For years, ATV-riding, gun-toting sport shooters have flouted gun laws in part of Idaho’s high desert by taking pot shots at ground squirrels and other animals. Now, officials say, they’re also setting their sights on National Guard tanks that train in the area.
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.
“There’s a segment of the shooting community that will shoot at anything that moves,’’ said John Sullivan, the area’s manager.
“It’s like World War III on the weekends,’’ he said.
Ah, the price of freedom.
“Say hello to my little friend”
Me thinks the problem would go away if the tanks would just shoot back.
#2. Exactly. Just as the “sport shooters” have an inalienable 2nd Amendment right to shoot at the tanks, the tank gunners, well, they did not give up all their rights when they joined the Guard ….
#2 I could not agree more.. a couple of .50 slugs would solve the problem
I think the NRA should do some re-education Idaho.
I’m starting to think a $2000 tax stamp per weapon, per decade, is the solution.
Raise the bar on weapon ownership, eliminate those that don’t really value their ownership responsibilities. And make violations a minimum of a 10 year sentence in a federal prison.
Enforce this and this problem will halt.
#2
I agree as well. sooner or later some take commander is gonna stop his tank, turn the muzzle around, and fire off a shot of depleated uranium at thier pickup truck.
heres hoping one of them is dumb enough to film it and post it on youtube.
#5 What is wrong with you? What, specifically, about freedom don’t you understand? You would penalize everyone for the actions of a few morons? Think about the freedoms YOU actually take advantage of, and then consider those folks who don’t like the things YOU do. We have to watch out for each other’s freedoms in order to preserve our own.
Laws/regulations which deal with individual behavior consistently have TWO NET EFFECTS for individuals:
LESS FREEDOM, because once it becomes a law, it is one more thing you must do, or one less thing you are permitted to do, and
LESS MONEY because, at every stage, we pay through the nose for laws, (inception, enactment, implementation, enforcement and correction.)
A third and incidental effect of laws is that each one becomes another item in the exclusive toybox of lawyers.
We have way too many laws as it is. We have lost so many freedoms in just my lifetime that it’s alarming. And yet there seems to be no short age of shortsighted people who espouse the battle cry, “THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!”
I believe we should have to get rid of two laws in order to pass a new one.
And it’s not just the federal government, either. We have at every level (neighborhood, town/city, county, state and nation) factories if you will, engaged in the production of nothing BUT laws, regulations, rules, etc. We are giving our freedoms away at an unbelievable rate without even knowing it.
If there were some way to bring the founding fathers back today to see what we have done with gift they gave us, it’s difficult to imagine they would be pleased.
I’m a strong RTKBA guy but these guys need to go to jail.
That is not to suggest that we should have NO laws – but I wonder if we couldn’t get by (and be better off) with some version of the ten commandment and the golden rule, but with VERY SHARP TEETH.
#8 – I respectfully disagree. I agree with #2, seriously.
“Now, officials say, they’re also setting their sights on National Guard tanks that train in the area.”
Officials say? Not real credible go figure. Funny they don’t name the source that says these people are shooting at the National Guard. Nothing more than baseless accusations until proven otherwise.
We also need to have a $1000 up front cost for starting a blog, because some people might misuse that responsibility.
Like yourself
Please, please read the 10 commandments before blathering about enforcing them. They’re not even up to the Dark Ages dweebs who accept that crap.
No doubt the trigger-happy incompetents in Idaho already consider themselves devout and patriotic.
Maybe some day Americans will understand that owning a gun doesn’t equal “freedom”.
I live in a country that has gun laws and low and behold I have just as much if not more “freedom” than in the US. Don’t give “the constitution” crap to me either. Do a little research.
#14 – Right you are. I am duly and appropriately chastised. Too much about the actual ten commamdments don’t apply. I had in mind specific commandments, such as thou shalt not kill, steal or covet thy neighbor’s ass, etc.
The point being, we have way too many laws already. We should be seeking simpler solutions to problems like these pinhesad taking potshots at the National Guard.
Looking closely at your picture, it’s apparent that NONE of the individuals have their weapons pointed at the bodies of the others (but instead to the rear or to the front of them) and that all of the shooters have their fingers outside the trigger guards.
From a gun handling perspective – nothing wrong here.
Or is it that anyone with a gun is a “dipshit” in your book?
That said, anyone who shoots at NG or NG vehicles is dangerous and needs to be arrested.
#5 I’m starting to think a $2000 tax stamp per weapon, per decade, is the solution.
Raise the bar on weapon ownership, eliminate those that don’t really value their ownership responsibilities.
Lets try it with voting first, it would solve a lot of problems.
Guns are evil don’t you know? We must ban them to help Nth of the 49th with his irrational fear. After all it’s safe if officials have guns because only the government can be responsible with fire arms.
The right to bear arms is an important part of a democratic country, since it makes it possible for the citizenry to overthrow a government that is getting too powerful or oppressive.
However, some gun laws are also required. There must be some restrictions on what people can do with the guns they are allowed to own. Guns ought to be used for defending one’s home and family. Taking potshots at animals, and worse, military hardware and personnel is not only a very bad idea, but it’s probably illegal.
The right to bear arms was intended with responsible, sane people in mind. People like those described in this article are certainly not responsible, and their sanity could be questioned.
While I will agree that Americans seem to be a lot more sensitive about losing the right to bear arms than their other rights, the question should not be why that is, but why they don’t care as much about the other freedoms.
#7
My point is that raising the bar emphasizes the responsibilities that a weapon owner has.
