Firearms law change in wildlife refuges: What do you think?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced that effective February 22, 2010, the rules governing possession of firearms on National Wildlife Refuges will change as a result of legislation enacted by Congress. After this date, the law allows an individual to lawfully possess a firearm within the boundaries of a National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with federal, state and local firearms laws.

As directed by this new law, the Service will look to the laws of the state and locality in which the refuge or refuge unit is located to govern possession of firearms on the refuge. Visitors will be allowed to possess firearms on National Wildlife Refuges provided they comply with applicable provisions of federal, state and local law. Persons with so-called firearm “carry” permits will be able to possess firearms on a refuge in accordance with the provisions of the state issued permit. The new law applies to all 551 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as well as the National Monuments and the 392 units of the National Park System.

While the law will change the application of rules regarding possession of firearms, it has no impact on the authorized uses of firearms on National Wildlife Refuges. The law does not allow visitors to fire or discharge the firearms in any way, brandish the weapon in the view of others, or any other use of the firearm. Enforcement of regulations concerning firearms use remains under the purview of the Department of the Interior.

While possession on a refuge may generally be allowed under state law, possession of firearms will remain prohibited in Federal facilities. Examples include: visitor centers, refuge administrative office buildings, refuge maintenance offices and workshops, field and backcountry offices, ranger stations and fee collection stations.

Refuge visitors wishing to possess firearms on any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System should carefully read and understand the laws of the state in which the refuge they plan to visit is located—as well as applicable local and county laws and ordinances that derive from that respective state’s law. The laws of the states in which they reside, or from which they may have received firearms permits, do not apply when they are away from those states, although some states offer reciprocity and allow possession based on another state’s permits.

Hunting, trapping and fishing are considered to be a legitimate, traditional recreational and wildlife management use of renewable natural resources on refuges. However, this new law does not change or expand hunting opportunities on national wildlife refuges or exempt hunters from state or federal hunting regulations.

Each person who hunts on a National Wildlife Refuge must have the required state license(s) required by the refuge, as well as any permits and/or user fees. The National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966, other laws and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s policy permit hunting on a refuge when it is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and acquired. For additional information, go to:

The law does not differentiate between concealed handguns under state permit and long guns (rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders) and it applies to all firearms, which are defined as a weapon designed to fire a projectile by the use of an explosive charge. All Federal firearms statutes remain unchanged.

Nearly 40 million people visit National Wildlife Refuges each year, generating almost $1.7 billion in sales for regional economies. In additional to wildlife observation, many refuges provide rich opportunities for hiking, canoeing, hunting and fishing. To learn more about visiting a National Wildlife Refuge go to:

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Margaret Williams
Editor Margaret Williams first wrote for Xpress in 1994. An Alabama native, she has lived in Western North Carolina since 1987 and completed her Masters of Liberal Arts & Sciences from UNC-Asheville in 2016. Follow me @mvwilliams

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

30 thoughts on “Firearms law change in wildlife refuges: What do you think?

  1. 9-volt

    So you can carry a gun in a national park, but you can’t use it, show it anyone, or carry it into any building/facility. Why is this change necessary? Seems like a waste of time.

  2. Jeff

    This is fantastic news for poachers. So they can legally be holding a gun, creeping around in the woods any old time they want to?

    “No officer, I ain’t poachin. I’m merely stalking ’em tasty animals over there. Peering at ’em through this here rifle scope. Ain’t they purrr-deee?”

  3. bobaloo

    Seeing as how poachers had to conceal their activities before the change I don’t see how it makes it any easier for them.

  4. jeff

    @Bobaloo .. Up until now walking around in the woods with a hunting rifle or shotgun outside of hunting season would seem to be probable cause that they are poaching. Now if it’s perfectly legal to be in a wildlife refuge, national park, etc.. with a hunting weapon.. Apparently any time, hunting season or not.

  5. bob

    Ever see some of the creeps and homo’s that hang around in the parks?..Ya need 2 guns to go in there!

  6. DebateTeam1

    I carry a gun, most all of the time. I am a law abiding citizen. I make no mention of my firearm nor allow it to be seen. I have been in your presence on more than one occasion, yes, you. I practice shooting often and place 9 of 10 in the 10 ring. I have been in the forests carrying (illegally at that time) not because I fear man, but beast. On two occasions in my many years, I have had occasion to need a firearm. Neither involved other people – once a coyote and once a bear. I drew but did not fire on each occasion.

