# Using Firearms on the Upper C?



## mcfarrel (Apr 1, 2006)

phunkfan said:


> I'm not sure I'd want to hear gun shots echoing if I wasn't the shooter.


I think you answered your own question there...

Also to quote jurrasic park "you were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn’t stop to think if they should."


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

I call that "nefarious" activity!


----------



## Nubie Jon (Dec 19, 2017)

GeoRon said:


> I call that "nefarious" activity!


Ditto! Plenty of ranges in the valley where its safe to shoot.


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

Concur. Stop at the range on hwy 9 or any other range. Upper C has enough debauchery as it is.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

Well it depends, on what your going to shoot at. Camper's without groove's, shitting in the campsites, one's that leave smoldering campfires unattended or ones that leave trash and garbage all over, boaters driving a Saturn raft wearing a pair of 800$ Ray-Band sunglasses that cost more than their boat are probably all fair game. Other than that, if you want to just plunk get a pellet gun. It's all fun and games till someone loses an ice cold beer to a gun shot.


----------



## matt man (Dec 23, 2011)

Hey Kyle,
Thank you for having the decency to ask!
I’m pretty good not hearing shooting on the upper C, either.
I’d say keep er packed up in a dry bag for the meth heads from Craig, that wander down to the river in the off season. One or two may think twice if they know they may become shot... or they won’t, and become shot...

Was always a fan of spending the cheap ammo with my pellet gun, growing up. Makes you a dam good shot. Quite, and cheap.
Careful in Grand County though, our swat team got called on someone with BB guns this past year, makes me paranoid to shoot ANYTHING outside of a range.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Enough lead in the environment already Raymo. Pellet guns may be quieter but they are just another mechanism to spew lead, lead with antimony even worse.


----------



## phunkfan (May 17, 2019)

Thanks guys. I think I knew the answer when I was typing it, but I guess I just needed to see it on paper to know haha. 

I'll keep it off the river!!


----------



## matt man (Dec 23, 2011)

GeoRon said:


> Enough lead in the environment already Raymo. Pellet guns may be quieter but they are just another mechanism to spew lead, lead with antimony even worse.


Wait, I think it would be fine to shoot em in the ass with a pellet gun, just make sure you pick it up in case ya miss


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

Ok, GeoRon. Those darn moral's always get in the way. So how about those Saturn drivers, I guess their still off limits too.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

I'd rather hear distant gunfire than every asshole floating by blaring music. What is it with people these days needing to blast music on the river? How about enjoy the sound of the river, nature and distant gunfire. I'm getting old.


oh, and Ron, the lead is just trying to get back from where it came.


----------



## melted_ice (Feb 4, 2009)

Know your target and what's beyond your target and then why the hell not? It's your land to enjoy as well. Don't be an idiot and shoot into dry grass/brush.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

"Handgun" and "play around" also struck a wrong cord with me I must admit. Conjured visions of Dustin Hoffman go'in "snake eye" in Little Bigman. 

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x58r4xf


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Yo Zach, lead be bad shit. 

Ask the people of Flint Michigan. Ask the condors and ask the bald eagles which I both really enjoy seeing again along the rivers due to their fortunate come back by elimination of lead and other toxics in their environment. Ask the people of Rome concerning their aberrant behavior back during their empire days. Debatable, consider the fate of the Franklin's exploratory expedition and their bad decisions(which really didn't turn out to matter, their fate got sealed due to circumstance). The negatives of lead in the environment is well documented and any point of discussion otherwise is a fools errand.

I'm not going to say that mother nature has a conscientiousness but perhaps she put that shit(lead and antimony(arsenic)) in the bowels of the earth for a reason. It should not be polluting the surface of the back country of the places we visit and love.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Blah blah, this paint off the wall of this turn of the century house is delicious. Between that and toluene I'll live to be at least 50! Now there is something for the environment! Save the planet, die young! Think of the resources saved for the next generation. Your time is up sir. Don't be selfish ron!

Its fun to razz your ass!! Get down here and boat you bastard


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*CCW Permit.*



phunkfan said:


> Thanks guys. I think I knew the answer when I was typing it, but I guess I just needed to see it on paper to know haha.
> 
> I'll keep it off the river!!


In the river environment with boaters, gun fire up set's alot of people, which is very understandable and should be respected, it's part of our responsibility as gun owner's. I grew up around hunting and shooting so it doesn't bother me as much. If you want to carry it on the river concealed, acquire a concealed carry permit, it's a painless process(a couple of great classes and a background check) than it's legal. More boaters ccw than you think. When my daughter's were in elementary school and junior high, and we told other parents about our 3 day to 7 day river trips together, they thought that was so dangerous and irresponsible of us, I really felt like telling them to go screw them selves. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


----------



## griz (Sep 19, 2005)

Just wait for a train to do a couple quick mag dumps into the river as it passes on by to cover up any possible noise.

Bonus points for shooting one handed, with your pants around your ankles and a warm PBR in the other.

It is the Upper C, after all. There are standards to be upheld.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

raymo said:


> If you want to carry it on the river concealed, acquire a concealed carry permit, it's a painless process(a couple of great classes and a background check) than it's legal.


*Legally* he is not required to obtain a permit to carry concealed here in Colorado.


----------



## SlipShot (Mar 26, 2018)

AzPakerafter, you are very wrong! You don't have to have a permit to open carry in most areas, but you better have a CCW if your weapon is concealed in any way.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

SlipShot said:


> AzPakerafter, you are very wrong! You don't have to have a permit to open carry in most areas, but you better have a CCW if your weapon is concealed in any way.



I was wrong on the constitutional carry part, but you are also wrong when you say you need a permit to carry concealed in any way. You are allowed to carry concealed in your vehicle with no permit.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/co-gun-laws/


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

Sorry, not my intentions of trying to get into a "pissing match"....just trying to provide accurate and correct info since both of us were not accurate in what we posted.


----------



## SlipShot (Mar 26, 2018)

AZPacker, Thanks I was not aware of this statute. I would still be careful, for example cities and counties can and do have more restrictive laws. For example the City / County of Denver open carry is illegal.


I was not either, I just don't want anyone to get in trouble for not understanding the laws.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

SlipShot said:


> AZPacker, Thanks I was not aware of this statute. I would still be careful, for example cities and counties can and do have more restrictive laws. For example the City / County of Denver open carry is illegal.
> 
> 
> I was not either, I just don't want anyone to get in trouble for not understanding the laws.



That's the thing about laws like this, they are soooo subjective to "interpretation" and discretion of whatever LEO you may encounter while carrying. I'm a proponent of ccw as it also affords me reciprocity with several other states.


----------



## phunkfan (May 17, 2019)

GeoRon said:


> "Handgun" and "play around" also struck a wrong cord with me I must admit. Conjured visions of Dustin Hoffman go'in "snake eye" in Little Bigman.
> 
> https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x58r4xf


Haha, yes I could have probably worded that a little bit cleaner.


----------



## phunkfan (May 17, 2019)

I don't think the debate anymore is the legality of it, I think the debate is whether or not this is kosher with other boaters. The consensus I am getting is that it's not. I'm sure I wouldn't be the first, but I don't want the Upper C to turn into anymore of an episode of Trailer Park Boys than it already is.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*CCW Permit??*

Here's an interesting point, I found this in my ccw rules handbook. Quote... " Colorado law treats watercraft just like motor vehicles and allows you to carry a concealed firearm in a watercraft under your control, weather or not you have ccw permit." Interesting, I didn't know that.


----------



## kayakingkate (Mar 16, 2004)

I believe the law allows for concealed carry in a means of conveyance where the gun is being used for a legal use. So riding a horse or in a car or on a boat where you are going from point A to point B.

I looked into it for horse riding/ trailering at one point and was told I did not need a CCW permit.

Top of page 6

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

Better not be drinking with that concealed firearm on-board. Shoot away IMO...no one has an expectation of a quite and serine time on the U.C.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

I see nothing wrong with shoot boating on the Upper C. I often bring my 30.06 to zero in while overnighting on this stretch. I generally set up a target on a straight stretch of river about 500 yard upstream and site in while sitting in a camp. 


It's the best views available while zeroing in my weapon of choice.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

To the contrary, I have an expectation of not hearing gun fire on the upper C. 

A train is one thing. A rare Yahoo with boombox is bad enough. Some fool firing away his gun when there are plenty of prescribed places to do that is IMO unacceptable. 

Most camps that might permit this behavior on the UC have immediately 
adjacent camps and gun fire would not only disturb their peace it would be disturbing to their sense of security, that is, these days, and increasingly so, guns are associated with mass killings and disturbed minds. A cautious parent in an adjacent camp might decide that they should move on. It would be unfortunate if that happened. 

This is likely not just my opinion.


----------



## Liquido (Feb 27, 2012)

phunkfan said:


> If I was to bring a handgun to play around with away from camp, is this acceptable?
> 
> Only thing I could find online is that it is "recommended that no firearms be discharged within 0.25 miles of either side of the Colorado River between the headwaters and State Bridge, unless in the lawful pursuit of hunting game during a valid hunting season."
> 
> That obviously states that we can shoot .25 miles away from camp, but being on the river I'm not sure I'd want to hear gun shots echoing if I wasn't the shooter. It's obviously fully legal on BLM land, but I don't want to disturb anyone else's peace and quiet. Has anyone hiked from camp on the Upper C to shoot? Experience?


Best troll I've seen in a long time. Well played!


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

The good news is the people that have a problem with the sound of gunshots wont have guns. 



If the laws allow for it, the river is as appropriate place for firearms as any. How much better off would Ned Beatty have been if he had brought his pistol?


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

It's public land that belongs to you, me, and every other American citizen. You enjoy and recreate on your public lands however you chose to, if other's don't approve then that's on them and their small minded mentality.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Super troll and super stupid. Just add it to the list of regulations that will be coming to this stretch of river. "Enjoy and recreate as you chose" until the rules change, is more like it. Alcohol, guns, a crush of people, water, children, families; What could go wrong? How small minded are you that you can't choose appropriate places to "play around" with guns?



Twice I have been too close to gun fire while near the river. First Deckers many, many years ago. Those with the pistols were firing across the river as we were floating down. Just exercising their drinking and gun rights. Second time, not so long ago, was on Mineral Bottom Road outside of Canyonlands. Very unsettling because we had no idea where the shooters were but could hear the shots zip in our vicinity.


Nice troll.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Azpackrafter, I love your videos. It is obvious that you know how to enjoy and recreate on public lands. 

However, please consider how simple minded "enjoy and recreate as you chose" on public lands sounds. It is so cliche and I hope you will reconsider what you say.

