BoroughVENT... Gettysburg,PA

No, it wasn't an experation.  Bush over turned the NPS regulation that banned guns.  Then Obama halted that change upon taking office.  Then it was the new law was tacked on to the credit card reform bill that Obama was pushing for, and he signed it.  That was 6 months ago I believe, and it just took effect on Feb 22nd.

So what's wrong with allowing law abiding citizens to protect themselves in the National Parks?

People don't seem to understand the point of all the push for more places to carry.

It's not about where I can go with my gun, or why the parks are so dangerous.  I'm not looking for a new place to floss my latest piece.

It is about "Gun Free Zones".  I can't legally carry there, but any criminal can, and they know it. They also know that their intendid victim probably isn't carrying.  So called unsecured, gun free zones, are really target enriched zones for a would be attacker.  There is a reason that "ACTIVE SHOOTERS" don't go to police stations, gun shops, shooting ranges to start their spree.  Schools, Colleges, Military bases, posted business (Omaha Mall was posted NO GUNS) and churchs (some states prohibit carry in a church).

It is also a statistical fact that in an Active Shooter situation, the killing stops when the good guys show up with guns.  Most ASers kill them selves as soon as they hear the police.

I say unsecured, because, though it's not perfect, Places like the Court House, the Airport Terminal, all screen and have metal detectors.  It's not perfect, but it helps to keep bad guys with knives and guns out.

Also, criminals want the safest work environment possible, so a place that restricts guns is perfect.  Most people can't fight worth a damn, so a weapon is the only equalizer the mugger or rapist is worried about.

Also, not every Park is like Gettysburg.  Some national parks are much larger, less developed, and highly populated with bears and stuff.


I just saw an article on Policeone.com about how they have found that large gangs are planting their weed crops on State and National Park land.  I'd hate to be walking through Yosemite and stumble upon a bunch of MS13ers harvesting their crop.

It's not paranoid if it's possible.

Well at least now I don't have to be confined to Wheatfield road to travel from one side of the county to the other during hunting season.

MattC wrote:

FormerT wrote:

Remember the oldie but goodie "Support the right to arm bears?"  I'd like to organize them and get them guns before some city slicker who is accustomed to bangers takes out a bear because he could.  I don't have a problem with anyone legally carrying but I do fear for the wildlife.

by why assume that because he/she is from the city that he/she doesn't know how and when to use his/her gun? All the gun owners I know are very responsible with their guns. With all the hoops the government makes us jump through, you'd better take gun ownership seriously. Of course there may be exceptions to this, but in my experience, I haven't seen idiots carrying guns and waving them around like Butch Cassidy.

Oh, Matt, get off your high horse.  It was a joke and you should have known that.  I still intend to take a shooting class so that I am familiar with guns.  My brother and sister-in-law both have carry permits. 

For your information, I have seen idiots playing with guns - it does happen.  Not everyone who owns a gun should own a gun but no matter how careless they may be I support their right to injure...themselves.

You know if Stonewall wouldn't have been on his high horse he might have made it to Gettysburg , and they would have listened to him instead of Pickett .

Well somebody listened enough to let him carry out that stupid ass charge of his across a open field .

the charge wasn't Pickett's idea. It was Lee's. Longstreet argued against it basically from the moment Lee uttered the plan to him. Lee chose Pickett because his was the only division yet to be engaged. It had arrived on the field late on the 2nd from guarding the supply trains in Chambersburg. And the casualties from Pickett's charge were closer to 6500, but don't quote me on that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge

East of Gettysburg wrote:

Yeah, but without that charge, Gettysburg goes into the history books as no different than say, the Second Bull Run or the Wilderness. And if that was the case there would be no casino debate.

(Hey Dex, how is that for stirring it up?)

The Charge was great fodder for the papers and arguments in public after the war between generals and other participants, but I think with out the charge, Gettysburg would still have been a big deal in the mind of the public. Just take the fighting that occurred on the second day. That's the day where the majority of the casualties were taken. We tend to forget that, while all that jazz was going on from the Peach Orchard to Little Round Top, Culp's Hill was fought over for hours until after nightfall. And then first thing in the morning on the 3rd. I have heard some guides say that the fighting at Culp's Hill was many times worse than that on Little Round Top. In the early days of tourism, visitors came to see Culp's Hill. But the Killer Angels and, later, the movie, Gettysburg, changed the public's interest since it hardly mentions Culp's Hill but dwells on Chamberlain's contribution. Pickett's Charge, in my opinion, captures our imagination because one need not have the benefit of hindsight to recognize the futility of such an assault. Longstreet sure didn't and he fought with Lee over it. The story has drama because Longstreet seems to be the lone voice in the Wilderness. Lee insists that it happen, Longstreet tries to make him see it can't work and suggests another plan, Lee rejects it; Pickett is elated that he gets to finally lead his division to glory. Most other people around Longstreet seem to be under the same spell as Lee and Pickett. Longstreet finally relents and does his duty, but he is visibly shaken to the point that he can only gesture when Pickett asks for permission to advance. Then Pickett's and Pettigrew's and Trimble's divisions step off into eternity. They're like fish in a barrel for Union artillery and, yet, they come on. They get torn apart even worse at the Emmitsburg Road, yet some still make over the fence and up to the wall, and some of them make it over.

It's a great story when told that way. To me, the bottom line is that Lee thought his men were capable of more than they were in reality. Longstreet said Lee's "blood was up" and that there was no arguing with Lee when that happened. Lee, I think, was having trouble coming to grips with the fact that his army is better on the defensive in tighter quarters than the vast fields here. I think it was an ego thing as much as anything else. He couldn't believe that he wasn't wining. He was no idiot. I imagine in his heart of hearts he knew Longstreet was right. But something in him made him stubborn.