    Anyone who takes a concealed carry class knows that the chances of a using a weapon against an animal is much more likely than using it against another person. Having this tool to use is no different to me than having a hatchet or a shovel in the wilderness. Please note – being unarmed in the forest does not make you morally superior to me, only more vulnerable. I respect your choice, please respect mine.

  7. 9-volt

    Debate- I respect your right to carry a gun, especially to hunt, however, that right should not apply everywhere, all the time in my opinion.

    The reasoning that you have seen a coyote and a bear in the woods means you need a gun to protect yourself seems thin. I would rather folks have a hatchet as they are less likely to accidentally kill me with a stray hatchet than with a stray bullet.

  8. J

    Interesting. This is a rule the Bush administration originally put into place in his last year ( Odd to see the Obama administration carry it out.

    Many campers I know keep a firearm nearby for safety reasons, as it’s rather difficult for 911 to make it out to your campsite in the event of trouble. This seems to be a provision to legalize what is already a common sense measure in the eyes of many.

  9. Glenn

    Great idea to allow citizens to protect themselves against thugs, criminals, and rabid animals. I think the National Parks and National Wildlife areas will be much much safer with this new law. It’s about time.

  10. Piffy!

    i think debate makes some very reasonable points i had never previously considered on this issue. i mean, if you’re allowed to carry a conceiled weapon in town, why not in the woods?

    even if his examples of having to throw down on wild animals seems ‘thin’, to say the least.

  11. DebateTeam1

    When I carry in the forest, it is generally not to hunt as I carry a pistol or revolver with a “4” in the caliber which is not a typical hunting firearm. To you, the logic may seem thin for the 1000 times I am in the forest and don’t have occasion to need a weapon. But the times I have needed it outweigh the times I did not and that my friend, is my opinion. As thin as my concerns may seem to you, your scenario of me needing to draw, fire, miss, and then hit another person in space as vast as a national forest is even thinner.
    I respect your concerns but you need to come to grips with the fact that there are very many people that you encounter on a daily basis that are exercising their second amendment rights . They are no threat to you in the urban/suburban populated areas or in the forests. Like myself, they are generally well versed on the usage of force by firearm and practice to become proficient with its deployment. You are unaware they carry because they do so not to be a spectacle but to prevent themselves from becoming a statistic. To me it is just a tool, one of several I carry on daily basis, most of which I never use. I will continue to carry my tool of choice and you can carry a hatchet. To each his own.

  12. 9-volt

    Debate – Thanks for your well thought response. You want to protect your home, protect you and your family, hunt for sport, shoot for skill, etc. I get that. But I struggle with the logic of more guns in more places = more safety for us all.

    The firearms death rate in the U.S. is eight times higher than in other high-income countries and the rate among children under 15-years-old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED.

    So are WE (you, me, your neighbor) more safe because folks around us are carrying a gun? (Note, there MANY very responsible gun owners, and i don’t doubt you are one of them, so don’t take this personally)

    There is a balance that needs to be struck between having that right, and keeping our society civil. The logic that makes sense to me is the more public places people are able to carry guns around, the higher the chance someone gets shot.

  13. Piffy!

    [b]The logic that makes sense to me is the more public places people are able to carry guns around, the higher the chance someone gets shot. [/b]

    Except that the gun-related crimes you reference are more likely to be committed by people with illegal/unregistered guns, not people with the legal right to carry a concieled weapon.

  14. DebateTeam1

    9 volt

    Let’s don’t forget the original argument was the ability to carry in a wildlife refuge so I realize this argument digresses a bit. But I want to address your assumption that less firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens in fewer places in general makes you safer.

    So following this logic, your belief is law-abiding citizens being forbidden to carry firearms makes you safer. If I cannot carry my pistol to protect myself do you think the multitudes of armed criminals are going to give up theirs or stop using them against those formerly armed citizens? I think not. They are called criminals for a reason. They don’t obey laws. Once the criminals are the only ones carrying weapons then we are all less safe, you and I.