Unfortunately, to many people are doing exactly that. They are not being proper stewards of the place they are supposed to be sharing. They are leaving public lands spoiled and unavailable for the next person or next generation to enjoy as they found it.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

GeoRon said:


> Azpackrafter, I love your videos. It is obvious that you know how to enjoy and recreate on public lands.
> 
> However, please consider how simple minded "enjoy and recreate as you chose" on public lands sounds. It is so cliche and I hope you will reconsider what you say.
> 
> Unfortunately, to many people are doing exactly that. They are not being proper stewards of the place they are supposed to be sharing. They are leaving public lands spoiled and unavailable for the next person or next generation to enjoy as they found it.



So with that statement and mentality, then it would be reasonable for me to state that no one should ever boat again on the upper C with all the beer cans I see left on the river, trash at riverside camp sites, and still smoldering fires. Boaters are destroying the scenic beauty and cleanliness of the area. Just because some boaters do that, doesn't mean they all do. Just the same with shooters, just because some do that doesn't mean they are all bad. You want to make blanket statements, they can apply to all recreational activities.


See how small minded your statement was? Why is it ok for boaters to boat the area and enjoy it how they wish, yet others cannot?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

AzPackrafter said:


> it would be reasonable for me to state that no one should ever boat again on the upper C with all the beer cans I see left on the river, trash at riverside camp sites, and still smoldering fires. Boaters are destroying the scenic beauty and cleanliness of the area. Just because some boaters do that, doesn't mean they all do.


I stand by my simple minded statement and by your above statement it sounds like you fully understand most of the problem but misunderstand the basic issue. Many, most, boaters have matured to the "leave no trace"(cliche) mentality, not all. Most gun owners have matured to be respectful, not all. We must self regulate or suffer the consequences. Guns are not my issue, common sense respect is.

I have no problem with guns when they are treated with respect and are used respectfully. My significant other is the former Colorado state champion biathlete in her division(maybe a bit like saying I'll the tallest person sitting in this chair). Her rifle costs as much as perhaps 10 packrafts. When I lived in Wyoming I hunted, iron sight, successfully bagging three deer and two antelope. 

With regard to your last statement, well, maybe, I'll go unload my raft on any rifle range on public lands in front of the targets and demand my right to "enjoy and recreate as I chose" on that acre of public land. But I'm not as dumb as a deer fly because I know that it is special public land set aside for gun owners to recreate and enjoy. Besides, I think they'd not understand the point I'm trying to make and just shoot away. 

IMO, there is a special place for "playing around" with guns and a separate place for rafting/frolicking people and children who likely do not want to be around discharging guns. 

I sorry and disappointed when people don't recognize the appropriateness of separating crowds of unsuspecting people from people "playing around" with guns. I'm also sorry and disappointed that some people do not recognize that this is not a gun rights second amendment issue. This is about the right to own a gun and being respectful and not "threatening" and disturbing to other people. 

I will add, when someone is not mature enough to be respectful of others with regard to guns then perhaps they should lose their second amendment right. I wish it was already written into law. Fortunately but to slowly it is becoming law regarding inappropriate mental health and choices and gun ownership.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

GeoRon said:


> I stand by my simple minded statement and by your above statement it sounds like you fully understand most of the problem but misunderstand the basic issue. Many, most, boaters have matured to the "leave no trace"(cliche) mentality, not all. Most gun owners have matured to be respectful, not all. We must self regulate or suffer the consequences. Guns are not my issue, common sense respect is.
> 
> I have no problem with guns when they are treated with respect and are used respectfully. My significant other is the former Colorado state champion biathlete in her division(maybe a bit like saying I'll the tallest person sitting in this chair). Her rifle costs as much as perhaps 10 packrafts. When I lived in Wyoming I hunted, iron sight, successfully bagging three deer and two antelope.
> 
> ...




If they are being safe about it, making sure they have a proper backstop and knowing what is beyond their target...what gives you or for that matter anyone else the right to tell ppl what *legal* activities they should and should not do on their public lands?

I don't like hearing ppl blast music on the river, yet I don't tell ppl they cannot. They have as much of a right to use the river as I do and I'm not going to tell them how or how they cannot enjoy their public lands unless it endangers my safety.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

I will now condone raymo's suggestion of a pellet gun with an appropriate pellet catcher. I think that should satisfy the manly need to project power and perfect accuracy skills while on the river. 

Otherwise, appropriate backstop; a tree?, a rock wall?, or a even a dirt bank covered with wildflowers? And there is always a target; a pictograph?, a rock feature? or that goose upstream river left? All to often that is how it turns out when "playing around" with guns. Like that guy who said he sits in camp squeezing 30.06 rounds off at who-knows-what across 500 yards of upstream river. Do you azpackrafter condone that type of boastful activity?

An appropriate backstop is the berm behind the targets at a designated shooting range. An appropriate target, perhaps an outline of Wayne Lapierre in his $5000 suit paid for by NRA members(Sorry, couldn't help myself. Just a joke, I say there, just a joke.). 

The apparent need to go salt the environment with lead alludes me. Hunting is proper but just jacking off rounds is another. That is a total lack of respect for our ecosystem and to be so disregardful is indicative of poor mental habits. 

To have an attitude of "well fuck the other boaters" is likewise indicative of poor mental habits. I'm sure someone will respond again, "well its on them if they don't like it". 

Please google "anti-social behavior" and consider it in the context of blatant disregard of the environment and others ppls.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

GeoRon said:


> I will now condone raymo's suggestion of a pellet gun with an appropriate pellet catcher. I think that should satisfy the manly need to project power and perfect accuracy skills while on the river.
> 
> Otherwise, appropriate backstop; a tree?, a rock wall?, or a even a dirt bank covered with wildflowers? And there is always a target; a pictograph?, a rock feature? or that goose upstream river left? All to often that is how it turns out when "playing around" with guns. Like that guy who said he sits in camp squeezing 30.06 rounds off at who-knows-what across 500 yards of upstream river. Do you azpackrafter condone that type of boastful activity?
> 
> ...



Now you're just being childish. Where did I state that a tree, or a rock wall with pictographs was a good backstop? You are attempting to paint me as one of the irresponsible gun toters on the river when you couldn't be further from the truth...either way I don't give a shit because you don't know me. My words were "appropriate" backstop. If you don't know the definition of appropriate, Websters can inform you. Also, please point out where I stated I condone the activity of that knucklehead supposedly shooting 500 yards up river...that was most likely posted with a heavy dose of sarcasm you did not catch.

You apparently have an agenda and don't want to hear nor understand others opinions. I should have known better to attempt to engage you in a civil conversation when your first reply to me was that I had "simple minded statements". Either way, I'm done with this thread, you and your attempt at personal attacks.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

AzPackrafter said:


> If they are being safe about it, making sure they have a proper backstop and knowing what is beyond their target...what gives you or for that matter anyone else the right to tell ppl what *legal* activities they should and should not do on their public lands?


This.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

"what gives you or for that matter anyone else the right to tell ppl what legal activities they should and should not do on their public lands?" 

The BLM decides and we will see over time what happens if people start "shoot boating". Better to just behave responsibly now and respect your neighbors, fellow boaters and the environment.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Azpackrafter,

I'm sure you are not an irresponsible gun totter. But more often than not that is who we must realize is shooting guns on the river.

BTW, what is an appropriate backstop in a river camp?

I believe this is your statement and you were first to use a "live with it or so what" and "small minded mentality". That perhaps elevated this to personal more so than anything.
"It's public land that belongs to you, me, and every other American citizen. You enjoy and recreate on your public lands however you chose to, if other's don't approve then that's on them and their small minded mentality."


----------



## dugger (Dec 2, 2008)

*Gunfire*

File the front sight off smooth so when somebody, after hearing you discharge your weapon, shoves it up your butt, it won't hurt as much.


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

GeoRon said:


> Azpackrafter,
> 
> I'm sure you are not an irresponsible gun totter. But more often than not that is who we must realize is shooting guns on the river.
> 
> ...



Well I don't believe I ever said "live with it or so what" but you are correct in pointing out I was the first to use the "small minded mentality".


----------



## BJ Nicholls (Jan 31, 2017)

I give you a lot of credit for asking. I know I wouldn't enjoy hearing shooting, and courtesy on the river is very important. I'd be annoyed at the noise from someone cranking up their tunes too, so it's not just a gun thing. If I was as attached to chainsaw carving as you are to shooting, would you be annoyed if I practiced my hobby at the camp across from yours?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

And you are correct that I may have seemed to be attacking you directly. I wasn't. I was speaking toward a mind set that could rapidly get out of control in campsites on the UC. I also misused some quote marks. Sorry.

Peace my friend. Again, I love your videos. They display an appreciation of your love of your pursuits and respect of those things and people around you. Salute.


----------



## MontanaLaz (Feb 15, 2018)

This thread turned out just about like I thought it would when I read the first post. There are very strong opinions on this topic.

The short story is that almost no one enjoys listening to gunfire if they are not the one pulling the trigger (Here's looking at you Tackelberry https://www.google.com/search?q=tac...KHWT3CrAQ9QEwAHoECAYQBA#imgrc=upRJGJtX-jiT4M: ) The real question is in how the listener perceives it. Indifference, annoyance, threat? I sure do get annoyed when someone is doing 20 mph below the posted speed limit on a two lane road with no safe passing zones. Unless there is a posted minimum speed limit or a posted requirement to use a turnout and allow passing, they are doing nothing illegal and are within their rights. It's fine to be annoyed, but not fine for me to lash out at them or react violently.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

We should just move on to politics, religion and abortion and PM discussion of sex.


----------



## keith beck (May 26, 2005)

phunkfan said:


> If I was to bring a handgun to play around with away from camp, is this acceptable?
> 
> Only thing I could find online is that it is "recommended that no firearms be discharged within 0.25 miles of either side of the Colorado River between the headwaters and State Bridge, unless in the lawful pursuit of hunting game during a valid hunting season."
> 
> That obviously states that we can shoot .25 miles away from camp, but being on the river I'm not sure I'd want to hear gun shots echoing if I wasn't the shooter. It's obviously fully legal on BLM land, but I don't want to disturb anyone else's peace and quiet. Has anyone hiked from camp on the Upper C to shoot? Experience?




My experience is that I find gunshots in a peaceful wilderness environment to be alarming, worrisome, intrusive, and disturbing. I would guess that they are similarly unsettling to most people. The noise carries a long way. I think it is selfish to inflict this on others. Guns and target practice have their place but it's not on a river.


----------



## BobbiBecker (Jun 25, 2019)

*NO GUNS on River Trips!*

I have enjoyed river trips for over 25 years because I want to connect with NATURE. I want to listen to the birds and the water. I hope so see undisturbed, fearless wildlife.... I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR GUN SHOOTS. I am appalled at the question.....


