9 thoughts on “Who Needs Carry on National Lands?”

  1. One correction – they didn’t “stumble” onto it, they were looking for it. From the linked story:

    On Saturday, he and a co-worker were patrolling forestland for a suspected marijuana grow along the Noyo River when he was shot and killed, authorities said.

  2. There’s a hike I’d love to do nearby. Unfortunately, it’s in California, and I am absolutely unwilling to solo hike without a firearm in these areas for exactly this reason.

  3. Killed? That’s impossible.

    Killing people is illegal, and as we all know, the law prevents illegal things, which is why criminals are unarmed.


  4. Sad story, but why wouldn’t you carry if you were looking for a grow? I mean, when I hike out here I ALWAYS carry and that’s just because of rumors there might be meth-freaks.

  5. The story also said they suspected a transient whom the law had trouble with before. They didn’t say he had anything to do with the weed grow. Transients normally don’t hang around long enough to grow any weed.

  6. The antis are delusional. I am sure that if you could get one to actually talk about this they would come up with some sort of dodge so that they could keep their anti-gun beliefs in tact.

    I have a friend who is a statist, and whenever I talk to her about something bad that the government is doing her eyes glaze over and she just says “That happens no matter who is in office”. There is no way to get through to her that she just agreed with me as to the evils of big government. She still supports Obama and will still vote for his re-election no matter what (and yes, I understand that the republicans are also “big gov”, that’s why I’m not one of those either).


Comments are closed.