    Let’s suppose a firearm law was passed to prevent law abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms and all firearm manufacturers in the USA stopped making firearms. I would submit to you that you will see a replication of the same situation we have with illicit drugs. Foreign manufacturers and smugglers will fill the void. Criminals, being criminals, will obtain that which they desire. You will have only accomplished moving yet one more manufacturing operation across the borders along with the associated jobs.

    Let’s compare Washington DC where no handguns allowed from 1975 through 2008. Washington DC was known as the murder capital of the world. In DC arms were shipped in because criminals wanted them and were willing to break the law to get them. No surprise. In 2008 the Supreme Court overturned this ban. This resulted in DC having the lowest number of homicides in 43 years. Perhaps the homicide count is entirely due to the lifting of the handgun ban and perhaps not. But certainly the argument cannot be made that allowing handgun ownership made the citizenry of DC more vulnerable.

    Let’s also review Kennesaw, Ga. where city ordinance passed in 1982 required all citizens (minus felons and those who were conscientious objectors) to carry a firearm. Kennesaw, population 30,000, went for 25 years without a homicide until 2007. That is a 0% death rate. In this case the requirement that a citizen own a firearm did not result in a single death by firearm. That statistic speaks for itself.

    You stated a statistic concerning death rates by firearms. I am not sure of the accuracy of your statement but I don’t wish to dispute it. I will take it at face value. But look beneath the statistic. Who is killing who with guns? Are kids that attend school, have one or more loving parents, and are not involved in gangs or drugs shooting each other? No. It is gang-on-gang and criminal-on-criminal deaths by far that contribute to the high death rate. Bad guys killing bad guys are fighting over drugs and turf. I am not saying there aren’t innocent people who fall victim to gun violence. Each and every one of those crimes is deplorable. But as long as the criminals are incented to use firearms to protect their turf or themselves then death rates will continue to be high.

    If the goal is to lower death rates from firearms then take away the reason for fighting over drugs and turf. My opinion is drugs should be legalized, taxed and regulated in the same manner as booze and cigarettes. With those revenues educate children on the effects and fund treatment programs. We know from our experiment with the abolition of alcohol in the 1920s and then the repealing of that act that gang related crime will subside. We know from the taxation policies of cigarettes that behavior of consumers can be controlled and consumption diminished. I realize this is a divisive issue but this is my opinion.

    Addressing the drug issue will directly impact the number of firearm crimes and make both you and I safer. Chasing me around trying to take away my right to carry is not focusing on the source of the problem – the problems are drugs and gangs, not firearms. If you fix the drug problem then the firearm death rate issue will resolve itself. If you take away my right to carry a weapon you have not prevented one death from criminal on criminal (gang on gang) violence – that crime will continue unabated.

  15. 9-volt

    Debate – How do you explain the vast difference in gun violence in America compared to similar countries? America is BY FAR the gun violence capital of the world, yet we have roughly the same drug laws…?

    When you look at the percentage of household gun ownership compared to gun violence there is an obvious connection:

    I agree America’s war on drugs is very misdirected, and certainly a component of gun violence, however, pretending that legal gun ownership and gun violence are not related is absurd.

    My statistics mainly come from the Brady campaign:

    During the first ten years of the Brady Law gun homicides dropped 37%, while other gun crimes dropped 73%. However, from 2000-2008, gun crime increased as the President and Congress weakened the Brady Law, allowed the assault weapons ban to expire and gave the gun industry special legal protection.

    The Brady laws and assault weapons ban reduced gun violence. Are the freedoms that these laws limit really more important than the lives that they save? Achieving that balance is not easy.

    Again, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have the right to carry a gun, but there needs to be some common sense regarding when, where and how guns in America are used. 32 states still don’t require background checks or even an ID when buying a gun!

  16. J


    Don’t forget that the era of the Brady law coincided with the implementation of the Clintonian COPS act, which poured billions of dollars into local communities to hire more police officers.

  17. chops

    DebateTeam1: “On two occasions in my many years, I have had occasion to need a firearm. Neither involved other people – once a coyote and once a bear. I drew but did not fire on each occasion.”

    Well, if you didn’t fire, then you didn’t really need your gun. You didn’t intimidate those animals by waving your gun at them.