----------



## WyBackCountry (Mar 20, 2014)

GeoRon said:


> And you are correct that I may have seemed to be attacking you directly. I wasn't. I was speaking toward a mind set that could rapidly get out of control in campsites on the UC. I also misused some quote marks. Sorry.
> 
> Peace my friend. Again, I love your videos. They display an appreciation of your love of your pursuits and respect of those things and people around you. Salute.



Peace Ron....hope to see you on the river someday and possibly enjoy paddling together without the noise of nearby gunfire


----------



## JBar (Jul 4, 2009)

phunkfan said:


> Thanks guys. I think I knew the answer when I was typing it, but I guess I just needed to see it on paper to know haha.
> 
> I'll keep it off the river!!


I was hoping that’s what you’d decide. I would guess that shots could be heard for miles in the canyon and I wouldn’t like it if I was there. 
Have a great trip!


----------



## ACheateaux (Dec 3, 2008)

I wonder how Glenn Martins family feels about Americans right to discharge firearms on Public land...
https://www.denverpost.com/2015/07/...e-national-forest-highlights-growing-problem/


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

Someone needs to step up and take responsibility for their actions. For themselves and all involved, it will not repair what happened, but it won't hurt. Very sad.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

GeoRon said:


> I will now condone raymo's suggestion of a pellet gun with an appropriate pellet catcher. I think that should satisfy the manly need to project power and perfect accuracy skills while on the river.
> 
> Please google "anti-social behavior" and consider it in the context of blatant disregard of the environment and others ppls.


How magnanimous of you, I feel so much better that I now have your permission to partially exercise my constitutional rights.

Pot --> Kettle, you might want to take your own advice, while your at it look up megalomaniac 



dugger said:


> File the front sight off smooth so when somebody, after hearing you discharge your weapon, shoves it up your butt, it won't hurt as much.


 Look everybody, an internet tough guy!



ACheateaux said:


> I wonder how Glenn Martins family feels about Americans right to discharge firearms on Public land...


Nice red herring. Did you miss the part in the first paragraph where that was a no shooting zone? 

There are many river sections where firearms and shooting are prohibited, the upper C is not one of them. If your a snowflake who finds the sound of gunshots "disturbing", you should only boat in those sections of river that prohibit the activity. On the upper C there are many legal ways to enjoy _*OUR*_ public lands, one of them is the use of firearms.

I will specifically support the statement that someone enjoys target shooting up river at 500 yards. If someone has the skill to hit a target at 500 yards, I would bet they have the knowledge and respect to do it safely. You clearly have an illogical fear of what you dont understand.


----------



## ACheateaux (Dec 3, 2008)

I don’t miss much. Someone died from a firearm discharged in a popular camping area. Someone died because someone else thought their right to pop rounds was greater then a grandfathers right to roast marshmallows with his grandkids. Gloss over the fact that no one ever came forward and only 2 guns were ever submitted for testing. I’m not a snowflake who’s bothered by the sounds of gunfire. I work in the ghetto with gun shots ringing through my first due every shift. I just don’t want someone’s Right to bare arms to intercede with my right and my kids right to not be shot. People get “responsible gun ownership” wrong every day. The downside is when they do, people die. I’m a gun owner. But the last place they come with me is on a crowded stretch of river that I can’t vet my downrange exposure.


----------



## JamesBR (Jul 11, 2018)

StayArmedStaySafe ! Always carry and shoot safe as much as you can.. Liberal clowns can go to their safespace.. If ya don't like guns , don't have one.. Don't tell me I can't shoot or carry.. Dumb liberal clowns! All liberals should gtfo of the USA and move to Mexico or Canada..


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

ACheateaux said:


> I don’t miss much. Someone died from a firearm discharged in a popular camping area. Someone died because someone else thought their right to pop rounds was greater then a grandfathers right to roast marshmallows with his grandkids. Gloss over the fact that no one ever came forward and only 2 guns were ever submitted for testing. I’m not a snowflake who’s bothered by the sounds of gunfire. I work in the ghetto with gun shots ringing through my first due every shift. I just don’t want someone’s Right to bare arms to intercede with my right and my kids right to not be shot. People get “responsible gun ownership” wrong every day. The downside is when they do, people die. I’m a gun owner. But the last place they come with me is on a crowded stretch of river that I can’t vet my downrange exposure.



Tisk, tisk, ask any good Leftist; Ghetto is a racist word with many negative historical connotations. Please refrain from using as this may trigger many on this site.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

raymo said:


> In the river environment with boaters, gun fire up set's alot of people, which is very understandable and should be respected, it's part of our responsibility as gun owner's. I grew up around hunting and shooting so it doesn't bother me as much. If you want to carry it on the river concealed, acquire a concealed carry permit, it's a painless process(a couple of great classes and a background check) than it's legal. More boaters ccw than you think. When my daughter's were in elementary school and junior high, and we told other parents about our 3 day to 7 day river trips together, they thought that was so dangerous and irresponsible of us, I really felt like telling them to go screw them selves. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.



Couldn't agree more. Your rights end at the tip of my nose. My rights end at the tip of your nose.


Sure, it's legal, but it's not really ethical. Better places to do it.

I shoot, but not on the river. I may be carrying, or not. Nobody gots to know.





noahfecks said:


> If the laws allow for it, the river is as appropriate place for firearms as any. How much better off would Ned Beatty have been if he had brought his pistol?



If more people used common courtesy, we'd need fewer laws.






MontanaLaz said:


> This thread turned out just about like I thought it would when I read the first post. There are very strong opinions on this topic.



Fortunately Montanans tend to be quite live-and-let-live. You leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.






MontanaLaz said:


> I sure do get annoyed when someone is doing 20 mph below the posted speed limit on a two lane road with no safe passing zones. Unless there is a posted minimum speed limit or a posted requirement to use a turnout and allow passing, they are doing nothing illegal and are within their rights. It's fine to be annoyed, but not fine for me to lash out at them or react violently.



Legal for them to do so, yes. Ethical? No.


----------



## SlipShot (Mar 26, 2018)

I am a avid rafter and a proud gun owner. I love to shoot and hunt. Yes it is legal to use your weapon on the upper C. The question is it the right place to go plink. Is it really the safest place to shoot? Yes you know your target and what is behind it. Personally when I'm on the river I'm on the river to enjoy nature. Two weeks ago on the upper C there was someone target shooting up above the river. It t is annoying to hear gun fire on the river. With that said I find it way more annoying to hear someone blaring their music from their raft. Oh I listen to music on my raft, but moderate the sound level so that I'm not disturbing other rafters. It all comes to respect, respecting others. 

Last comment to address what this post has digressed to: Do not think that I will ever let anyone tread on my GOD given RIGHTS to protect my family and myself.


----------



## Denray (Sep 14, 2010)

It's legal to blow off a bunch of farts in a restaurant.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Are you sure thats still legal in CA?


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

During a big game hunting trip, we heard shooting in the direction of our camp, so a few of us decided to head back to camp to figure out what was going on. One hunter we allowed to join our hunting party decided to stay in camp that day, we discovered him laying on his cot shooting fly's that were landing on the roof of the cabin tent with a 22 cal. pistol. He put about 15 holes in a 3,000$ cabin tent, the horses started to get spooked too. We threw him out of camp, not for shooting his pistol but for being stupid. It took us 4 hours to patch those holes because a snow storm was heading our way. We eventually let him go on fishing trips but no more hunting trips.+1 zach on that California thing.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

raymo said:


> One hunter we allowed to join our hunting party decided to stay in camp that day, we discovered him laying on his cot shooting fly's that were landing on the roof of the cabin tent with a 22 cal. pistol. He put about 15 holes in a 3,000$ cabin tent, the horses started to get spooked too. We threw him out of camp, not for shooting his pistol but for being stupid.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG9kUiRC_I


----------



## sauth857 (Mar 28, 2016)

On what grounds are people saying this is legal? My understanding is no shooting within 150 yards of occupied or developed areas. I'm sure a ranger could argue that the designated campsites are developed and that the river is an occupied area, similar to a hiking trail or road.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

This thread is just another examples of our need to repeal the NFA. Suppressed rifles and handguns are much less intrusive to the bystander and safer for the shooter.


----------



## phunkfan (May 17, 2019)

Well....this seems to have devolved into quite the convo. 

Seems like shooting for the sake of it, while legal, is discouraged. I understand 100% and will keep my firearm use off the river. I'll save it for other areas.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

LOL. You've just gotta love the Simpson's.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

k2andcannoli said:


> This thread is just another examples of our need to repeal the NFA. Suppressed rifles and handguns are much less intrusive to the bystander and safer for the shooter.


Concerning silencers, I'd rather know where people are playing with guns so that I can make the personal choice to steer clear and not be an unknowing "bystander"(victim). I recommend that you be a safe and a responsible-to-yourself gun owner and please get ear muffs if you do not already have them.

Repeal the NFA, fortunately not gonna happen. There is almost nothing in there that is not plain common sense. As someone suggested earlier, the purpose of laws is that frequently people do not know how to behave properly without them. Even the big guy in the sky(aka god) had to lay out some guidelines. I assume most people understand why. They sure do mention him and his ten in good regard often enough.


----------



## Eagle Mapper (Mar 24, 2008)

I find it interesting that a bunch of people in this thread are conflating the sound of shooting a gun to music on the river. Last time I checked music never accidental killed someone.


----------



## Grifgav (Jun 20, 2011)

Eagle Mapper said:


> I find it interesting that a bunch of people in this thread are conflating the sound of shooting a gun to music on the river. Last time I checked music never accidental killed someone.


Oh I don't know, the yahoos blasting Toby Keith at 11 almost killed me on a recent day trip...might not have been accidental though. I am one of like 12 native Idahoans that admit to being Librals.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*Pink Floyd and The Doors!!!*



Eagle Mapper said:


> I find it interesting that a bunch of people in this thread are conflating the sound of shooting a gun to music on the river. Last time I checked music never accidental killed someone.


Pink Floyd and The Doors cranked up to max baby, sitting in a dark room with all the lights turned off and the strobe lights doing the twist and sugar cubes, will put you as close to the other side as you want to get, I was told. Even flat water would be exciting with that kind of action going on, I would think. Everything else would just be humdrum.


----------



## MontanaLaz (Feb 15, 2018)

MT4Runner said:


> Sure, it's legal, but it's not really ethical. Better places to do it.
> 
> Legal for them to do so, yes. Ethical? No.


Touche sir...

Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do - Potter Stewart

It's the love of right lures men to wrong - Kim Stanley Robinson

Our very lives depend on the ethics of strangers and most of us are always strangers to other people - Bill Moyers


----------



## phunkfan (May 17, 2019)

Grifgav said:


> Oh I don't know, the yahoos blasting Toby Keith at 11 almost killed me on a recent day trip...might not have been accidental though. I am one of like 12 native Idahoans that admit to being Librals.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW_s6EqOxqY


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

keith beck said:


> My experience is that I find gunshots in a peaceful wilderness environment to be alarming, worrisome, intrusive, and disturbing. I would guess that they are similarly unsettling to most people. The noise carries a long way. I think it is selfish to inflict this on others. Guns and target practice have their place but it's not on a river.


This^^^^

Just because you've got a right to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. I've got a right to say lots of things in public that would alarm most folks, but being a decent human precludes behaving like that. Please take the gun to the firing range if you want to do target practice.

-AH


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

There is a specific of this conversation that never seems to resonant no matter how often it is brought up, the consequence of bullets in the environment.

Do bullet shooter have a clue how large a super fund site each bullet creates?? (I will save this calculated result for later but only after an appropriate discussion of super fund sites and bullets.)

I will say that at this time bullets are creating micro/macro/big time fuck ups of the environment.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Forgive me, but if you shove a bullet up your ass and equally distribute it throughout your mass either you will die or be at least as mad be as a hatter. (Should I save this bold strike for later.)


----------



## tjligon25 (Mar 19, 2015)

Oh man. The Simpson's, they sure do nail it on the head. In regards to the river camps being established the Rangers sure do love to point out how they are most definitely not considered established...especially when a fire ban is in effect.

Another potential consequence (either side of this subject) are those that don't know or fully understand the law and ride like hell to report you for this activity. Legal? Probably, but if a individual calls 911 reporting gunfire I'm betting they will respond... I definitely would not want to be welcomed to the take out by the entire sheriff's department. An unintended outcome of what may be perfectly legal.

Sent from my VS988 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

tjligon25 said:


> Oh man. The Simpson's, they sure do nail it on the head. In regards to the river camps being established the Rangers sure do love to point out how they are most definitely not considered established...especially when a fire ban is in effect.
> p


Can you clear up a potential semi-official response any better?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Sorry, I made a slight miscalculation. If you shove that single bullet up your ass and distribute it proportionally,,, you will die. No if and or butts.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*I have seen your point first hand.*



GeoRon said:


> There is a specific of this conversation that never seems to resonant no matter how often it is brought up, the consequence of bullets in the environment.
> 
> Do bullet shooter have a clue how large a super fund site each bullet creates?? (I will save this calculated result for later but only after an appropriate discussion of super fund sites and bullets.)
> 
> I will say that at this time bullets are creating micro/macro/big time fuck ups of the environment.


Duck, goose and pheasant hunting, when I would clean them after hunting, I would discover lead shot in their gizzards that they pecked off of the ground thinking it was small rocks they use for grinding their food up in their gizzards. Lead goes into their system, we eat the meat, than the lead gets into our body's and causes damage, than you kiss your wife, the lead is transferred to her through saliva and goes to her brain, makes her as nutty as a cuckoo bird, and you find yourself in divorce court, cutting a big alimony check. That upper colorado can sure screw your life up, from a simple question on target practice, it lead to alimony checks with one post.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Thank you raymo for bring this into clarity for men!!!


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

No problem, GeoRon I will hang with you brother.


----------



## Duce (Sep 5, 2011)

This thread took off. Maybe this was already said, but I was on a Hells Canyon float a couple years ago and some guys were hunting Chukars on the Idaho side as they floated down the river. Being a hunter I personally thought that was awesome. If you are not shooting big bore rifles at the shore line and work your way up from the river a ways nobody is even going to hear it anyways. If it's allowed by law and your not bothering anyone, go for it. Nothing wrong with responsible plinking in the wilderness, its your right just like posting your thoughts on a random website


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

Okay, Here's my practice ... and experience. I'll be the lone gunny here. I really like anything that goes "Bang" but (Dreaded Eye Roll) there are so many city born and bred that out of courtesy for their fears, I leave the shooting irons home ... mostly. I do carry an Olympic grade SSP pellet gun, and drag it out (occasionally) in the evenings. Scary looking as hell, and I mounted a pistol scope on it so people can hit things with it. After everyone has had their opportunity to vociferously wolf-pack against the idea, I set up some very small targets. Aspirins or saccarin-size tablets. When they hear it go (pt) instead of their wide-eyed, hyperventilating feared and imagined "Boom!," they begin taking note, and soon all will be taking turns shooting, away from camp, at aspirin tablets and candy Necco wafer targets. Even a little 450fps 17 caliper pellet will make a chicken's egg explode in a most satisfactory manner. It's quiet, and for the ecofascists among us I'm starting to bring some lead-free pellets. I'm going to start an after-shooting game of offering 25 cents for every non-embedded pellet they are able to find when we're done with the shooting. They are mighty small things, kinda like searching for a molecule in a river. It's easy to imagine bogeymen and make them into something to fear. I don't expect the search to last long.
My big crank (my big thing) even with an air gun, is to impress on EVERYbody's mind that if I see the muzzle of the gun "cross" somebody else, I'll step forward and take the gun away (for a while ... they learn pretty quick! And that learning, if they are teachable, is what the new experience is all about.)
The "pop" of a small pistol or rifle is enough to push people's (irrational) panic-response. Can't say that I blame them; they've been deeply programmed that way. But a SSP (Single-Stroke-Pneumatic) air pistol with a 10" barrel is, though not completely silent, about as noisy as closing a book hard. If you shot it in the stacks of a public library or in the hallway outside a normal funeral service, people would hear it, would not identify it, accept it as a single audio-anomaly, forget it in seconds and would likely not be upset in the least.
All this quiet accuracy does not come cheap. I have about $450 in my rig, and if i were to replace it with something comparable at today's prices I would expect to pay at least double or even triple that price. If the Federal Hearing Protection Act would have passed, and we could muffle guns the way we can (IF WE WANT to) muffle generators, cars, and lawn mowers, it would be a quieter (and therefore I say, much better) world.


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

raymo said:


> Duck, goose and pheasant hunting, when I would clean them after hunting, I would discover lead shot in their gizzards that they pecked off of the ground thinking it was small rocks they use for grinding their food up in their gizzards. Lead goes into their system, we eat the meat, than the lead gets into our body's and causes damage, than you kiss your wife, the lead is transferred to her through saliva and goes to her brain, makes her as nutty as a cuckoo bird, and you find yourself in divorce court, cutting a big alimony check. That upper colorado can sure screw your life up, from a simple question on target practice, it lead to alimony checks with one post.


Raymo, I think you need actual events of actual significance to worry about.


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

"Music never killed anyone ..." 
Yeah, but it intrudes upon my conscious awareness and REALLY torques me off.
tjligon25, yeah, if you say "SHOTS FIRED!" nothing else matters ... they WILL kill you or anybody if they can imagine a hazard.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Villagelightsmith,

Sounds like a brilliant way to have a good time, endanger no other camps, not disturb anyone else's peace and satisfy ecofascist(leadless pellets and 100% pellet recovery). What is there to complain about,,, except for that poor little chicken it the egg you exploded. Did you ever think about that and how it feels?


----------



## melted_ice (Feb 4, 2009)

If nothing else....the hot springs could be a warmer duck blind.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*Your probably right.*



villagelightsmith said:


> Raymo, I think you need actual events of actual significance to worry about.


Villagelightsmith your probably right, my path to where I'm at now, was like watching two marbles rolling around in the bottom of a Mason Jar, my short overnights into Portland Oregon (PDX), should of snap me into reality, totally an oversight on my part, you guys in Portland sure have your shit together. I will try to do better in the future.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

villagelightsmith said:


> If the Federal Hearing Protection Act would have passed, and we could muffle guns the way we can (IF WE WANT to) muffle generators, cars, and lawn mowers, it would be a quieter (and therefore I say, much better) world.


I think I still prefer not to have "muffled" guns. The only place I can be assured of a reasonable expectation of gun safety is at a range because there I know the activity is NOT just playing around with guns. It is target practice or sighting in activity. It is frequently monitored and reasonably peer regulated. Hence, if I hear gun fire not associated with a range I can make my choice to go elsewhere ASAP.

Here is another article concerning back woods shooting ranges.
https://www.denverpost.com/2009/07/19/aurora-man-killed-in-shooting-range-accident/


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

SlipShot said:


> Do not think that I will ever let anyone tread on my GOD given RIGHTS to protect my family and myself.


Other than possibly suggesting, or maybe not, that gun rights came from god this gentleman is 100% correct. It state emphatically why parents likely prefer not being in a campsite near another campsite where people are playing with guns. Which is, fear for their families safety. Accidents happen and no one wants their family to be a statistic.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

villagelightsmith said:


> ...I'll be the lone gunny here....


Uhhh, not quite. There are plenty of "gunnys" weighing in. However it's a nice intro to playing the "we're outnumbered victims of gungrabbing ecofacists" card. That said, I can appreciate your practice of the pellet gun, which isn't likely to kill anyone if misfired into the campsite a hundred yards down the river.

Now I'll toss in this shitbomb. As for anyone's "God given rights" to carry any kind of gun wherever, and exercise that right any time, let's look at this:



> *Text of the 2nd Amendment:*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Notice that the word "regulated" is right there at the beginning of the 2nd amendment, and recall that in the days the amendment was written, many of that "Militia" were common citizens and would be called up, like the National Guard today (which makes the the whole "citizen militia" thing obsolete, no?) to supplement the pretty small standing army the founders envisioned. Also recall that the Founders only knew muzzle loaders at the time they wrote that.

And as for the argument of going around with their gun, prepping for the day they may be called upon to "secure the free state," (like guys in camo running around in the woods calling themselves "militias"), then it's perfectly reasonable to regulate them and their guns just like the Founders called for in the Second Amendment.

-AH


----------



## TuffGonG (Jul 10, 2007)

Andy H. said:


> Uhhh, not quite. There are plenty of "gunnys" weighing in. However it's a nice intro to playing "we're outnumbered victims of the gungrabbing ecofacists" card. That said, I appreciate your practice of the pellet gun, which isn't likely to kill anyone if misfired into the campsite a hundred yards down the river.
> 
> Now I'll toss in this shitbomb. As for anyone's "God given rights" to carry any kind of gun wherever, and exercise that right any time, let's look at this:
> 
> ...


 It seems to me while unpacking the 2nd amendment you chose you place much of your focus on the word "regulated". Others may narrow their focus on "shall not be infringed" Just my 2 cents, politely bowing out.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Even though today there was another mass killing by gun we should not deviate from the fact that this thread is fundamentally about one boater extending the courtesy to another boater of not disrupting their river/campsite/family experience, specifically on the Upper Colorado.


