two legged snake problems in the woods

[straitshot]

I wonder. How many people avoid the great outdoors just because they're apprehensive about being vulnerable to thugs? Those who avoid the night in cities are legion, so many must feel captive because they have no protection other than the false security of daylight and crowds? I know some who simply retire behind locked doors after sundown. I don't know how that would feel, but it must be difficult to live feeling like prey. I at least feel unintimidated if I stay out of known dangerous districts and don't provoke strangers. When armed I also don't feel helpless if a threat arises. It has a couple of times, but did not escalate. I felt anger at being intimidated, but not helpless.

I've read that some who have survived a hostage event with armed strangers are never the same afterward because of the helplessnes of being at the fickle mercy of such monsters. How very sad it would be to have our rights yet be afraid to enjoy them if thugs could assume we are all helpless against armed assault.Regards, ss.

 

[sodak]

SIR? I work for a living.

That particular line isn't funny here. You might get a laugh in your squad room, but demeaning the service of others isn't the least bit amusing. I guarantee you I worked at least twice as hard as anyone under my command. And they all told me so.

Back to the original question, I have had a couple of run-ins myself. Most were easily resolved when the aggressive ones noticed that I wasn't in the least bit worried, and met aggression with aggression. They also noticed that the holster was unsnapped and my hand was on my .45.

 

[stabman]

$80 is an OUTRAGE...........at least in the USA.

Why should anyone be forced to PAY A FEE before exercising a RIGHT ? (at least it's a Right in the USA)

That paying $80 doesn't bother YOU speaks volumes.

.

It means I can afford $80.:thumbup:
Do I wish it were free? Sure, but whatever. You know, it's life, suck it up and all that.
And you'll notice, if you look at my earlier post, that I thought in the US it should remain free to KEEP IT IN YOUR HOUSE! If you want to carry it outside, THEN there should be extra training and the small fee.
And don't get all high and mighty about paying for rights. You pay for health care, which I see as a right which should be "free".
Each of our countries charges fees for rights; the difference is which ones.

 

[bulgron]

I just went for a hike in the desert without a firearm I know, I know, I like to live dangerously.

Of course, I was also in a National Park (Saguaro National Park East) and they explicitly say 'no guns' in all the literature, so I was being a good little obedient sheep by not carrying a gun. But in the future I suspect that the National Park Service isn't going to get away with their No Guns crapola, at which point I'll have to decide all over again if I want to carry a gun. I mean I was tired enough with just my day pack and assorted odds and ends, without throwing another couple of pounds worth of guns and ammo into the mix.

Heck, I might have to get into better shape or something....

BTW, that Tanque Verde Ridge trail is one steep mother if you're a middle aged guy (like me) who has spent the last year working on his house instead of walking up hills (like me). :grumpy:

 

[straitshot]

Stabman- careful about mixing up your metaphors. It costs nothing to allow someone to have a weapon. It costs money to regulate and that's what the $80 pays toward. You are paying for the "privilege" of being regulated. Health care involves the work of many people, and there is no "free" lunch even when served up by a nanny state. So far, your comparisons are invalid, but keep trying.Regards, ss.

bulgron- we may have been close to bumping into each other when in Tanque Verde and Saguaro Nat Mon. I get into those areas sometimes. ss

 

[stabman]

It costs nothing to allow someone to have a weapon.

I think there's a difference between having the weapon and CARRYING the weapon. When carried, there is more of a chance of injuries from careless or unskilled firing. THAT'S where I see the regulations coming in.
You already to pay for hunting licenses/tags to exercise your "right" to hunt; what's a little more?
Maybe $80 is too much, maybe $20, as long as the people get a LITTLE training.
We train soldiers and cops before letting them carry guns around people at large; why not for CCW's and hunting?

 

[straitshot]

Easy. CCW and hunting are privileges for which I received training and paid a fee to defer the costs. I can openly carry in public, with no fee, anywhere I can carry concealed in my state. I don't feel threatened just because others can do the same. The ones who lawfully can't are felons, those with orders of protection, and comparables. A good "state" of affairs in my opinion. Please believe that I understand your positions, I just disagree. It's a very profound subject. Regards, ss.