    On the topic of whether or not guns are safe relative to hatchets: Hunters Orange. If you understand it’s purpose, then you get my point.

    DebateTeam1: “Once the criminals are the only ones carrying weapons then we are all less safe, you and I.”

    By the same logic, would you agree that if Iran developed nuclear weapons (in a law-abiding way) that the U.S. would be safer? or how about if I just kept my gun pointed at your head at all times (in a law-abiding way), would you feel safer? geez.

    What we are discussing here, is the legalization of dangerous behavior (not criminal behavior).

    One last question. If you feel safer carrying a gun, then you have some mistrust of law enforcement, the criminal justice system, or people in general. My hope is that you are spending an equal amount of energy trying to correct that mistrust. Our goal as a society should be to work for ways to cultivate safety without adding the element of more danger. Would you agree?

  18. Robert Menard

    I knew this issue would be like kicking the yellow jackets nest. This is a decision which I applaud for several reasons.
    1. many very responsible gun owners already carry for very valid reasons. This action de-criminalizes that behavior.
    2. If you were a close relative, parent, husband, boy-friend of any of the many women who have been raped and/or murdered in the National Parks (or anywhere else) I do not doubt that you would support this decision. The gun is carried for defense of self AND others.
    3. In dealing with a rabid, or possibly rabid, animal, the very last place you want to be is within arms length. The idea of using a hatchet or shovel in that case is only posited by someone who has never been there or has never been schooled in the ways of the wilderness. In fact the idea of defending yourself with a hatchet (except as a last resort) is just plain stupid.
    4. You don’t have to “mistrust” law enforcement or the criminal justice system to know, without a doubt, that when you are in a wilderness area, same as when you are in your house, any incident dangerous to your health, safety or life itself will be long since over by the time the lawmen arrive. That’s if you can even call out to alert them to the need for their presence, and that is a very big if when you’re out there in the bush. That’s just the facts and no criticism to law enforcement. And, as government budgets shrink, that factor will get worse.
    5. The idea that carrying a weapon is “dangerous behavior” in itself is a ridiculous notion put forward by people who are not familiar with or trained with weapons. There is a whole lot of dangerous behavior behind the wheels of many automobiles. Does that mean that driving is dangerous behavior?
    6. The fact that someone draws their weapon when in the presence of a possibly dangerous animal, one acting erratically or one who, without the presence of the weapon, is higher on the food chain than that person (bear), shows that the person is, in fact, very responsible for calmly determining that firing is not necessary. I’ve also been drawn and ready when in the presence of a bear cub, literally clowning around with my dogs. I drew because the next thing I expected was for bear mom to show up. My intent was to protect my dogs, which proved to be not necessary, since it was autumn and the cub was, by then, on it’s own.
    About 7 years ago, in Northern Wisconsin, our town manager was camping with boy scouts. His son was pulled from his tent by a black bear and dragged off, doing some damage to his skull in the process. The dad banged on pots to scare the bear off. Is that how you want to protect your children, by banging on a frying pan? Call law enforcement? Hatchet?
    6. Don’t mean to be picky, but the Hunter’s Orange point is poor. There are way too many people shot and killed during hunting season by people who mistake a white t-shirt or a pony tail, seen through the brush, for a white tail. So we wear the orange. People carrying hand guns or long guns for self defense are not looking through the brush for meat or a trophy rack. This is for close in protection where there’s no doubt about the identity of the target. To the gun owners I admonish, if the other being is away so far that identity is in question, then there’s no excuse for firing!
    I think we all agree that gun ownership and use requires education and training. You’ve learned to aim your car (I hope). I’ve learned to aim my weapons.
    By the way, at arms length I can kill you just as fast with my hands as with a gun or hatchet. Is there some question as to whether I should take my hands into the National Parks?

  19. 9-volt

    For every story about a bear attacking a kid, there are a 100 stories about a kid accidentally getting shot, or a verbal argument turning into a gun shot wound. I can think of several in Asheville recently.

  20. DebateTeam1

    9 Volt

    Nothing personal but I laid out valid arguments that you simply dismissed and said “But Brady and Gun Control websites say all gun ownership is the direct cause of homicides”. That’s not really a valid retort, it’s just repeating their talking points. I have questions and I’d like answers. I’ll answer yours if you will answer mine.