The personnel firing weapons in the subject story obviously believe they have no responsibilities, and nothing to lose, by firing at other people. Their “freedom” to be irresponsible trumps the rights of others, and the rule of law.
Freedom is an illusion, as we are merely free to do the right things in life, and we are not free to do as we please. A good percentage of people do not adequately understand what is the right-thing-to-do. People who do the wrong things can be corrected with proactive education, and/or by imposing penalties after-the-fact.
If the porposed cost is the issue, your cable/sat TV + internet costs are much (about 10 times) greater than the suggested stamp tax. The prospective weapon owner would be free to make the choice about where he wishes to spend his money. I also would be in favor of even greater tax levels for those that wish to own weapons that require more training and certification (automatic weapons).
In Germany, the cost of a drivers licence is $2000 (or so), and with this, and stringent vehicle inspection requirements, a licenced driver is able to drive at unlimited speeds on some stretches of Autobahn. Raising the bar allowed more “freedom” in this example.
A call for the freedom to make poor choices is just an expression of undisciplined thinking.
A rational person would be happy to subscribe to the practices of disciplined behavior and thinking.
[edit: comments guide] If you put such burdens on weapon owners then they’ll go to a less legal and more violent source to get their weapons. Hasn’t the war on drugs taught you anything ya big dope?
It is easier to over through the government by voting them out than by armed conflict.
Where do you think your bullets/power, food, medicine, water, housing, and clothes will come from when anarchy ensues?
In time of anarchy would you be willing to serve a local warlord, and pledge your allegiance to him (and give up your attractive wife to him)?
#22
Someone that contemplates breaking the law to acquire a weapon is probably someone that should never have a weapon. That kind of thinking is irrational (crazy).
Certainly someone who contemplates breaking the law to acquire a weapon is not employed in a job that has any duties (or employed at all).
“Mah gran’son talks ’bout mu’ant ninja turtles an’ ah thought that was one.”
BertDawg, #15 is bang on, #21 almost has it right. Freedom IS an illusion. Canada has reasonable gun laws and I have MORE freedom because of it. The only threat to me comes in the way of smuggled guns across the border from the USA. But making it expensive to own a gun just gives rich morons and drug dealers an unfair advantage.
The USA is living in the past. You aren’t a few thousand cowboys looking for a homestead any more. George Washington would shake his head and wonder how y’all could be so dumb as to not realize that the situation has changed. Guns are a liability to everyone except peace officers. Yes, some of them are morons, but that’s a different problem.
And doubt that a gun will ever save your life. Are you going after a drive by shooter after he puts a bullet in your eye? Gun toting assholes always have the advantage of surprise. They’ve made the decision to get you BEFORE you know it.
Good for Canada.
Listening to anonymous official sources got us into the Iraq war, and now we go prattling on based upon one? If it is true then it is a terrible thing, and they should be arrested for breaking numerous laws, but that is hardly established. The amount of evidence free speculation coming from the high towers seems more reflective of people who’ve never had to keep a chicken coop, if nothing else.
But I suppose I am naive; after all, food comes wrapped in plastic from a store the size of a small town.
The nihilistic impulses of some are the most amusing. One might argue that any freedom is illusory, but that only makes it likely to disappear like a shade. You might say, “People gathering together can be dangerous.” and restrict assembly, or “Speech is already restricted by our acceptance of this reality, so there is no freedom of speech.” and restrict speech. Of course, by restricting these things you are making it dangerous to do them, and as men are want to gather and speak out you are creating the danger you are trying to protect against. That is why they were chosen as freedoms, because our forefathers, relying upon more sound philosophy than yours, knew that restricting these things would create dangers bigger than they themselves represented. I notice, for instance, that states with carry laws have less street crime, for instance, or that Switzerland has no home invasions, likely due to the fact that every able bodied male has a select fire rifle in a closet. Besides, the gun registry in Canada is highly over budget largely due to the fact that there are so many guns out there. They are still there.
#24 Is it that “crazy” to protect my home against violent psychos and power hungry government agents that make mistakes of shooting old grandmas? If weapons were illegal I would certainly break the law in order to get one to protect my family and my home. Banning weapons is neither practical or rational. Law enforcement officers do a very poor job of protecting people from violent thugs, and some of them are violent thugs themselves. Wake up buddy.
#28
I’m not sure how much of my message you’re addressing, so I’ll take your argument to the limit.
So you suggest anyone should have any weapon they want; that over regulation primes the populace to suddenly adopt criminal behaviors? You suggest even criminals and crazy folk should not be barred from owning? Full-auto AK-47s for everyone, even children?
Couldn’t we assume some criminals carry? Does that inhibit them from shooting each other?
Doesn’t almost every state have carry laws, or do you mean liberal carry laws (like Vermont)?
I submit that education and regulation set the bounds people need in their lives. Civilization is the result of a continuous refinement of laws and social standards over the preceding millennia. As children are happiest when they live in a structured environment with rules that make sense, so am I happiest when I abide by reasonable laws and standards of conduct. A social melee would have us constantly react to the impulses of everyone around us. That would be exhausting.
Criminals will of course behave like criminals.
FYI: I’ve been doing preliminary research on obtaining a semi-automatic Short Barreled Rifle. If I bought it, it would only be used to practice target shooting (I haven’t ever been shot at, despite once living for 12 months in a “bad” neighborhood that featured quarterly shootings between local criminals). The gun would be an NFA firearm. It is fairly unlikely I would go through with the purchase because I probably don’t want to waste $2000 on a weapon I don’t need (though probably fun to have).