 

[Halfneck]

I think there's a difference between having the weapon and CARRYING the weapon. When carried, there is more of a chance of injuries from careless or unskilled firing. THAT'S where I see the regulations coming in.
You already to pay for hunting licenses/tags to exercise your "right" to hunt; what's a little more?
Maybe $80 is too much, maybe $20, as long as the people get a LITTLE training.
We train soldiers and cops before letting them carry guns around people at large; why not for CCW's and hunting?

I actually have more freedom with my personally owned weapons as a civilian than I did as a soldier. As a soldier, my pistols were kept locked up in our arms room without ammo. The only way I could gain access to them was for my Sgt. to accompany me to the arms room to sign them out. As a civilian all I needed to do to have access to my handguns, is pass a background check (which you pay for) when I bought them. Yes we can purchase firearms in the U.S. easier than elsewhere, but there are still checks & balances we must go through. If we want to legally carry a handgun concealed, you must apply for a CCW license, get fingerprinted, have your background checked, pay for it all, then abide by where you can & cannot carry a weapon concealed.

Paying for our "Right" to own a firearm is not an issue about cost. The issue is that we are given that right by the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the part where it says "shall not be infringed." Imagine a scenario where a son inherits his father's Shotgun. Imagine said son has a family & a poor paying job, barely making enough to keep his family clothed & fed. Now imagine said son has to pay for his right to keep his father's shotgun.

You might say his right to keep & bear arms has been infringed.

To carry a handgun concealed is already something we have to pay for. Sad truth, there are some people that don't need to own firearms. Whether due to irresponsibility, bad disposition, or just plain stupidity, some people are just a firearm mishap waiting to happen. These people are not just in the U.S though. But if we limit their rights, we limit everyone's rights. Not a perfect system, but it's been doing alright since 1776.

 

[Bushman5]

Canada would make a great state.

nope, we already repelled your attempts to take us over, way abck when.....

 

[runningboar]

That particular line isn't funny here. You might get a laugh in your squad room, but demeaning the service of others isn't the least bit amusing. I guarantee you I worked at least twice as hard as anyone under my command. And they all told me so.

I wasn't trying to be funny, I demeaned no ones service. I am sure you did work very hard, you also got paid for it and you never scrubbed toilets did you.

Check the pay charts for a butter bar with less than a year and then check a E-7 with 15 years, and the E-7 is suposed to train the Lt. Sorry Sodak, I meant what I said. Chris

 

[David E]

It means I can afford $80.:thumbup:
Do I wish it were free? Sure, but whatever. You know, it's life, suck it up and all that.

Negative. I will NOT 'suck it up and all that,' as paying a fee BEFORE I can exercise a "right" means it is NOT a right at all, but a taxable privilege. One they can raise the tax/fee on at their whim. It's $80 for you now. How much will it be in 5 yrs? $300 ? $500 ?

Once some bedwetting bureaucrat deems that the govt should no longer allow twerps like you (the govt's viewpoint of you, not mine) and they know it might be contested too heavily to ban them outright, they'll just raise the tax and add restrictions to the point that hardly anyone will think this govt allowed privilege is worth the hassle.

But since you seem GLAD to pay your $80, I doubt you'd have a problem with that.

And you'll notice, if you look at my earlier post, that I thought in the US it should remain free to KEEP IT IN YOUR HOUSE! If you want to carry it outside, THEN there should be extra training and the small fee.

I vehemently disagree. I should be able to take it to a range or afield without having to pay for the RIGHT of doing so.

And don't get all high and mighty about paying for rights. You pay for health care, which I see as a right which should be "free".
Each of our countries charges fees for rights; the difference is which ones.

This is funny. How come, when a serious medical issue arises, Canadians come to America for the surgery? I like our health care just the way it is.

.

 

[runningboar]

I guarantee you I worked at least twice as hard as anyone under my command. And they all told me so.

Then you had some really shitty NCOs, I would have told you to get your ass back in your office.

Officers don't earn the joe's respect by working hard, joe don't give a shit, he will watch you do his work and then laugh about it.

Officers earn their Soldier's respect by taking care of them and making the right decisions, that's why Officers make the big bucks. Chris

 

[pict]

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Brazil has embarked on that course of action to rid the nation of "gun violence". It has been an exercise in futility. Brazil has the strictest gun laws in the western hemisphere and aside from Colombia one of the highest gun related murder rates in the world.

