremost, animal attacks in the back country are RARE. Your friend is the exception, not the rule. This whole notion that people need to be protected when they're in the wilderness is nuts. A person enters the wilderness is entering the domain of another animal. Follow the rules and more often than not, there are no incidents.

It's a shame to know that people who bring guns into the national parks and wilderness areas in order to feel safe. If a person wants to feel safe, stay the hell out of the wilderness.

It's funny because the people I know that are up in arms about this gun ban are the people that RV it in the national parks and rarely enter the backcountry. The people that support the ban are the ones that go into the backcountry with no tent and just a sleeping bag.

Yea - I don't own a RV - I have a nice big packpack I can put things in and walk through the woods.

And yes - there are rules to the backcountry. Rule number one - always be prepared. If you think bringing a gun into the woods is a pussy move - fine. Just because attacks in the woods are rare does not mean that they don't happen. And to pretend that they don't happen just so you can tell me that I can't use a gun to defend myself?

Only if I have too,and as a last resort - I'll use that gun to defend myself. I'll do all sorts of other things to prepare myself. Food containers and scent control keep curiosity to a minimum.

At the very least - having my friend messed up by a wild animal has made me more wary of natures power. And it's downright asinine that the government thinks it can tell me I can't protect myself (should it ever come to that).

Let's say that you do get attacked by a bear or a mountain lion. Do you realize that by the time you eve notice the animal it's been watching you for some time? When mountain lions do attack, they're silent. That's how they hunt. Stalk and ambush. I'm not sure how much benefit a handgun is going to offer when a mountain lion jumps on your back and starts mauling you.

Bear attacks happen as a result of a mother bear defending its cubs, being startled, or you're in the way of their food. There are ways to avoid these kinds of situations. It's not hard, people have been doing it for thousands of years.

So when you're carrying a 45lb pack, where exactly is the gun going to be? The pack is in the way so it can be side mounted. The hip belt for the pack is around the waist, so it can't holstered on the belt unless you want more bulk. Plus it's additional weight, at least two pounds. That's a liter of water. Putting it inside the pack doesn't make it very useful if being attacked.

I don't deny that attacks happen. They do. But ask any serious backpacker or park ranger if it's worth packing over. It's not. WHen I enter the wilderness, I don't think "Damn, I'm in the wilderness, I hope an animal doesn't attack me." I think, "Damn, I'm in the wilderness, I'm going to respect the fact that I'm in a foreign environment where I am not master of the domain."

I've been backpacking for 4 years now, I have yet to even see a bear or a mountain lion. My scariest encounter was with an angry moose cow protecting her calves. And trust me, there was NO time to decide "HOLY shiat GET THE GUN."

SpeshilEdjukashin: That's not true at all...

What part isn't true?

SpeshilEdjukashin: All the more reason to arm yourself before heading out, right? Or is your argument that people should just stay in the inner-cities for safety? *scratches head*

All the more reason to not be armed. Do you think an individual with a hand gun stands a chance against a gang of people with semi-automatic weapons? The Parks Service sure doesn't advocate people going vigilante and trying to take those people out. People are told to avoid any kind of confrontation.

If I'm camping down by the river and some people go through my camp and don't bother me, I'm not going to bother them. Having shoot-outs in National Parks is a great way to get them closed down. There's a reason NPS and Border Patrol are there patrolling in the back country.

If the notion of being in danger is so terrifying that one feels the need to be armed in the wilderness, perhaps they shouldn't be out there.

I find it highly ironic that ANYONE on Fark Politics complains about manufactured outrage.

I'm sure their "outrage" leading to an increase in gun sales isn't hurting any of the gun companies, either.

question_dj: neapoi: Stay Cool Babylon:
Meh, I'm fine with the NRA until they begin sexing up untruths and selling them to the ignorant. It's not the guns, or that gun owners have a powerful lobby that upset me (go for it folks, it's your right). It's the propaganda. Either direct or simply prodded along without correction.

I also have a problem with the propaganda machine the NRA has become. I was once a member, no longer one. After the dozens of mailings they sent me about how Obama was going to be the worst thing for gun owners in the modern era - I got sick of it.

A buddy of mine was attacked by a cougar on National Park land about 5 years ago. I don't go anywhere in the wild without protection because of that; National Park ban or not.

Really? You take a gun out into the wilderness? That's a pussy move.

First and foremost, animal attacks in the back country are RARE. Your friend is the exception, not the rule. This whole notion that people need to be protected when they're in the wilderness is nuts. A person enters the wilderness is entering the domain of another animal. Follow the rules and more often than not, there are no incidents.

It's a shame to know that people who bring guns into the national parks and wilderness areas in order to feel safe. If a person wants to feel safe, stay the hell out of the wilderness.

It's funny because the people I know that are up in arms about this gun ban are the people that RV it in the national parks and rarely enter the backcountry. The people that support the ban are the ones that go into the backcountry with no tent and just a sleeping bag.

