But the federal Bureau of Land Management is considering expanding the gun-restricted area by 41,000 acres to try to limit shootings at Idaho Army National Guard troops who report slugs bouncing off their tanks on a regular basis...Then you deal with the ones who don't Stephanie. The organized militia calling for unorganized militia disarmament zones is unacceptable.
National Guard spokeswoman Lt. Col. Stephanie Dowling said she thinks the proposed expansion would help alleviate the problem.
“What’s happened over time, as the population has grown, we get more and more people out there,” said Dowling. “Not everybody uses good safety precautions.”
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Dueling Militias
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"The organized militia calling for unorganized militia disarmament zones is unacceptable."
Considering that their supposed to be subordinate to the civil power. And, that in reality they are our SERVANTS. I'd have to more than agree.
Saw this in another forum and a member there had the best solution to the problem.
Just let the National Guard guys shoot back.
Just sounds like the National Guard is getting some good training. Heck the DOD should be happy, the NG get training in being under fire and it isn't coming out of the DOD's pocketbook.
You know this is where the shoe leather hits the road. All of us as gun owners should follow some basic firearms safety rules... One of which is "know what you are shooting at".
If these individuals are purposedly firing on the guard troops. They are breaking the law and should be prosecuted. If they are accidentally firing on them, then they are simply dumber than bricks.
We are in a fight to preserve our rights to keep and bear arms and simply do not need stupid assed yahoos out there popping caps on National Guardsmen. This kind of activity only hands fuel to those who wish to take our weapons.
Trite responses like "Just sounds like the National Guard is getting some good training" are really irresponsible. If you really care about your second amendment rights you should be up there patrolling this area and bitch slapping any individual that is iresponsibly endangering your right to keep and bear arms.
Don't get me wrong I am a staunch advocate of gun ownership, but I believe that gun owners need to abide by the common sense safety rules that my dad thumped into my noggin when I was a young boy, wide-eyed at receiving his first 22.
Do we really need the bad press? The freaking libs will sieze on this sort of thing to help them pass their stupid ban on scarey looking guns.
G-man,
For crying out loud...
This whole stinks of an overblown incident to supposedly justify baring guns from an area.
First off, my and everybody else's rights are not subject to regulation because someone else abuses theirs. Stop sending the message that they are with all this "we'll give the enemy ammo...blah, blah, blah.." crap.
Second, who cares what the libs think? "Oh, bad press..." So what? Think they are EVER going to give us "good press"? They won't until we are trying so hard to look "responsible" that we finally reach the standards of their anti-gun agenda.
They are already getting to you I see. The proper response to this article should be "Oh please...", not "Oh my goodness, we are so sorry for certain gun-owners.." Don't appease a child throwing a temper-tantrum.
C.H.
So in other words you're saying that you condone firing at the National Guardsmen. Perhaps it would be ok then if these idiots fired at you. I mean if it's no big deal that they're doing it to the National Guard, then it should be equally trivial if they fire at you right?
Nothing in the second amendment grants anyone the right to fire on someone else without provocation. Perhaps I'm wrong. maybe you could show me where it allows that.
Use a little common sense here.
I'm not taking issue with the fact that guns are banned from the area (which is wrong). I'm taking issue with idiots firing at the National Guardsmen (which is also wrong).
Post a Comment