In order to buy a legal gun here you have to pass a psycological evaluation, shooting test, and prove that you have a qualified need to own a firearm in addition to paying prohibitive fees and taxes. Just to own a legal .38 caliber revolver currently will cost you about $2000. You are then permitted to purchase 50 rounds of ammunition per year. You may not take the weapon out of your home, even to the range without paying for, and waiting for a special permisson from the government.

Brazil is one of the few countries in the world where a black market weapon costs less than a legal one. Before I jumped through the hoops to buy my legal guns I was offered all sorts of heavy ordinance including a submachinegun. Interesting that the full auto machine-pistol (Imbel 380 GC converted to select fire, w/ 3 loaded twenty round magazines) would have cost me less than the .38 I bought legally (by about half!).

Since our famous anti-gun law went into effect we have seen nothing but a sharp increase in violent crime of all sorts. The black market in guns has never been stronger as the government has made it so difficult for us to retain our legal guns many people are just selling them on the street to get rid of the hassle of owning them. I know from very qualified sources that the gun buyback programs have been a huge boon to the black market gun supply as poorly paid police are selling off all sorts of stuff to turn a buck.

Here is a fact CRIMINALS ARM THEMSELVES WITH THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY AND DON'T GIVE A RIP ABOUT GUN LAWS. Gun laws exist for one purpose, to control the people who produce wealth and make them dependant upon the government for security. It has nothing to do with crime or the national murder rate which across the board goes up when gun controls are enforced against law abiding citizens. (Please somebody from the left on this issue cite one case where it was an unqualified success)

Brazil has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that when you ban something you don't control it totally, you loose control of it totally. Case in point, myself. If I had no legal recourse to a legal .38 I would have bought an Imbel 380 GC machine-pistol. Mac

 

[Zombie Zeke]

Hey that was Benedict Arnold's bright idea! Besides when we got there and everyone was talking French, well... Besides, it was cold! And... and we bought Alaska from the Ruskies later anyway. So we have cold now for those that want it. We should have bought Vancouver. That place is beautiful!

Codger

They speak frog up there, right?

-All kidding aside I love everything on the westcoast of Canada the islands, the trees, all of it that I have seen. But I would feel better walking around up there or anywhere with my pistol on my side and a government that trusts me to do so. Call me crazy but it seems to make people a little more polite.

 

[Zombie Zeke]

Then you had some really shitty NCOs, I would have told you to get your ass back in your office.

Officers don't earn the joe's respect by working hard, joe don't give a shit, he will watch you do his work and then laugh about it.

Officers earn their Soldier's respect by taking care of them and making the right decisions, that's why Officers make the big bucks. Chris

Well said.

(Has nothing to do with taking a gun in the mountains but it is gospel)

 

[David E]

Ok, back to topic:

Glock 20 in 10mm makes a pretty good "all around" woods gun !

Concealable, so if I do run into some schmuck in the woods, the element of surprise will be on MY side !

.

 

[bulgron]

Gun laws exist for one purpose, to control the people who produce wealth and make them dependent upon the government for security.

This is the core truth behind the gun control movement, and the one statement that everyone who is pro gun should memorize and repeat daily.

Any law that is about controlling guns, including bearing guns outside of the home, is about that point and that point alone.

 

[bulgron]

Ok, back to topic:

Glock 20 in 10mm makes a pretty good "all around" woods gun !

Concealable, so if I do run into some schmuck in the woods, the element of surprise will be on MY side !

.

I've always carried my Ruger GP100 (.357 magnum revolver in stainless steel) as a field gun, but I'm serious about being of shape. I want something lighter these days so I might go looking for a little .38 snub nose of some kind in the near future.

I also want to pick up a Sig P229 in .40 cal this year. I imagine that should make a good field gun, as well as a good CCW piece.

 

[bulgron]

bulgron- we may have been close to bumping into each other when in Tanque Verde and Saguaro Nat Mon. I get into those areas sometimes. ss

Heh. Well, if you saw me I was the guy eyeing the trail and wondering if I was going to trip and fall into a prickly pear or something.

I don't live in Tucson and hiking in the desert is a pretty alien activity for me.

 

[David E]

I've always carried my Ruger GP100 (.357 magnum revolver in stainless steel) as a field gun.

A very good case can be made for a 4" .357 as an "all around" field/trail gun. The GP-100 is about as stout as they get, too !

.