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

Maybe this belongs in the Eddy now.


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

Denray said:


> It's legal to blow off a bunch of farts in a restaurant.


Literally lol'ed... awesome stuff here.


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

raymo said:


> Duck, goose and pheasant hunting, when I would clean them after hunting, I would discover lead shot in their gizzards that they pecked off of the ground thinking it was small rocks they use for grinding their food up in their gizzards. Lead goes into their system, we eat the meat, than the lead gets into our body's and causes damage, than you kiss your wife, the lead is transferred to her through saliva and goes to her brain, makes her as nutty as a cuckoo bird, and you find yourself in divorce court, cutting a big alimony check. That upper colorado can sure screw your life up, from a simple question on target practice, it lead to alimony checks with one post.


I lol'ed again.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

To be fair...a regulated militia in those day often included private warships... And the crank fired machine gun had been around for a generation (Puckle 1718 ).


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

I suspect this thread has already has drawn LEO attention in multiple jurisdictions where the Buzz has active participants. I hope so. 

My guess is that the vast majority of stories involving dicks playing with guns on non-hunting river trips (including the genteel pellet queefer) has an alcohol component. When both are in view (99.9% of every story told here?), LEO knows that state and federal laws are likely being violated and just might pay the camp an intrusive visit. 

Pro tip; neither guns nor alcohol will make your dick bigger (or your vagina tighter).


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

I agree, wait till they see the drain vs not to drain cooler's and pins/clips vs open locks threads, and the violence on those two puppies, the Fed's will be on us like mosquitos at Sand Wash, locked and loaded for bear, trying to dodge every lethal paddle flying at then. Just make sure you have your concealed paddle permit(CPP) on you. Never know when you will need it. You just have to love MB.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

I grew up in Lewiston and participated in many of those chucked hunts. Great fun. Here is what I know about the environmental issues there. Growing up, everyone around me would clean up after themselves. Every beach was pristine every trip. As the “environmentalists” discovered the North West, they bitched about every aspect of US, while bringing their filthy habits and irresponsibility to Idaho. Now every leftist is an environazi and if there is trash on the beach, you can rest assured it came from one of that pile of human dog squeezing!


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Philip P. said:


> As the “environmentalists” discovered the North West, they bitched about every aspect of US, while bringing their filthy habits and irresponsibility to Idaho. Now every leftist is an environazi and if there is trash on the beach, you can rest assured it came from one of that pile of human dog squeezing!


Bust a gut laughing, Philip please don't forget many of us here experienced the last 40+ years of positive change on our rivers. Due to "environazis" we rarely find trashed cars on river banks, rivers that catch on fire, crap behind every tree at river camps(I guess we do sometimes), spent cartridges and other such stupidity. Places that used to be trash dumps are now being turned into river parks and green belts. Thank you environazis for the Clean Air Act, Wild and Scenic River Act and all the hard work by the AWA and other river preservation organizations. 

For you to say what you say and how you say it totally destroys any credibility you might have had. You talk like a fool who likely has spent very little time appreciating our rivers and noticing the positive change.

Lastly, let me add, you are too lazy to hunt birds like real men. I bet you hunt deer by shinning them at night while sitting in a car drinking beer.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

I never saw a car in a river in Idaho ever, but have seen at least half a dozen in rivers and. Reeks in Colorado. Problem with the Leftosphere, is you are emotional creatures, desperate to “help” but incapable of personal responsibility. You justify trashing the environment whenever being responsible becomes slightly inconvenient. 

I lived outside Boulder for years. Saw Prius owners toss McDonald’s wrappers and cigarette buts out their windows all the time. For Boulder morons, it’s really important that your neighbors “perceive you” as environmentally responsible, but “responsible” isn’t a leftist attribute. In Boulder, a business could pour barrels of oil down the storm drain, as long as they had a green sounding name on the side of their truck.

Picking up trash on the beach is a “responsible” thing, and as such, in my VAST experience, conservatives like me clean up after ourselves, AND CLEAN YO AFTER GARBAGE OEOPEL LEFTISTS TOO. The Boulder Hippie scum can’t be bothered to clean up unless someone ales is watching them. 

Remember the massive landfill Obama Cult followers made of Mile High, when he announced his cancerous dismantling of America.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Philip P. said:


> I in my VAST experience, conservatives like me clean up after ourselves,



Must be exhausting, what with all the feces throwing tantrums that result from learning that gun fetishism won't improve your junk. 

Just think of the vast mess that will need to be cleaned up when folks like you learn that their gun decals won't get them into heaven any more.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

Human dog $#!+ like yourself, are happy to destroy the FREEDOM veterans WITH GUNS like me provides for you. Just say thank you, and be on your way you gross leftard cult freak, and is grown-ups will continue to do the responsible things. And please stop obsessing about responsible men’s penises!


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

"FREEDOM veterans WITH GUNS like me"

Phil, Phil, Phil; you have me in stitches. Will there be no end to how confused you are. Colorado used to be red, then purple and now hopefully blue forever. 

We are still cleaning up the messes you "conservatives" made of our environment here in Colorado. We are getting rid of the coal mines, tailing piles, building wind turbine farms, forcing oil and gas to be responsible neighbors, turning waste-land river banks into parks, adding bike paths to your ever so loved asphalt jungles, forcing conservation of river waters to improve river habitats, etc. It will take a while to clean up after you "reds" but ever so surely it is happening.

Frankly, you scare me Phil. You are confusing freedom, conservatism, gun ownership and doing "responsible things". This is similar to the disturbed mind set of the recent mass murderers in El Paso, Dayton and many other recent mass murders by conservatives. They thought they were doing "responsible things" by their actions, taking matters into their own hands. 
Also, veterans of sound mind and body do not go around claiming greater ownership of this great country than other citizens. Believe me, not all veterans think like you. Get help.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

You SHOULD BE disturbed by your own fascist socialist stupidity, the kind that inspired the Ohio shooter and the congressional softball game shooter. Distopian Fascist Socialists like yourself love to paint conservatives as racist or dangerous, while hurrying your heads in your rear orifice and pretending all the SLAVE CULTURE racists and unhinged cult freaks on your side are benign. That FACT makes leftists more dangerous, the fact that you are so easily able to EXCUSE VIOLENCE in support of your cult, while we do not!


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Obviously, it is time to move the last many comments into what I guess they call "the Eddy". This has devolved into pointlessness and childishness. I'm sorry to have been a part of it.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

Sad to see you go, but I am sure you will have great fun a your Jared Polis Hitler Youth Camp!


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

Yeah, one could make that assumption about the shooting fraternity, but it would not cover the range. The point of the SSP Olympic pellet pistol is that it brings a quiet conversion to the obnoxious people on both ends of the spectrum, demonstrating a more genteel (thank you!) kind of shooting discipline available nowhere else. As for being fueled by alcohol? Uh, no. Gunpowder and alcohol don't mix. And Olympic Airguns are a discipline of of extreme and very serious accuracy and athletic control, so alcohol would seriously mess it up. They are not for everyone. But they really do satisfy the jones of the people who simply must have something to shoot. And they do not assault the sensibilities nor the ears of those of us who like to hear the Canyon Wren. They are not firearms, they do not disturb the peace of the canyon, they can be enjoyed by a single shooter, and they do not draw so much ire from the hyperventilating "anti's," of which we have a'plenty. And there's always a crowd that wants to shoot them.
True enough, droboat; big guns and alcohol won't make you run faster, jump higher, or give better sex. They are, in most settings, a bit of a pain at best. What I was (am) suggesting is a sub-cult of the shooting disciplines that harms nobody disturbs nothing, and is more appropriate on the river than say, Olympic Archery. It has none of the macho of Scottish Games (hurling a river stone?) nor does it disturb the quiet of the morning and the evening on the river. And if the alcohol is kept out of it, and with some care where you point the things, LEO's would have a far stretch to get their supers excited about a game that has no more actual harm than skipping stones across the water. [There are, of course, some rule-writers who would ban all chemicals on our river trips, including DEET, sunscreen and hand lotions.]


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

The original post referenced chucker hunting, which requires a shotgun, not a pellet gun. Plenary of argument can be made against the pot smoke and patchouli odor wafting through campgrounds, offending the sensibilities of hunters and fishermen, who PAY HUGE SUMS, into the funds that maintain those public spaces.

Bottom line is leftists always DEMAND everyone obey their Fascist State rules, even when their rules stomp all over REASONABLE PEOPLE’s rights.

Telling that you cannot imagine a SOBER shooter, it has to be some dumb drunk red-neck!

I will deal with your leftist cult odor, and you will just have to deal with the sad fact that you live in a country where I have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!

I am willing to deal with the half of America I find REPUGNANT, the left should do the same!


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

The man has a point. Yeah, Phillip, I understand Chukar hunting ... continually going from canyon flooor to crest. That's why I have a Franchi AL 20 and I've been looking for a Bretton or a Darne`for years.

As for "Who's been 'out there' the longest or the mostest," I think I might qualify among those survivors who loved these rivers and this land wa-aa-ay long before it was cool. I know I put more of my life into it than most wage slaves. A-a-and, there are some who would say I'm "just a little to the right of Attila The Hun" because I do occasionally go "over the edge," as apparently do you. 

I prefer using the term "Envirofascist" because nobody these days realize what fascism was [or is] so any argument against or for it seems to come from a visceral ignorance. Much easier to deal with than the foaming, hyperventilating attack dogs these discussions awaken in people. [Yawn!] Anger and alcohol do not mix well, BTW.

We all seem to prefer people who keep their quiet, their cool, humility, generosity and the help of any skills they/we have for others. We like goodness, gentleness, forgiveness, truth, peace, and beautiful things. We do not like the pushing, shoving, loud competitor for very long. We generally do not like people who are so full of hatred for either side that they cannot see it in themselves, and will not work together "for the good of the trip."

A little kindness, a reminder of who and what we are, a willingness to serve, a tablespoon of forgiveness, a sprinkling of mercy and forbearance for our fellows goes a long way. And to be reminded of why we are here, from time to time, goes a long way toward peace on the river and in our camps. And in the home.


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

Eh, It's a bit over the top, but I kinda like it. Some of it is funny ... sort of.


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

Philip P. said:


> You SHOULD BE disturbed by your own fascist socialist stupidity, the kind that inspired the Ohio shooter and the congressional softball game shooter. Distopian Fascist Socialists like yourself love to paint conservatives as racist or dangerous, while hurrying your heads in your rear orifice and pretending all the SLAVE CULTURE racists and unhinged cult freaks on your side are benign. That FACT makes leftists more dangerous, the fact that you are so easily able to EXCUSE VIOLENCE in support of your cult, while we do not!