    Here are my questions:

    If firearm banishment is the answer then why is Washington, DC historically been the murder capital of the planet? (Please note that if you say handguns are shipped in across the DC border, then you will have made my point that criminals don’t care about borders and that taking mine away will leave me vulnerable to a criminal who is willing to carry one into the US and use it against me. I believe this to be the case).

    If widespread firearm ownership has a causal result of death then why did Kennessaw, Ga. go 25 years without a homicide?

    Can you guarantee me that if I give up my weapon that I will not ever be in an urban/suburban setting and end up a victim of a gun toting thug? Note that I said ‘guarantee’ and that giving up my 2nd amendment right will only be appropriate if you can make this guarantee. Otherwise you expect me to play the law of averages and that is unacceptable to me and I will fall back on the 2nd amendment.

    Can you guarantee me that if I give up my weapon that I will not ever be in a wilderness setting and run across a rabid coyote, bear, etc? Again, note that I said ‘guarantee’. Again anything less is unacceptable to me and the 2nd amendment is my fallback position.

    Now to your questions:

    The difference in death rates among countries is how we treat our citizens. We believe that everyone even habitual criminals have “rights” and afford them legal opportunities to defend themselves unlike any place on earth. We allow them to go repeatedly before our courts and they walk out through a revolving door. Their fear of the law is less than the draw of greed and survival. These people will continue to illegally own weapons and use them to kill each other every day, every week, every year, regardless of firearm laws. Occasionally they will kill an innocent bystander which is intolerable. And every day there are millions of law-abiding firearms owners who do not kill each other yet will be tainted with the misinterpretation of the statistics by those with an agenda. Please note, Canada has a high rate of gun ownership but a low homicide rate. If ownership in and of itself were directly causal, then one would expect a corresponding high homicide rate in Canada. Washington DC is an example of the converse – a low rate of legal ownership was not causal to a low rate of homicides.

    As for your statistics from Brady and the Gun Control Network I would say that these are very biased organizations and that no one is served well by us getting into a conversation based on web pages full of statistics. The NRA has plenty of statistics too and I don’t think we want to go there. Mark Twain had a notable quote: “’There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

    I do want to address the underlying premise of both organizations you named. They both make the leap in logic that firearm ownership has a direct causal relationship to firearm homicides and that weapon ownership should banned in order to prevent any potential deaths as a result. I reject this logic. To accept this would be to accept similar logic that automobile ownership has a direct relationship to homicide by motor vehicle and that all cars should be banned in order to prevent any deaths. We both know that poorly trained drivers kill other people and that drunk drivers kill people. We also know that there are some plain old accidents. We have strict drunk driving laws and driver education programs. We don’t plan to eliminate cars as a preventative solution and I am unwilling to sacrifice my 2nd amendment rights base on that poor logic. Law abiding citizens should be trained in the proper use and discharge of their firearms. Criminals illegally possessing firearms should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I send you back to my remarks on treating the source of the problem – drugs and gangs, not the tools being used.

    I agree with your remarks about children and accidents. These should never happen. We make drivers take a driving test to get a license and we test them periodically thereafter. I believe firearms tests should not only reflect skill and accuracy but also knowledge of property safety. Military personnel are required to qualify with their weapon periodically. I see no reason why this should not be part of a well regulated industry. Education and training are the keys to this issue.

    As to your statement that there needs to be common sense when, where, and how guns are used I would assert that there are plenty of regulations in this regard. No carrying firearms on planes, near schools, any government offices, or any establishment that posts a sign indicating no firearms allowed. Note that a business can put a sticker on their front door and that private business owners’ rights usurp a potential customer’s right to carry. Concealed carry permit holders are not allowed to have any alcohol in their system lest they forfeit their permit. That is a zero tolerance policy. Every concealed carry holder knows these laws well. There are laws on the discharge of a firearm as to the location and proximity to populated areas. There are laws upon laws upon laws. The problem is that criminals who carry illegally do not follow these or any other laws.

    Just so you know, Brady law’s most recent interpretation requires an immediate background check so there are back ground checks in place. I am only familiar with NC, SC, VA, and GA but I believe all states require them. They have been quite effective in preventing convicted felons from legally obtaining a firearm.