Have you ever been trailed by a hungry mountain lion or got between a bear and her cubs?

IronTony: I find it highly ironic that ANYONE on Fark Politics complains about manufactured outrage.

I'm outraged that you would say that!!1!1!!

Remove all Republicans: THIS. Somalia is always available. Besides, a cell-phone is much more effective than a gun will ever be.

You can always throw that at a Rattlesnake, because there's no cell reception in the mountains.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Can we get a blanket ban on DailyKos blogs, please?

Who forced you to click?

Besides, a cell-phone is much more effective than a gun will ever be.

Wow. That was quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on Fark. Holy farking hell, you can't be THAT stupid. Can you?

TheShavingofOccam123:
Have you ever been trailed by a hungry mountain lion or got between a bear and her cubs?

Actually, I have! We were camping up by the Smith River in Northern Cali back in the '70's... We had no gun, just me, mom and two sisters (dad was off getting supplies)
We banged pots and pans until the mountain lion finally ran off.
-Scary shiat for a kid.

SpeshilEdjukashin: is stupid to want people to be able to carry a handgun in the wilderness (Where they would never, ever need to shoot a dangerous animal, I'm sure.)

And if you have any doubt about how stupid it is for a citizen to want a handgun in the wilderness, just look at that nut that killed a few cops with a machine gun in the city of Pittsburgh?

*scratches head*

No, we can't; thanks for playing, Goodbye.

SpeshilEdjukashin: Last I checked, the protests were over the debt spending and million dollar bonuses for farkups. But I did see an MSNBC link here on Fark claiming "teabaggers" from the huge "Dick Armey" were so stupid that they didn't know they were really protesting George Bush, so I'm sure that's what you believe.

I was in Chicago last Wednesday and watched the "protest" for about an hour. The "debt spending" and "million dollar bonuses" is being pushed by the right as the reason but the people who attend or speak at these these events didn't get that memo. Or just can't read. They are pissed that their white guy lost. Nothing more and nothing less.

question_dj: neapoi: question_dj:

Really? You take a gun out into the wilderness? That's a pussy move.

First and foremost, animal attacks in the back country are RARE. Your friend is the exception, not the rule. This whole notion that people need to be protected when they're in the wilderness is nuts. A person enters the wilderness is entering the domain of another animal. Follow the rules and more often than not, there are no incidents.

It's a shame to know that people who bring guns into the national parks and wilderness areas in order to feel safe. If a person wants to feel safe, stay the hell out of the wilderness.

It's funny because the people I know that are up in arms about this gun ban are the people that RV it in the national parks and rarely enter the backcountry. The people that support the ban are the ones that go into the backcountry with no tent and just a sleeping bag.

Yea - I don't own a RV - I have a nice big packpack I can put things in and walk through the woods.

And yes - there are rules to the backcountry. Rule number one - always be prepared. If you think bringing a gun into the woods is a pussy move - fine. Just because attacks in the woods are rare does not mean that they don't happen. And to pretend that they don't happen just so you can tell me that I can't use a gun to defend myself?

Only if I have too,and as a last resort - I'll use that gun to defend myself. I'll do all sorts of other things to prepare myself. Food containers and scent control keep curiosity to a minimum.

At the very least - having my friend messed up by a wild animal has made me more wary of natures power. And it's downright asinine that the government thinks it can tell me I can't protect myself (should it ever come to that).

Let's say that you do get attacked by a bear or a mountain lion. Do you realize that by the time you eve notice the animal it's been watching you for some time? When mountain lions do attack, they're silent. That's how they hunt. Stalk and ambush. I'm not sure how much benefit a handgun is going to offer when a mountain lion jumps on your back and starts mauling you.

Bear attacks happen as a result of a mother bear defending its cubs, being startled, or you're in the way of their food. There are ways to avoid these kinds of situations. It's not hard, people have been doing it for thousands of years.

So when you're carrying a 45lb pack, where exactly is the gun going to be? The pack is in the way so it can be side mounted. The hip belt for the pack is around the waist, so it can't holstered on the belt unless you want more bulk. Plus it's additional weight, at least two pounds. That's a liter of water. Putting it inside the pack doesn't make it very useful if being attacked.

I don't deny that attacks happen. They do. But ask any serious backpacker or park ranger if it's worth packing over. It's not. WHen I enter the wilderness, I don't think "Damn, I'm in the wilderness, I hope an animal doesn't attack me." I think, "Damn, I'm in the wilderness, I'm going to respect the fact that I'm in a foreign environment where I am not master of the domain."

I've been backpacking for 4 years now, I have yet to even see a bear or a mountain lion. My scariest encounter was with an angry moose cow protecting her calves. And trust me, there was NO time to decide "HOLY shiat GET THE GUN."

Yeah, as I thought, you haven't actually been to the wilderness. Which is right in life with other stupidity you've mixed in with an actual point or two.