That has literally nothing to do with the original question or even what GeoRon said to you.

And your excessive use of caps lock makes it seem like you're in the dark yelling into your computer monitor.

Maybe switch to decaf.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

Where I grew up, you could be a wage slave to the rafting companies... sort of. It was far better than some other employment opportunities. My high school taught FORESTRY and WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, and we shot rifles in the gym to get our hunter safety cards. Boulder hippies have no clue what an actual conservationist looks like, they think their Prius is making a difference, clueless to the long term toxic disaster they are creating. 

When these little Nazis, (and yes, the Nazis were both SOCIALIST and FASCIST) pretend their historically failed political ideas are the solution to our environmental problems, reality based humans have to choke back a bit of vomit.

Socialist nations have the WORST ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS on the planet. The cheap energy these morons rail against, has lifted BILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty, and confined starvation, once common, the the most remote OFTEN SOCIALIST, 3rd World $#!+ Holes!

The left only has ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and HUMAN NATURE, to prove their ideas are garbage. Government does almost NOTHING WELL and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EFFICIENTLY, so any time anyone claims the GOVERNMENT is going to solve environmental issues, you can be sure they are a total moron!


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Philip,

FYI, a lot of hunters and fisher-people(and veterans) are pot smokers(and cigarette smokers). Frankly, I don't like pot or cigarette smoke in public spaces so I understand your complaint. I don't have a problem with hunters, fisher-people or guns. I have a problem with CRAZY AND SCARY GUN OWNERS.

We all likely deeply appreciate the fees paid that support wildlife causes. To bad we can't support wildlife causes without just turning around to kill the wildlife, but so be it. It is a worthwhile form of voluntary taxation that I'm glad you are happy to pay. 

Yes, you should obey the laws because we all have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and the rights and laws are the result of civil processes defined in the Constitution and the thousands of federal, state and local statutes since the original Bill of Rights. Your Rights do not supersede my rights.

Regarding "DEMAND everyone obey their Fascist State rules". Are you declaring the USA to be a Fascist State? If you do not like the rules of the USA then you should move back to wherever you came from.


----------



## Philip P. (Feb 26, 2017)

I like the rules just fine, including the rules that let me shoot my shotgun even though it goes against your delicate sensibilities! You can’t raft in a safe space snowflake, so learn to deal with the world we live in, not the dystopian Fascist Socialist 3rd World $#!+ Hole leftists are desperate to make it. We deal with you morons every day, grow a pair and learn to be around grown-ups or stay home in your mommy’s basement.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi,

Now this is the Buzz we used to know and love!

Rich Phillips


----------



## villagelightsmith (Feb 17, 2016)

Philip P., you really ARE a little bit "over the top" here. If you're like this way frequently or all the time, get some help understanding "Why?". If it's only occasionally, same thing. Learn to recognize it in yourself: read your screed, later, from other people's point of view ... as in not yours. We all need help to see what we are doing ... to help us connect the dots and find out why our lives seem to "go this way." I've spoken with counselors, doctors and psychiatrists who are really helpful, and some who are, quite simply, wrong. But they each put forward something from which I profited by taking it seriously.
Al the best to you. J.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

I don't know RichP,

At times it just seems like a bunch of angry old men with too much time on their hands barking at each other about things they don't like and can't change. I guess I'm guilty.

I prefer the MB of old and young men discussing their shared love of river time and equipment. Perhaps, that would be too boring.

I wish this thread would trend back to whether it is polite or safe to shoot guns on the UC. The original poster immediately decided that it was likely not courteous to others.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Georon,


I am remembering the rowdy, irreverent, wild and crazy stuff that was going on here a decade or more ago. 

Not necessarily on this topic, but there were bold (and sometimes profane) personalities holding forth on a wide variety of relevant and irrelevant subjects.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

GeoRon said:


> Your Rights do not supersede my rights.



Ron,
You seem to keep forgetting this applies to you as well.


I will again point out that there are plenty of river sections that do not allow the use of firearms, the upper C is not one of them. When you choose to raft on the upper C you do so knowing that that section allows for many different uses of our public lands, including the use of firearms. Please apply your comments above to your use of the upper C.


If in your opinion everyone outside the rifle range is an irresponsible drunk ******* incapable of the safe use of firearms, perhaps you should take the personal responsibility to recreate only where firearms are prohibited.


----------



## k2andcannoli (Feb 28, 2012)

WTF is a fisher-person...


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

And...not so angry, chronologically mature women as well, are participating in discussions


----------



## riverpilot (Aug 18, 2015)

*Play*



phunkfan said:


> If I was to bring a handgun to play around with away from camp, is this acceptable?
> 
> Only thing I could find online is that it is "recommended that no firearms be discharged within 0.25 miles of either side of the Colorado River between the headwaters and State Bridge, unless in the lawful pursuit of hunting game during a valid hunting season."
> 
> That obviously states that we can shoot .25 miles away from camp, but being on the river I'm not sure I'd want to hear gun shots echoing if I wasn't the shooter. It's obviously fully legal on BLM land, but I don't want to disturb anyone else's peace and quiet. Has anyone hiked from camp on the Upper C to shoot? Experience?


First of all, you don't play around with firearms. Secondly, there is may activities around the river, hiking and such and no one wants to listen to gun fire from some bonehead playing with his gun! Firearms have their place and time. The upper C is not that place, the range between Hot Sulfur and Kremmling is a good play for you to "play".


----------



## matt man (Dec 23, 2011)

Oh wow, this thread is still going.
Don’t make me, make you all, kiss and make up....


----------



## matt man (Dec 23, 2011)

Colorado river trip with a “twist”?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

noahfecks said:


> Ron,
> You seem to keep forgetting this applies to you as well.
> 
> I will again point out that there are plenty of river sections that do not allow the use of firearms, the upper C is not one of them. When you choose to raft on the upper C you do so knowing that that section allows for many different uses of our public lands, including the use of firearms. Please apply your comments above to your use of the upper C.
> ...


I accept that it applies to me. But permit me a moment of hypocrisy because you directly question me.

It has been long agreed that it is legal to use firearms in the region of the UC. They ask that it be beyond .25 miles of the river corridor, for a very good reason, safety and perhaps respect. 

This is about whether you prefer to be a obnoxious SOB is the eyes and ears of your fellow river runners. Apparently you just don't GAF????? Or, do you recognize simple courtesy, manners and respect for the experience of the majority of other river runners that far, far outnumber your interest in pumping lead into the environment/river corridor; and creating a very obnoxious and likely scary experience for other boaters. (There is a proper hunting season not to be considered in this shit-storm which is after the recreational boating season.)

With regard to your last question my answer is concerning playing with guns....
1. Irresponible? They do not permit "playing with guns" on the range hence it is likely why you are not there where they require responsibility.
2. Drunk? How the hell do I know but likely.
3. *******? Obviously if you don't care or respect the experience and potential safety of other people.
4. Safe use of firearms? Sum it up because 1,2 and 3 says enough to me.

Yes, you are right, perhaps me and a few thousand other people should recreate elsewhere so that you can be a pure and simple ******* jerk and fire your gun wherever you please.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

Ron,
I had taken you for a man of intellect, am I mistaken? 



You make a lot of assumptions, none of which are correct. The one truth in your statement is that it was full of hypocrisy.


I assure you sir that I have never played with a gun in my life, let alone a firearm.


You throw the word respect around like you comprehend it's meaning and even attempt to use it to bludgeon those who don't share your opinions, but in typical leftist fashion you completely lack the ability to practice it. Truly sad.


Yes, if the sound of gunfire ruins the experience for you or the thousands of others you claim to speak for, you should choose a river section that prohibits firearms use. The section of public lands that is the focus of this discussion allows for multiple uses, perhaps you should learn the meaning and practice of tolerance.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

noahfecks,

This is where we will agree to disagree concerning the discharge of firearms along the banks and in the campsites of the UC during the boating season.

In the beginning of this thread one boater respectfully asked his peers in the boating community, aka in this case MB, about guns on the UC. He immediately self-realized and gratefully acknowledged the response that that would be poorly received by the substantial majority of other boaters on the river. You are not alone but likely one of the very few who has apparently decided to flip-off the rest of your community of fellow boaters. 

Just realize, if you discharge guns fulfilling your rights while on the river that other boaters present will just assume that you are a bunch of irresponsible, drunk, ********, likely unsafely playing with guns and move away ASAP. Just please don't shoot them if they flip you off back.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Just the mention of phallic shortcomings triggered some insane John Birch Society paranoia. Now, if a short guy with a gun were to hear some commie eniviro lefties down the stream playing folk songs or the blues too loud, does it make sense to lob a few rounds downstream or into the canyon wall to equal the rights count? 

The answer, to sane people and lefties, is obviously no; someone could get killed in that scenario. Not so sure how someone whose last balloon is about to pop or folks in the throes of neo-Bircher paranoia would answer. 

My answer to the OP's question, leave your guns at home. Don't take your guns to the river.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Wow, so much hyperbole on both sides of the argument.

Are your rivers all dried up? Seems more apropos of a January argument than an early August 'Buzz discussion.

Pretty simple: respect others.

Girls, you're all pretty!


----------



## basinrafter (May 12, 2009)

Droboat said:


> My answer to the OP's question, leave your guns at home. Don't take your guns to the river.


Nice Johnny Cash reference there.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Dear Mr noahfecks,

I respectfully request that you not discharge fire arms on the banks of or in campsites along the Upper Colorado River. 

This is for reasons of concern for the safety during the high use season of other recreationalist and to minimize unnecessary environmental and acoustic degradation of the river corridor.

Please understand that shots from firearms result in substantial alarm in most people especially when not knowing the circumstances of where the shots originate and where they may inadvertently(?) end up. 

The general public is in a state of hyper vigilance as the result of recent mass murders by guns in parks, schools, concerts, night clubs, churches, baseball fields, shopping centers, workplaces and elsewhere. It would seem a shame to remind river users of their hyper vigilance while recreating on the Upper Colorado. Also, it would not contribute to positive relations between gun owners and other recreationalist at a time of so much negative publicity regarding gun misuse.

Your tolerance in this matter would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Ron


----------



## MontanaLaz (Feb 15, 2018)

I wasn't going to post any more on this thread but just can't help myself.

I own firearms. I don't take them on the river because there always seems to be someone along who is uncomfortable around firearms. It is a courtesy, as has been stated repeatedly. That being said, I reserve the right to do otherwise. I was out on the river this weekend and discussing an elk hunt with a buddy in which the desired BLM hunt area is pretty much inaccessible any other way.

However, the amount of &^%&^ that has been spewed on both of the extreme sides of the argument is what bothers me. The few people on both sides expressing the most assertive opinions are simply talking right past one another. The sides seem to be entrenched into "I am unhappy that firearm use is not more restricted because I don't think it is appropriate" and "People like you want to take away my rights." 