    Let’s just boil this argument down to what it is since we can go back on forth on this forever. We have a constitution of the United States. There is a 2nd amendment that has been interpreted by our Supreme Court to mean that gun ownership is a right granted to every law abiding citizen. Until a supreme court is assembled that changes that interpretation this is the law of the land. I intend to support the constitution and to follow the laws that support the right to have and lawfully use firearms. I am sure many local and state authorities will attempt to undermine the 2nd amendment and I will disagree vehemently with them and work to counteract their attempts. I would suggest that if this is something you feel strongly about then you should join and work at a grass roots level with the loyal opposition in an effort to get the 2nd amendment repealed. I, of course, will continue to be your worthy opponent.

  21. DebateTeam1


    First, just because I didn’t fire my sidearm does not mean that I did not need it. Your characterization of me waving it at animals is inaccurate. I never pointed at them nor did I intend to intimidate as they are animals and unable to understand the purpose of the firearm at my side. I showed the restraint I was trained with and removed myself from those situations.

    Hunter orange is what responsible hunters wear in order to provide optimum safety. Wearing it is a proper precaution taken during hunting season, that is all. They make sheaths for hatchets too and I use one of them to prevent avoidable injury – again providing optimum safety taking proper precautions.

    Your example of developing a nuclear weapon by Iran has made my point very well. Thank you. With all of the diplomacy, economic threats, broken deals and promises, the Iranian government (not their citizens) is in effect a criminal state operating without regard to International Nuclear Agreements and accepted norms. They are illegally manufacturing weapons grade uranium and doing so as their neighbors are sitting by unarmed. They put their citizens and the entire world in jeopardy. We are not safer, no one is. Just as the US government cannot prevent Iran from getting a nuclear warhead, they would not be able stop the importation of foreign made illegal weapons into a country where only criminals would have firearms.

    As for your comment to keep a gun pointed at my head at all times you should recognize that doing so would constitute a criminal act so your assertion that it would be law-abiding is false. Just so you know, you should never point a gun until you are ready to fire. Your ignorance of that axiom is apparent. As Mr. Menard as noted, if you are close enough to point a gun directly at my head then I am close enough to take it away from you and use it against you. You can try but I would suggest it is folly.

    As for your assertion that I don’t trust the justice system or law enforcement – I both trust and respect them but I do not place on them the impossible responsibility to protect me 24/7/365. I understand that is my responsibility as I have a 2nd amendment right to do so. I am weary of this tactic used in debate when defending a weak position to attribute some emotional or mental defective status to your opponent in the hope of undermining their position. Doing so signals that you have no position to argue so you mean to tear down the character of you your opponent in the hope that will reflect on their argument and others will see you as correct. It reeks of your ignorance and serves only to cast you in the light of a 10 year old who says “I know I am, but what are you?” This tactic is both offensive and tiresome.

    I am making this one time response to you. You can respond in kind but do not expect me to return to this conversation with you. Your tone and demeanor are both condescending and disrespectful. I am taking the time to articulate well thought out positions yet you pipe in with weak and unsubstantiated remarks. You sir, are not a gentleman and I refuse to engage in uncivil discord with anyone who acts as a child.

  22. chops


    I’m sorry that you misinterpreted my message to you. I will try clarify.

    As you confess, you “do not place on them the impossible responsibility to protect me”, which I interpret as “I do not believe that I am safe”.

    The point I was trying to make, when I stated that perceived “mistrust” is only that if you do not feel safe, then you do not completely have confidence (trust) in the safeguards that we have in place in our society which are meant to make you safe.

    I was not attempting a personal attack.

  23. chops

    Robert Menard: “There is a whole lot of dangerous behavior behind the wheels of many automobiles. Does that mean that driving is dangerous behavior?”


  24. 9-volt

    Debate – I appreciate your lengthy retort and agree and disagree with several points. I will do my best to respond, but that will require far more time than i have at the moment. Hopefully this weekend.

  25. Piffy!

    [b]For every story about a bear attacking a kid, there are a 100 stories about a kid accidentally getting shot, or a verbal argument turning into a gun shot wound. I can think of several in Asheville recently. [/b]

    From registered guns? Or from unregistered guns? The distinction is kinda key to the debate.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.