/Have fun on the city greenway, tho

I remember an organization several years back that hyped a bunch of book burnings and bannings in its fund-raising lit, many of which turned out to be, at best, exaggerated. Can't recall the name of the org., but the lit had a map of the US with little flames all over it where these egregious acts of censorship supposedly occurred.

TheShavingofOccam123: Have you ever been trailed by a hungry mountain lion or got between a bear and her cubs?

Not a gun expert, so I really don't know. But I suspect that anything that you could reasonably pack into the wilderness isn't going to stop animals like that. Seems like shooting them with a handgun wouldn't really be very effective. And if it's the noise that scares them off, just bring in some harmless air horns.

Any gun experts wanna chime in?

Meh, I'm having fun with it. I've convinced my co-worker gun nuts that they should start buying up the soon to be illegal guns so they can sell them for a huge profit later.

/one dumbass has already bought 2.

Remove all Republicans: damitjim: Remove all Republicans: THIS. Somalia is always available. Besides, a cell-phone is much more effective than a gun will ever be.

You can always throw that at a Rattlesnake, because there's no cell reception in the mountains.

Well, then why don't we worry about real problems like that first? How are people supposedly survive out there, without cell phones, without internet, without any way of contacting the rest of the world?

My dad and step mom are planning on moving into the wilderness in about a year or so. The place they have their eyes on is a 10 acre plot 20 miles to the nearest city. In their list of things that they will have to have, a shot gun is among them, for those rare times when a wild animal will show up onto their property. Because, when it comes defending your land and family from a mountain lion, or a bear or what ever else might come out of the woods, a cell phone is really worthless, especially in the middle of no where.

Remove all Republicans: question_dj: If the notion of being in danger is so terrifying that one feels the need to be armed in the wilderness, perhaps they shouldn't be out there.

THIS. Somalia is always available. Besides, a cell-phone is much more effective than a gun will ever be.


0/10

Come on pal, you're slipping.

There's lots of crime in national parks. Rapes and murders are not that uncommon. Shenandoah National Park has one of the worst records. If the government or any other land owner can't guarantee your safety 100%, you should be allowed to defend yourself.

somemoron: Besides, a cell-phone is much more effective than a gun will ever be.

Wow. That was quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on Fark. Holy farking hell, you can't be THAT stupid. Can you?

Walk away, man. Just go.

somemoron: Besides, a cell-phone is much more effective than a gun will ever be.

Wow. That was quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on Fark. Holy farking hell, you can't be THAT stupid. Can you?

He's a troll

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. End of thread.

Cold Dead hands...

neapoi: Stay Cool Babylon:
Meh, I'm fine with the NRA until they begin sexing up untruths and selling them to the ignorant. It's not the guns, or that gun owners have a powerful lobby that upset me (go for it folks, it's your right). It's the propaganda. Either direct or simply prodded along without correction.

I also have a problem with the propaganda machine the NRA has become. I was once a member, no longer one. After the dozens of mailings they sent me about how Obama was going to be the worst thing for gun owners in the modern era - I got sick of it.

A buddy of mine was attacked by a cougar on National Park land about 5 years ago. I don't go anywhere in the wild without protection because of that; National Park ban or not.

It's not like the cougar raped him

godofusa.com: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. End of thread.

Nobody is talking about outlawing guns.

/Go post a diary about outlawing guns at dailykos if you don't believe me.

It is un-American to not have a gun in a national park.

Shoot, meant to make this the same post. Could you really take out a bear with a handgun? Also, are there really that many animal attacks in national parks? I've done a bunch of backpacking and never run into someone whose been attacked by an animal.

That said, I'm not really against the right to carry a gun in a national park, I just don't get the point.

Why the NRA every lobby group is manufacturing outrage over ban on guns in national parks whatever they're lobbying for: "The NRA lobby group has to figure out how to maintain the membership rolls - and keep those dues flowing in. Too many successes, and it ceases to need to exist"

FTFY

/Srsly, this got greenlit?

Dr. Rosenrosen: TheShavingofOccam123: Have you ever been trailed by a hungry mountain lion or got between a bear and her cubs?

Not a gun expert, so I really don't know. But I suspect that anything that you could reasonably pack into the wilderness isn't going to stop animals like that. Seems like shooting them with a handgun wouldn't really be very effective. And if it's the noise that scares them off, just bring in some harmless air horns.

Any gun experts wanna chime in?

Sure. I'll try. A 357 Magnum (or greater) at self defense range is enough to stop most threats you are likely to encounter in the wilderness, barring perhaps grizzlies. Even then, 6 357 hollow points are much better to have on hand than harsh language and hope.

Banning licensed carriers from having their self-defense sidearms in a national park is moronic, just like most other "gun-free zones". I can never figure out the logic. A CCW licensee carries a gun all day 365 days a year with no issues, but put them into a national park or a school and they turn into homicidal maniacs? Makes no sense.

godofusa.com: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. trolls will proclaim "end of thread."

I live in a national park so i'm really getting a kick out of these replies