I am confident that there are plenty of places on the internet to either complain about the other side or simply exchange textual assaults with the "opposition". A question was asked by the OP and he pretty quickly got the feedback he needed.

Give it a rest. No one is going to get their mind changed by reading much of anything past page 1.


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

I used to leave my firearms at home out of respect for others, but after hearing a banjo on my last trip, and then noticing the creepy guy playing it was following me. I figured it was time to try a new setup. I think it came out pretty good. When I sent this picture of my rig to a buddy he said he wouldn't bring the banjo on the next trip. 

So if you can look past the big gun and see the small penis, you would see I'm not such a bad guy. After all, I do have a couple open spots on an up coming permited trip. I promise I won't shoot you, and I can guarantee we get the prime camps no matter how late you sleep in or how slowly you cook my breakfast.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Montanalaz,

Guess what, I (we) own pistols, shotguns and rifles too. 

Let me pose the question to you. Have you ever been on the UC(I see you live in Montana). The UC between Pumphouse and State Bridge is a playground especially during the weekends. Boats are rarely separated by hundreds of feet and the bank has lots of fishermen, ah, fisher-people. Most of the camps are concentrated on narrow benches separated by 10's of feet. Except for degradation immediately adjacent to campsites the environment is truly relatively pristine. 

Well except I forgot to mention the railroad but the RR will not permit firing a gun on their property anyway, period. They probably got tired of people playing with guns shooting out car windows transported on their trains. In fact signs say that you are trespassing if you are on their track. (I think the signs are still there. Haven't noticed.)

As long as anyone will argue that they have the right to shoot their gun in a playground I'm willing to argue against that stupidity. 

One thing about a thread on MB, you can choose to tune in or tune out. Each time you tune in you have more to say. Which is fine.

Between you and me I'll let you know. The final management plan for the UC is complete and recreational shooting will not be allowed within .25 miles of the river. The BLM recognized that the primary value of the river corridor is as a river playground and not a shooting gallery. This whole discussion will be mute soon enough.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Rick A, 

Sign me up for your up coming permit.


----------



## Nubie Jon (Dec 19, 2017)

Rick A said:


> I used to leave my firearms at home out of respect for others, but after hearing a banjo on my last trip, and then noticing the creepy guy playing it was following me. I figured it was time to try a new setup. I think it came out pretty good. When I sent this picture of my rig to a buddy he said he wouldn't bring the banjo on the next trip.
> 
> So if you can look past the big gun and see the small penis, you would see I'm not such a bad guy. After all, I do have a couple open spots on an up coming permited trip. I promise I won't shoot you, and I can guarantee we get the prime camps no matter how late you sleep in or how slowly you cook my breakfast.


Hey I have seen that boat....... a lot...... mostly in the San Diego Bay area... but a fair share of other water situations and surroundings..... They handle really nice in all kinds of river and open water situations and turn on a dime..... As for the gun, its on one pin on the swivel so you could just pull it out and put the gun in the drybox.... I remember the box being quiet substantial..... lots of gear.... longer trips and ranges. Stay Frosty gentlemen!


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Philip P. said:


> You SHOULD BE disturbed by your own fascist socialist stupidity, the kind that inspired the Ohio shooter and the congressional softball game shooter. Distopian Fascist Socialists like yourself love to paint conservatives as racist or dangerous, while hurrying your heads in your rear orifice and pretending all the SLAVE CULTURE racists and unhinged cult freaks on your side are benign. That FACT makes leftists more dangerous, the fact that you are so easily able to EXCUSE VIOLENCE in support of your cult, while we do not!


 
Phillip are you a troll? This just seems so slanted right that it must be a leftist parody.



I myself am not happy about our State's slide from red to purple and eventually blue. Strange that leftists fight for the environment but then allow their cities to be swallowed up by shitty leftist policies that breed poverty and destroy the inner cities. Denver will soon look like San Fran or LA...


----------



## davbaker (Aug 4, 2013)

MontanaLaz said:


> I wasn't going to post any more on this thread but just can't help myself.
> 
> I own firearms. I don't take them on the river because there always seems to be someone along who is uncomfortable around firearms. It is a courtesy, as has been stated repeatedly. That being said, I reserve the right to do otherwise. I was out on the river this weekend and discussing an elk hunt with a buddy in which the desired BLM hunt area is pretty much inaccessible any other way.
> 
> ...


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

I'm sorry the final has not been released.

A finding of acceptance of the original document as not having significant impacts has been released. That is a stamp of approval of the original plan which stipulated a .25 mile setback from the river for recreational shooting.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...e=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=115740#

Again, this thread has nothing to do with gun rights or taking away guns. It is about shooting guns on the Upper Colorado.


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

Nubie Jon said:


> Rick A said:
> 
> 
> > I used to leave my firearms at home out of respect for others, but after hearing a banjo on my last trip, and then noticing the creepy guy playing it was following me. I figured it was time to try a new setup. I think it came out pretty good. When I sent this picture of my rig to a buddy he said he wouldn't bring the banjo on the next trip.
> ...


You bring up a great point but you're making more work for me. Now I have to fabricate a bracket for my super speaker so when the gun goes in the dry box I can quickly mount the speaker and crank that shit up. 

Mmm. I'm going to make so many new boating friends.


----------



## Nubie Jon (Dec 19, 2017)

Rick A said:


> You bring up a great point but you're making more work for me. Now I have to fabricate a bracket for my super speaker so when the gun goes in the dry box I can quickly mount the speaker and crank that shit up.
> 
> Mmm. I'm going to make so many new boating friends.


Can't wait for the raft porn pictures this winter!!


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

Why does your non-right to not be offended by gunshots supersede the rights of gun enthusiasts to responsibly recreate in an area that allows for the activity?


I get that you don't want to hear it any more than I want to hear your crappy Phish CD, but explain to me how your non-right not to be offended trumps someone else's actual right to legally recreate.


Ron and others here seem to be hung up on the idea that I take my firearm on every river trip and fire it gratuitously because I am motivated by ruining the experience of others. Does that even seem plausible? Extremist position to cast those you can not out logic in a socially unacceptable light regardless of it's rationality? 



let's set the record straight. I have only ever used a firearm on the river once, to ward off an aggressive bear, I assure you it was justified. I am extremely respectful of others and our wild lands.


I am struggling to understand the sense of entitlement that leads one to believe that their opinions outweigh the rights of others.


Anybody care to step back into the realm of reality and engage in a reasonable debate based on logic and fact?


Again, the agencies that manage our river recreation have created numerous sections that disallow the use of firearms. Why can you not exercise a little tolerance when choosing to recreate on a section that does allow it? Is there any allowance for diversity of ideas anymore or does tolerance just mean tolerate me?


And a question specifically for the firearms enthusiasts who seem to be anti-gun on the river. Do you really think that 1/4 mile is going to do anything to reduce the sound of a gunshot in a river canyon? Have you forgotten that a projectile from a gun, especially a firearm, travels much further than 440 yards? Boy there's a mattress tag rule if ever I heard one.


----------



## davbaker (Aug 4, 2013)

[_QUOTE=noahfecks;745807]Why does your non-right to not be offended by gunshots supersede the rights of gun enthusiasts to responsibly recreate in an area that allows for the activity?


I get that you don't want to hear it any more than I want to hear your crappy Phish CD, but explain to me how your non-right not to be offended trumps someone else's actual right to legally recreate.


Ron and others here seem to be hung up on the idea that I take my firearm on every river trip and fire it gratuitously because I am motivated by ruining the experience of others. Does that even seem plausible? Extremist position to cast those you can not out logic in a socially unacceptable light regardless of it's rationality? 



let's set the record straight. I have only ever used a firearm on the river once, to ward off an aggressive bear, I assure you it was justified. I am extremely respectful of others and our wild lands.


I am struggling to understand the sense of entitlement that leads one to believe that their opinions outweigh the rights of others.


Anybody care to step back into the realm of reality and engage in a reasonable debate based on logic and fact?


Again, the agencies that manage our river recreation have created numerous sections that disallow the use of firearms. Why can you not exercise a little tolerance when choosing to recreate on a section that does allow it? Is there any allowance for diversity of ideas anymore or does tolerance just mean tolerate me?


And a question specifically for the firearms enthusiasts who seem to be anti-gun on the river. Do you really think that 1/4 mile is going to do anything to reduce the sound of a gunshot in a river canyon? Have you forgotten that a projectile from a gun, especially a firearm, travels much further than 440 yards? Boy there's a mattress tag rule if ever I heard one.[/QUOTE]

_

I hear what you are saying. Personally, I am not calling into question the right to use firearms where it is legal, but I think it is always worth taking into consideration how it will affect others on a busy stretch of river. I feel the same way about folks blasting their shitty music from their rafts - I don't encourage it, I think it is obnoxious, and if anyone asks if it is a good idea, I'll tell them hell no. It has nothing to do with the law.

Personally, I have taken firearms and target practiced on river trips where it was legal, but only during the Fall when I knew the area I was in was essentially empty. I wouldn't choose to do this on a crowded river - not because I do not have the right, but because I have no interest in ruining someone else's experience. 

I don't think this is an extremist view


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

Comparing the playing of loud music to firing your guns as similar "sounds" that are annoying/disturbing is absurd.

My Phish CD can't kill you.


----------



## noahfecks (Jun 14, 2008)

cupido76 said:


> Comparing the playing of loud music to firing your guns as similar "sounds" that are annoying/disturbing is absurd.
> 
> My Phish CD can't kill you.



I had a roommate in college who started listening to Phish and got involved in drugs, he was dead in three months. How many people has errant gunfire killed on the upper C in the last 50 years? Is it absurd to say Phish has killed more people than stray bullets on the upper C? 



Your assertion that firing guns on the upper C will kill people is absurd as is my statement about people dying from listening to Phish. The difference is I recognize it.


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

noahfecks said:


> I had a roommate in college who started listening to Phish and got involved in drugs, he was dead in three months. How many people has errant gunfire killed on the upper C in the last 50 years? Is it absurd to say Phish has killed more people than stray bullets on the upper C?
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that firing guns on the upper C will kill people is absurd as is my statement about people dying from listening to Phish. The difference is I recognize it.


Dear lord... do you actually believe that?

I sincerely hope I'm being trolled.

Even putting the absurdity aside, you should st least be comparing gun deaths in the USA to Phish deaths in the USA... or gun deaths on the Upper C to Phish deaths on the Upper C... which are both probably quite low.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

k2andcannoli said:


> WTF is a fisher-person...



That would be leftist double speak so as not to offend women, trannies and other weird gender types the left foams at the mouth over.