So what's my point? I lost it. Oh yeah, I think Gettysburg would still been a big deal without the charge. It still took place in the North. That alone is historic. Add to that the casualties and fierce fighting that caused them and you still have an alluring battle.

Do you think? I don't know. I think its over-simplifying the situation. My guess is that it would have caused a crisis but the ANV wouldn't have been able to sustain itself. Washington would have been able to muster enough troops to eventually come up behind Lee. I think it was Jackson (one of the experts correct me if I'm wrong here) who said that the problem they always had wasn't breaking a line, but having enough reinforcements to exploit the breech. Lee was outnumbered and had sustained many casualties the first day. Not as many as the second day and if he HAD listened to Longstreet, he would have saved a few thousand more that would be sustained fighting on the south end of the field and at Culp's Hill. Now, let's say they moved on Longstreet's advice and held the Pipe Creek line, or somewhere similar. How long could they have held with Washington closer to their rear than Richmond? They'd be in a defensive position and you'd best bet that Meade would have made it difficult for foraging parties. My feeling, and this is only a feeling, is that Lee would have brought on a Petersburg-like situation sooner than when it actually occurred.

But I think the one thing that many overlook when we speculate like this is that Stuart didn't come in till late in the day on the second. The swing around to the right argument had pretty much been settled by then and Stuart didn't come back with much information about the whereabouts of Union reinforcements coming from the south because he was coming from the north-ish. So Lee could really only operate on what he could see and, as he said, "The enemy is there" and that's where Lee would strike. It's that fact alone that disuades me from engaging in the speculation simply because it's a HUGE factor in Lee's decision making. He was blind without Stuart. And (here's where I could use another expert) if I recall, the 5th corps was on the Taneytown Road when Longstreet attacked, finally, and the Sixth Corps was coming up behind them. So, Lee made the right choice because Longstreet would have run into a mess.

Just my opinion.

MattC wrote:

Do you think? I don't know. I think its over-simplifying the situation. My guess is that it would have caused a crisis but the ANV wouldn't have been able to sustain itself. Washington would have been able to muster enough troops to eventually come up behind Lee. I think it was Jackson (one of the experts correct me if I'm wrong here) who said that the problem they always had wasn't breaking a line, but having enough reinforcements to exploit the breech. Lee was outnumbered and had sustained many casualties the first day. Not as many as the second day and if he HAD listened to Longstreet, he would have saved a few thousand more that would be sustained fighting on the south end of the field and at Culp's Hill. Now, let's say they moved on Longstreet's advice and held the Pipe Creek line, or somewhere similar. How long could they have held with Washington closer to their rear than Richmond? They'd be in a defensive position and you'd best bet that Meade would have made it difficult for foraging parties. My feeling, and this is only a feeling, is that Lee would have brought on a Petersburg-like situation sooner than when it actually occurred.

But I think the one thing that many overlook when we speculate like this is that Stuart didn't come in till late in the day on the second. The swing around to the right argument had pretty much been settled by then and Stuart didn't come back with much information about the whereabouts of Union reinforcements coming from the south because he was coming from the north-ish. So Lee could really only operate on what he could see and, as he said, "The enemy is there" and that's where Lee would strike. It's that fact alone that disuades me from engaging in the speculation simply because it's a HUGE factor in Lee's decision making. He was blind without Stuart. And (here's where I could use another expert) if I recall, the 5th corps was on the Taneytown Road when Longstreet attacked, finally, and the Sixth Corps was coming up behind them. So, Lee made the right choice because Longstreet would have run into a mess.

Just my opinion.

All good points. I wasn't trying to get to who would of won. My point was that if the 3rd day did not occur at Gettysburg and the ANV would of gone south between Meade and Baltimore/DC, the next battle would of been the "decisive" battle which would of overshadowed Gettysburg.

Here's the story from Colonel Mosby:

In March 1870, I was walking across the bridge that connected the Ballard and Exchange Hotels in Richmond and, to my surprise, I met General Lee and his daughter. The general was pale and haggard, and did not look like the Apollo I had known in the army. After a while I went to his room; our conversation was on current topics. I felt oppressed by the great memories that his presence revived and while both of us were thinking about the war, neither of us referred to it.

After leaving his room I met General Pickett, and told him that I had just been with Lee. He remarked that if I would go with him he would call and pay his respects to the general, but he did not want to be alone with him. So I went back with Pickett: the interview was cold and formal, and evidently embarrassing to both commanders. It was their only meeting after the war.

In a few minutes, I rose and left the room, together with General Pickett. He then spoke to me very bitterly of General Lee, calling him "that old man."

"He had my division massacred at Gettysburg," Pickett said.

"Well, it made you immortal," I replied.

I rather suspect that Pickett gave a wrong reason for his unfriendly feelings. In May 1892 at the University of Virginia, I took breakfast with Professor Venable, who had been on Lee's staff. He told me that some days before the surrender at Appomattox General Lee ordered General Pickett under arrest, I suppose for the Five Forks affair. I think the professor said he carried the order. I remember very well his adding that on the retreat Pickett passed them, and that General Lee said, with deep feeling: "Is that man still with this army?"

Rainier Wolfcastle wrote:

Thanks Matt I couldn't remember the exact quote off the top of my head.  Pickett should have been arrested after Five Forks.  Wasn't he off eating somewhere while the battle was going on?

Shad bake