I'm surprised he didn't say fisher xim...


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

The fisherman, fisher-person word thing is just emblematic of the changing world we live in. It is not just a bunch of guys out fishing anymore, an obvious disappointment for some of you. A neutral title can make life easier when applying a generic description to a specific individual. Too many and/or's slashes, etc. And maybe some women don't like being called a man. The inverse of why male flight attendants didn't like being called stewardesses. 

I call the line whippers, fishers. Or: "hello, moving through. Hope the fishing is good. Nice day. Nice fish. whatever."


You can stay stuck in the past or float along with the times like floating down the river.


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

Angler might be a better choice of words as it doesn't imply the sex of the person fishing. Also just for thought the word woman ends with man the same way fisherman does. Should we change that one too?


----------



## MontanaLaz (Feb 15, 2018)

noahfecks said:


> And a question specifically for the firearms enthusiasts who seem to be anti-gun on the river. Do you really think that 1/4 mile is going to do anything to reduce the sound of a gunshot in a river canyon? Have you forgotten that a projectile from a gun, especially a firearm, travels much further than 440 yards? Boy there's a mattress tag rule if ever I heard one.


^^^This^^^

Not at all, but being reasonable in the discussion, someone willing to walk the 1/4 mile is generally going to be a courteous and respectful person anyway. The folks who panic into a stampede at the sound of a motorcycle backfiring are still going to be triggered, but at least they won't have to see the dab-gummed evil bangy thing. Hearing a gunshot muffled by 1/4 mile and seeing a handgun fired are truly very different things to many people. 

I did a guys only trip this spring on an essentially empty section of unpermitted river. We discussed carrying for some group shooting, and it was our biggest enthusiast, who happens to have also been an Army Ranger who said "I plan on drinking a good amount of whiskey since we don't have the wives and kids along. Let's leave the guns." No one argued and we had a great time.

It's all situational. A crowded river on a party float isn't the best place to shoot, but taking the opportunity to walk a short distance, per the rules, and safely practice is a very reasonable thing to do. It's too bad that we can't have a more nuanced discussion about this on the buzz because I do think it is a good topic. 

Practicing shooting in an uncontrolled environment is a very good way to hone your skills. My son is a good shot with grandpa's trusty bolt action .22 at the range, but needs a lot more practice if he is ever going to be able to take an ethical shot on an elk or deer in rough conditions. Distance looks different, lighting conditions change because you aren't always facing the same direction as the range lines, etc.

Properly packing your firearm and taking care of it during transport, and then setting up and shooting responsibly, followed by packing it back out, cleaning, and returning it to the safe is all part of the deal. The river can be a great environment for that. No, it isn't the only way to do this, but is a perfectly acceptable option.

And I will confess that this is a bit of a cop-out on my part, because my wife is a good quaker girl and it was hard enough to convince her that a hunting rifle is OK. My handgun almost ended in a divorce, she didn't even want it in the house, safe or no safe. There is no way I am ever going to get away with taking that on any trip that she is on, regardless of the details.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Your limiting your view. Up periscope. Man and woman, just a modern day english invention. Mujer/hombre, donna/uomo, onna/otoko. The world is getting confusing sometimes it is hard to tell the difference, but do your best.


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

*Depends on who you talk with.*



k2andcannoli said:


> WTF is a fisher-person...


In my past job, in a training class we had every six months, were told the cock-pit is to be called the flight deck now, really. A few months later in the dispatch room I saw my female FO reviewing the paper work for the flight, I said if it looks ok take it to the flight deck and add another 6,000 lb. of fuel over what dispatch has, for thunderstorms enroute. She turned around and look at me and said you mean cock-pit, than she explained, if she can handle a deep dive from 40,000 ft. from a rapid decompression, she can handle the word cock-pit with no problem, I carry a pistol when I go backpacking, canoeing and don't let me get you drunk because it won't be pretty. Ok I said, can I bring you a cup of coffee when I come to the cock-pit. She said please, that would be nice. She explained that 80% of female pilots don't object from it being called a cock-pit and doesn't know who started it.


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

sarahkonamojo said:


> Your limiting your view. Up periscope. Man and woman, just a modern day english invention. Mujer/hombre, donna/uomo, onna/otoko. The world is getting confusing sometimes it is hard to tell the difference, but do your best.


 If you consider the word woman has been around since the 13th century (which I don't consider modern). I would however say that it is in modern times (20th century) that the word man is no longer considered a gender neutral term. Until then man was used to describe people of the human race and is still listed as the number 1 definition in the Webster dictionary. Personally I have yet to boat with a woman who was offended by being referred to as a boatman.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

raymo said:


> In my past job, in a training class we had every six months, were told the cock-pit is to be called the flight deck now, really. A few months later in the dispatch room I saw my female FO reviewing the paper work for the flight, I said if it looks ok take it to the flight deck and add another 6,000 lb. of fuel over what dispatch has, for thunderstorms enroute. She turned around and look at me and said you mean cock-pit, than she explained, if she can handle a deep dive from 40,000 ft. from a rapid decompression, she can handle the word cock-pit with no problem, I carry a pistol when I go backpacking, canoeing and don't let me get you drunk because it won't be pretty. Ok I said, can I bring you a cup of coffee when I come to the cock-pit. She said please, that would be nice. She explained that 80% of female pilots don't object from it being called a cock-pit and doesn't know who started it.



Reminds of the old joke in regards to an all female flight crew and a male passenger(pilot) asking to go see the pilot, then copilot then navigator in the cockpit. The stewardess finally tells him they call it the Box Office


----------



## phunkfan (May 17, 2019)

Good god, this really took off. 

Someone said it earlier, but the point of this thread was not about the legality of it...it was about being courteous to fellow boaters and getting the opinions of some well-rounded (and some not) boaters about their experience and opinions on the matter. It is well within my rights to discharge firearms .25 miles from the river while on the Upper C. 

After this thread, I will choose to shoot elsewhere. Especially give the recent mass shootings in our country, the absolute last thing I want is for people to get scared hearing a gunshot on the river with their kids. 

Seems this thread has some people crawling out of the godd*mn woodwork to declare their rights are being taken away from a MB thread. Give it a rest, guy. No one is taking away your rights - this was a question not about your rights, but about how to ensure we are able to keep those rights around for others to enjoy for years. One dumba** who doesn't understand/practice gun safety could ruin that. 

I think we will be able to keep these rights around by not shooting on a popular river run with families and commercial trips galore. I will choose not to shoot on the river. 

Thank you everyone who chimed in with opinions, I think I got an answer by page 2 of this thread...


----------



## griz (Sep 19, 2005)

> Thank you everyone who chimed in with opinions, I think I got an answer by page 2 of this thread...


Are you sure you don’t need GeoRon repeating himself another 60 or 70 times to help make up your mind?


----------



## cupido76 (May 22, 2009)

Holy shit... first the old gun debate and now a bunch of men talking about how women want to be referred to.

Wow... great job everyone.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

"Fisher-person" - gender indifferent reference to a lip-ripper.

.25 miles is fine with me. No red neck with a six pack is going to or likely even can walk that far to exercise his GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to blow holes in the landscape, salt lead indiscriminately, clip trees at their knees, blast glass bottles to oblivion or whatever. 

Hopefully, persons with common sense will recognize that they have better things to do than truck .25 miles to pull triggers such as listen to the birds, observe the flow of the river, talk with their closest friends, shoot bocce or shoes, drink beer and perhaps curse at the person blaring phish from a boom box as they float by(bye). You know, those natural things in life to enjoy without pulling a trigger. 

Someone was correct. .25 may not be far enough. I just read that in Puerto Rico alone that 2 people are killed and 25 are injured each New Years due to celebratory bullets fired into the air. In Los Angelas between 1985 and 1992 a hospital treated 118 people for falling random bullets and 38 of them died. 

A common sense person concerned about bullets would immediately recognize that accidents happens and the circular error possibility should be put out to over a mile. But I'll be happy with .25 mile because on the UC walking .25 miles from the rives edge just mostly ain't possible. And if 
you really feel the need to do such things with a gun and shoot it, thank you.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Would an inquiry into deep purple smoke grenades be considered an unwelcome hijack of this thread?


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Asking for a friend.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

noahfecks said:


> Why does your non-right to not be offended by gunshots supersede the rights of gun enthusiasts to responsibly recreate in an area that allows for the activity?
> 
> I am struggling to understand the sense of entitlement that leads one to believe that their opinions outweigh the rights of others.
> 
> ...


Ah gee noahfecks. I'm blue in the fingertips employing every rhetorical style and providing countless facts and endless logic all based in the realm of reality for the purpose of reasonable debate.

This is my last realm of reality rhetoric I'll provide you. The last few days I was up sea kayaking on Green Mtn Reservoir. It is stunningly beautiful for kayaking when bank full. 

We arrived and pitched camp in Cow South Campground in the late afternoon in the shade of a line of cottonwoods on shores edge. Sitting down and popping a top to contemplate the Gore Range, setting sun and simmering lake surface through the cottonwood trunks I suddenly have a Charleston Heston Planet of the Apes moment; "You maniacs, You blew it up. Ah damn you. Damn you to hell". There in front of me at face height of the most mature young cottonwood about a foot in diameter was a circular area of bullet holes. 

That is what people do with guns. Not all gunnies but enough to make you not welcome where other people try to recreate and enjoy nature.


----------



## MontanaLaz (Feb 15, 2018)

Droboat said:


> Would an inquiry into deep purple smoke grenades be considered an unwelcome hijack of this thread?


Duh-duh-duh...duh-duh-dah-duh...

Smoke on the water...


----------



## Fly By Night (Oct 31, 2018)

MontanaLaz said:


> Droboat said:
> 
> 
> > Would an inquiry into deep purple smoke grenades be considered an unwelcome hijack of this thread?
> ...


Gun fire in the sky.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

Hey guys, what does it mean to hijack a thread? I'm kinda new here. Does it mean to be silly and make stupid pointless contributions? If so, what does that achieve so that I might know and better understand? Have you conceded loss or perhaps never been present to the conversation, I ask? Has the logic raped you? For that, apologies.

My only point of understanding your du, da's is the Police and the bottom line is that either you are totally meaning less or conveying that the thread is totally meaningless which I think most of us resent.

Perhaps this thread deepens.

Lyrics
Don't think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They're only cheques I've left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They're meaningless and all that's true
Poets priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions
Words that scream for your submission
And no-one's jamming their transmission
'Cause when their eloquence escapes you
Their logic ties you up and rapes you
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They're meaningless and all that's true
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They're meaningless and all that's true


----------



## raymo (Aug 10, 2008)

GeoRon,,, Love you brother.


----------

